Re: re re re re re re re oh wait wagons

[Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>]

> " 59-60 (58-60?) are the "bathtub" americans (Nash-looking);
>
> didn't the early '50s nash ramblers also look like this?

The same! But the guy was askin' about AMC waggins..., not their  
lovely Nashcan forebears.


> " 64 redesign; modern looking-ish. I think the modern 232 fits it.
>
> not sure.  the '65 upper rad support has a z so it can put the rad an
> additional 2" fwd, and even then the 232 used a short waterpump unique
> to that year and model amc only, though '65-'74 jeeps also used it.
>
> it's possible the 4.0 wp, even shorter, would clear the '64 rad.

I knew I was walking thin ice; I'm hardly expert at this product line  
overview. I think the original question was something like, 'I want  
an AMC wagon, but I'm not sure what was/is available' so I tried to  
give a broad view (from my tiny corner).


> you mean '66-9; '65  looks like the '64.
>
> " plainer, but very very handsome,
>
> bias?  it's not bias when you speak the simple truth!

Damn right!