Re: 304/290/200R4

[farna@xxxxxxx]

If you want a V-8, you want a V-8! I'm sure you could get close to the same mileage with a well thought out 290/304, considering the stock 4.0L puts out about the power of a carbureted 360 (74 4V, no less!). There's only so much power in a gallon of fuel, so the more power the more fuel burned for the most part. A 290/304 with a 2V TBI from a 4.3L V-6 with a 200R4 and carefully geared rear axle should get in the mid 20s on the highway easy enough. 

You don't have to worry about a 4.0L fitting in a 66-69 American. The serpentine belt setup is closer to the engine than V-belts. The 4.0L setup is 1/4" closer than the late model Eagle 4x4 setup. It's about equal to the American 232 V-belt system, maybe a bit closer. You could still have AC! It will fit in the 64-65 American, but no AC there (just like the 65 w/232 option).

On May 5, 2005 Jim Boone wrote:

> On May 5, 2005 Frank Swygert wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> > If mileage is the primary concern I'd stick with the lighter car -- the American. But I don't think I'd build a V-8 either.
> 
> The 4.0 would probably be a great choice, maybe a better one, especially considering you could find a doner with the OD trans and EFI already set up, but, I sure like the look of a AMC V8 under the hood!  I still think you could get great gas mileage from the 290/304 engine properly set up.  Another consideration is the length of the 4.0 in the '65 American.  They'll fit, but it's tight up front and I wouldn't sacrifice AC and PS to squeeze it in there.  The V8 sits in there nice.
> 
> Jim Boone
> Mims, FL
> 
> =============================================================
> Posted by wixList Archiver -- http://www.amxfiles.com/wixlist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


=============================================================
Posted by wixList Archiver -- http://www.amxfiles.com/wixlist