Re: New AMC book.... what would you like to see??

[<mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On December 12, 2005 Tom Jennings wrote:

> I'd like to see (you DID ask!) is, technical rundown of the
> developmental history of the car lines. We do this sort of thing for
> motors all the time: Speaking of the 8's, the gen1 cam from nash,
> begat N subspecies; gen2, inherited bellhousing flange, lifters,
> improved on X Y and Z, gen 3 built on that, parts interchange, etc

Not a problem. I pretty much did that in the last book, though can do
much better I think. What I did was go through each line and mention
most of the subtle changes, and what "basic body" (floor pan/side/roof
structure -- the only welded panel that usually changed much was the
quarter panels, with a few exceptions like the 61-63 American) the cars
were based on. For the longest time I thought the 56-57 Rambler was a
unique body, but after finally purchasing a 56 TSM I discovered it's
not! The 56-57 floor pan is almost identical to the 58-62. The trunk
floor is different, as are the sides and roof. So the 58-62 is not based
on the 56-57 "basic body", but is based on the floor pan. The 61-63
American is the only other extensive body remodeling, but it still
retained that basic body, though every attaching panel was changed
(let's see... floor pan stayed the same except for modified trunk floor,
door/glass frames and glass remained, inner wheel wells remained -- the
humps!, and some related bracing... that's about it... everything else
changed). Is that what you mean???

> There's a little bit of this sort of view in transmission
> interchange. Italian car nuts do this with body design. I want it for
> all the other mundane stuff! Electrical; seats; brake systems; bumper
> systems; chassis stampings...

Now THAT is a tall order! You can usually go by body style or basic body
though. Brakes won't be to difficult since they go by body and engine
size. Electrical? Main units like distributors and such are easy enough,
but I fear you mean things like dash switches as well. Those go by
styling more than anything, but can ALMOST be placed by basic body.
Chassis stampings pretty much follow the basic bodies.
 
> Pick a 'front clip' (sic) from the 10/80 chassis; it evolved in a
> particular way to meet design fixes (weak or expensive spots), cost,
> styling of fenders, product line consolidations. History of trunnions
> vs. ball joints.

Trunnions and ball joints is done. The rest pretty much follows basic
body. There aren't many changes once the body is in production, just
minor ones with a few exceptions. Dies cost to much, that's why the
58-63 Americans (and 54-55 Nash Rambler) retain the humps on the wheel
wells -- no reason for them after 53. The only time a body was refined
to make a design fix that I can think of is the 66 American -- nose
lengthened to allow the 199/232 and AC in that body (64-65 could only
have the shorter 195.6 w/AC). 

> A giant taxonomic branching tree of parts groups. Say, a factory
> parts catalog breakout, with dimensions. Make me a Flash animation of
> the front suspension upper assembly stamped sheet metal insert (that
> goes into the inner fender, and holds the upper arm), with
> dimensions, so that I can see how the 62 differs from 63-64 differs
> 65-66, 67-69, 70-up...

Now you're just going overboard! But illustrations of the various
suspensions showing the changes is doable (was done!). There are fewer
variation than you think! All 1950 Nash and Rambler through 1961 Classic
suspensions are basically the same. 58-63 Americans are nearly the same
as the big cars, but has a unique upper trunnion and the arms are
attached to the body differently. 62-69 big car suspensions are the
same, with the old upper trunnion and arms with a new single arm/strut
rod/ball joint on the bottom (62 has a unique to that year crossmember).
70-83 suspensions are the same on all excpet the Pacer, which is unique
to it, though there is a variation in strut rod design between big and
little cars. And of course the 65-69 American/Javelin/AMX has a unique
trunnion. That's it -- six variations. 


> The only thing this doesn't work well on are purely stylign items;
> eg. windshield trim, escutcheons, that sort of thing, since they're
> easily identified (usually) and peculiar to a model/style, and are
> design-wise incidental.

Correct, though the collision parts books make this possible,
reproducing so many pages would be expensive. I only have collision
books through 1972 anyway. Haven't seen them for later years. 

> 
> I'll gladly pay any price under $10 for this. 
> 
> (OK I'm kidding about that last, I'd probably pay $250 for such a
> thing, or maybe more.)

If only that were true, it could be easily done, and with lots of color!
Get me 100 orders for a $250 book, with $50 non-refundable deposits
(there would be a lesser book if not enough orders, so no money would be
lost -- work would have to start anyway -- things like no color, and
maybe a few things not there that would be in the more expensive volume)
and I'll drop everything and get right on it! In 12-18 months I'll be
ready to print, with delivery guaranteed in 18-24 months. I'll start
work as soon as 30 orders are received. 

No, I'm NOT kidding. I have 75-80% of what's needed on hand now, and
already have the framework from my previous book. That remaining 20-25%
will take some time and lots of digging, but a good volume could be done
without it.

Frank Swygert