Re: AMC modifying

[farna@xxxxxxx]

> From: <a1977amx@xxxxxxx>
> To: <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: AMC modifying
> Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 3:03:21 -0400
> Message-Id:
> <20050821070320.CUQC19627.fed1rmmtao01.cox.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I want a car that has fuel injection and overdrive for long trips to car 
> shows and AMC did not make either. 
> For the price of the aluminum Edlebrock heads and fuel injection, I
> purchased a complete 2004 Hemi donar truck. I will consider these
> aftermarket, non AMC parts for my next project, but that still does not make
> it a true AMC motor anymore, does it? What is the difference between me
> putting a later Dodge engine in a car that Chrysler now owns the right to
> the name, and putting an AMC 401 in a Rambler or Nash. It is exactly the
> same thing.

I agree with you in principle, but I don't think a 401 in a Nash is the same as a ChryCo engine in an AMC -- at least not just any ChryCo engine. There is a direct lineage between Nash and AMC, not Chryco. Hudson people felt the same way when Nash took over Hudson. The 55-57 models weren't Hudsons any more. They had the same engines as before (except the V-8 models), but used a restyled Nash body. It wasn't the same -- the character of the car changed to much (this example shows that the engine doesn't lend as much to the character of the car as some people think). You can argue that there IS a lineage link with ChryCo now, and I couldn't dispute that point. But it was more of a "shot gun wedding" (like Hudson to Nash), not a natural progression. 

There are four exceptions: naturally, the two continued AMC engine lines -- the 2.5L four and 4.0L six. The other two are arguably the 4.7L V-8 and 3.7L V-6. Look at the 4.7L, which first appeared in a Jeep Grand Cherokee. Anyone familiar with AMC V-8s will notice that it resembles that engine far more than any previous ChryCo engine. Jeep (ex-AMC) engineers had a big hand in developing it, and I believe it was on the drawing boards at AMC/Jeep before the Chrysler buy-out. AMC/Jeep had the Grand Cherokee on the boards already, surely they had a bigger powerplant in mind for later! A stroked 4.0L would have been nice, but wouldn't have the appeal of a V-8. The 3.7L V-6 is a shortened 4.7L, so it would fall in a natural line also, provided the 4.7L is accepted as a natural prgression of the AMC V-8. It borrows more from the GEN-2/3 AMC V-8 than the GEN-2/3 borrows from the GEN-1... which is really nothing except bore centers.

You have good reasons for choosing the drivetrain you decided to use, and that's enough. The fact that you're pulling one "alternate" engine and using another instead of pulling an AMC engine does make it easier for many to accept -- you're not "ruining" a car that wasn't that way to begin with. I considered other powerplants form my Classic wagon too, but for a driver the 4.0L seemed like a natural. If I'd decided I had to have a V-8 it would have been a modern aluminum V-8 -- most likely a 4.5L Caddy, though I'd have considered a late model 4.1L. Nothing against the AMC V-8, but I wanted EFI and needed to be able to make the conversion in a month or two on a budget, and have a 100% reliable car when finished. Hacking an EFI system (there were no relatively affordable systems seven years ago, if you consider $2000 affordable now) just didn't sound like a good idea for a car I needed to depend on. The 4.0L engine itself was all but a drop in, I even used the torque tube and !
 old three speed for 3-4 years. AMC V-8s aren't much more costly to build than any other -- not enough to make a difference. But you can't find a late model runner ready to drop right in, except for the very rare occasion someone wrecks an AMC and is ready/willing to part with the drivetrain at a reasonable price. Most save that for another AMC, so few come up for sale. 

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