AMC-List Digest, Vol 4, Issue 6

[amc-list-request@xxxxxxx]

Send AMC-List mailing list submissions to
	amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.wps.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	amc-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx

You can reach the person managing the list at
	amc-list-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of AMC-List digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Twitchy fast ratio steering (John Elle)
   2. Mike hathaway's email (algaines)
   3. Re: Door hinges...... (and safety beams) (farna@xxxxxxx)
   4. Re: More Valve Cover Woes (farna@xxxxxxx)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 00:02:24 -0700
From: "John Elle" <johnelle@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] Twitchy fast ratio steering
To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <000f01c66db6$61068310$c9dc0d82@john1>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

Snip
I do a lot of LA freeway driving, 100
miles/day 3 days a week, maybe that's tweaked my brain :-)
SNIP
 
If you have the front end aligned with a little bit more positive caster
there will be more of a positive self centering of the steering. This
should stabilize things for the freeway hauls. I do a bit of them my
self too although not as often as I used to. 
If you are close to zero or negative (and some alignment charts indicate
that negative is o.k.) the car will have a tendency to wander as self
centering will have been dialed out. This is a bit uncomfortable as you
are always correcting for this. I think it is something you have to
pressure the "alignment technician" to do in some cases. I'd shoot for 2
degrees myself but that is a personal preference. 
With P205 60's on the front and P245 60's on the rear and the short
wheelbase the beasty can get a bit touchy. 
John
 


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 01:53:46 -0700
From: "algaines" <algaines@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AMC-List] Mike hathaway's email
To: "AMC-List" <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <000a01c66dc5$ef5de1d0$903f1c40@alzzh2bwxh6usq>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original

Armand,
   Mike's Email is: mhathaway.msn.com
Al Gaines
Custom 71 Javelin SST (getting new flames and bodywork fixed, woooohooooo)



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 11:45:49 +0000
From: farna@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] Door hinges...... (and safety beams)
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx (AMC-List)
Message-ID:
	<050220061145.19950.4457466D0006960E00004DEE21603831160E029D0E00@xxxxxxx>
	

The door beams were required around 73 or 74. I think 74 was when all the safety stuff was required, as I recall that AMC got a waiver for the Javelin's bumpers due to it being the last year it would be made. 

--
Frank Swygert
Publisher, "American Independent 
Magazine" (AIM)
For all AMC enthusiasts
http://farna.home.att.net/AIM.html
(free download available!)

original message ----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 18:56:43 -0700
From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] Door hinges......


On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 17:49, Matt Haas wrote:

> Part of the difference is in door weight. An early sixties door is going to 
> weigh a bunch less than a 70's door due to the side impact beams. Also, two 
> door doors weigh a good bit more than  four door doors. One other thing 
> when messing with doors is to make sure that the hinges are properly 
> aligned. If you have the hinges cocked, you'll wear the pins out pretty 
> quickly.

It is true that the doors got heavier, but 1970 (my car) the doors are
just tin (sic) shells, not one bit if safety, thank you very much.
THey're a lot lighter than the later doors. 


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 11:49:03 +0000
From: farna@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] More Valve Cover Woes
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx (AMC-List)
Message-ID:
	<050220061149.21794.4457472E000E014F0000552221603831160E029D0E00@xxxxxxx>
	

John, part of Tom's problem was he put the slightly higher deck 71+ engine in a 1970 model. Apparently AMC made some minor tweaks to the 71+ body to better fit the taller engine. I'd never heard of anyone having as much trouble as he did either, but then we're talking about Tom... ;>
Actually, I'd never heard of anyone using a later engine in a 1970 model. There were a few other seemingly minor differences with the 70 not on later models as well, IIRC. 

--
Frank Swygert
Publisher, "American Independent 
Magazine" (AIM)
For all AMC enthusiasts
http://farna.home.att.net/AIM.html
(free download available!)


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
AMC-List mailing list
AMC-List@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.wps.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list


End of AMC-List Digest, Vol 4, Issue 6
**************************************