AMC-List Digest, Vol 9, Issue 55
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
AMC-List Digest, Vol 9, Issue 55
- From: amc-list-request@xxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 12:00:01 +0000
Send AMC-List mailing list submissions to
amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://www.amc-list.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. sIZE isn't everything (Brien Tourville)
2. final report from Dave DeLabio for charity AMX (gremlin1)
3. FW: Re: sIZE isn't everything (John Elle)
4. Re; AMC Spirit questions - TOM (John Elle)
5. Re: AMC-List Digest, Vol 9, Issue 54 TRUCKS.SUV's...etc (Joe)
6. Re: FW: Re: sIZE isn't everything (Tom Jennings)
7. Re: Re; AMC Spirit questions - TOM (Tom Jennings)
8. Re: Film at 11:00 or Belly up to the trough!!! (Tom Jennings)
9. Re: Size Isn't Everything (Mr. AMC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:52:13 -0400
From: "Brien Tourville" <hh7x@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AMC-List] sIZE isn't everything
To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <453A887D.27454.7B389D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
I don't think many will buy
anything bigger than a Navigator!
--
Frank Swygert
Publisher, "American Motors Cars"
Magazine (AMC)
=================
I'd like one of those Cadillac Pick Up Trucks -
with those 22" 'Bling" spinner rims - to haul
my Trailer Queen White Packard Hawk & Eagle
Kammback between Summer Homes.........
.....
...........anyone spare a twenty 'till my State Checqe
comes in ? ....... must be the mail again........ ;)
=Bt=
milnersXcoupe
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:06:44 -0500
From: "gremlin1" <gremlin1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AMC-List] final report from Dave DeLabio for charity AMX
To: matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <453ae044.30a.18a9.720837458@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Jack Barncord picked up the AMX at zion autobody on october
19th and delivered to John Widiker on october 20th. I would
like to take this opportunity to thank all of the people who
donated time, efforts and products to the poject while I was
the on-site coodinator of this project. I am happy to see
that a major part of the project has been completed while it
was here in the kenosha area. I hope to see it here next
summer for the next major event. Hopefully it will be in the
hands of a new owner by then and they can bring it so we can
all gather together for a group photo with a completed
project.
Thanks again for alowing me to be a part of this project. I
has indeed been an honor and a prividge.
David W. De Labio
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:54:00 -0700
From: "John Elle" <johnelle@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AMC-List] FW: Re: sIZE isn't everything
To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <000001c6f58d$b965fae0$48de0d82@john1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Brien
Why put up with one of those wimpy Cadillac's when you can have a
NAVISTAR
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6026041/
John
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:13:45 -0700
From: "John Elle" <johnelle@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AMC-List] Re; AMC Spirit questions - TOM
To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <000501c6f598$dd5f9220$48de0d82@john1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>
SNIP
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006, John Elle wrote:
. I prefer a Carter AVS or AFB my self
* between 350 and 400 cfm
*
John, all your comments are good. I have a question on yr carb
ideas above.
What Carter AFx carb is 350 - 400 cfm?
SNIP
Tom,
Keeping in mind that carburetors are not getting any newer a lot of
carburetor selections are getting older and harder to find but if you
want to use one bad enough they are still out there. My disdain for
Holley's is high enough
(SNIP
The Holley 390 (but Holleys seem to need constant fiddling for reliable
treet use not their intended use)
SNIP
that I absolutely refuse to use one and will go through multiple
hurtles to find the Carter that I want and get it adjusted correctly.
'Cause I know it will work right almost for ever with out any further
futzing with it.
SNIP
There doesn't seem to be many "performance" carbs (I use that
word loosely) in the under-500cfm range. The Holley 390
But the smallest AFB I know of is 500cfm, and the AVS, isn't
that old, unavailable, and 600cfm-ish?
SNIP
The Carter 9000 series performance carburetors available some where
around the middle 70's and into the 80's were configured so that the
part number corresponded to the flow rating of the carburetor. I used a
9425 on a modified 225 slant 6 with excellent results and drove it for
far more years than I like to remember but it was dead reliable and
quick and would get 20 mpg+ at steady freeway speeds. This pulling a
Belvedere 2 drht. Data I have show a 9400 and four versions of a 9500
were manufactured. Finding one might take a bit but for me worth the
effort. The AFB uses a counterweighted air valve just above the
secondary throttle plates that will not open unless the demand for
additional air flow is generated by the engine. Un like a Holley that
will just open and bog the engine down. Thus if an engine (such as a
smallish 6 or V8 uses one, until it is wound up to the point where it
needs the additional air flow the secondary remains blocked and will be
allowed to open gradually. The AVS used a spring loaded secondary much
in the same way but were mostly manufactured for specific engines and
were rather small. They quite possibly would be found on small Chrysler
V8's for the most part but may be found on some dual quad applications.
SNIP
) and the Webers are about it;
SNIP
I never messed with a Weber, so I can not comment on it.
SNIP
the BBDs are fine too except for the limited adjustability.
SNIP
Actually I find just the opposite to be true. There is a fair amount of
interchangeability with the metering rods with the AFB if I remember
correctly. But for the most part the adjustability is used to get them
to operate correctly in the first place and then forget about them.
PS: Here's a small chart of rpm vs. engine CFM for 258 ci,
assuming 80% VE (I hope it's better than that!):
The infamous Smokey advocated treating an engine like an air pump, thus
at 100% it would be
RPM CFM CFM
1000 60 75
1500 90
2000 119 149
2500 149 <---
3000 179 224
3500 209
4000 239 299
4500 269
5000 299 <---373
5500 328
6000 358 447
So a 9400 would fit in there nicely but a 9500 would work and with the
secondary air valve compensating for it a Carter would be quite
versatile 'specially if you are running a little cam. My choice for cam
is a Horse Power Cam though and a wee bit of rpm dialed in. Not
something sometimes referred to as an RV Cam.
SNIP
The two arrows are of course likely cruise RPM and max RPM
(stock small AMC, 70's). 2500 is perfect for the little YF,
which is sucked dry at speed
SNIP
Which is why these things fall flat on their face over 3 grand stock,
they are grossly under carbureted and under cammed.
SNIP
Dual YFs would be nice! :-)
SNIP
They sure would, if you could find a manifold for them, multiple carbs
are great oooo aaahhh factor too!
Now as to new, Edelbrock seems to be the only source for what used to be
Carter carburetors
http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive/index.html
Edelbrock Performer Series Carbs
500 cfm Carburetors
500 cfm, square-flange, electric choke ....#1403*
500 cfm, square-flange, manual choke ....#1404*
Also Rochester and maybe more and I have not checked to see what they
have in strip kit equivalents but as I have a small selection of tuning
parts for Carter Carburetors I have not needed to buy anything in a
while. But then again, this still would be my choice for Carbureting an
AMC I6 engine or V8.
I am not sure if they have anything smaller available but as far as I am
concerned I would install an Edelbrock 500 cfm performer new over any
kind of a Holley 390 anything on a small engine.
As you know, my last I-6 was a fuel injected retrofit which although I
finally got running the way I expected it to run I feel was a very poor
bang for my buck when it was all said and done. Except for one thing. It
had a smog legal paper trail which was in part why I went this route.
The single biggest disappointment was the MMAP sensor was defective and
it never showed up in the diagnostics, the next biggest was the lack of
adjustability (it needs more timing advance and you can not get it) and
one of the last disappointments a blatant misrepresentation of the
benefits in overall performance improvements.
A continuing nagging problem is a poor location for fuel pick up in side
the gasoline tank which has cost me about 5 fuel pumps over the years.
Anyway, hope this answers some of your questions in a fair manner.
Later.
John.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joe <jgray_55@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] AMC-List Digest, Vol 9, Issue 54
TRUCKS.SUV's...etc
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Jgray_55@xxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <20061022070347.72234.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
I Gotta ask. HOW in the he** did we get sooooo
involved in even caring about what mileage a new
truck/suv gets..OR better yet...WHO drives them???? Or
better yet /WHY they drive them?? I ALWAYS thought
that was what was great about America...we can CHOOSE
what we WANT to do??? Or am i missing something and
WAYYYY off base here? What the he&& does any of this
have to do with
AMX,Jav,Gremlin,Ambassador,Americans.....etc???? HAD
to ask!! Sure i'll gbet reamed for this
one...hahahahaha! Happy amc'n to all!Joe
--- amc-list-request@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Send AMC-List mailing list submissions to
> amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
> visit
> http://www.amc-list.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 EPA/DOT standards (farna@xxxxxxx)
> 2. Re: AMC-List Digest, Vol 9, Issue 51
> AMBASSADORS (now trucks)
> (farna@xxxxxxx)
> 3. Re: AMC-List Digest, Vol 9, Issue 51
> AMBASSADORS (now trucks)
> (Mark Price)
> 4. Re; AMBASSADORS (now trucks) (John Elle)
> 5. Voicing an Opinion (Brien Tourville)
> 6. Re: Voicing an Opinion (Mark Price)
> 7. Re: AMC Spirit questions (Tom Jennings)
> 8. Re: AMC-List Digest, Vol 9, Issue 51
> AMBASSADORS (now trucks)
> (Tom Jennings)
> 9. Re: Voicing an Opinion (Tom Jennings)
> 10. Re: 51 ambassadors & trucks (Eddie Stakes)
> 11. Film at 11:00 or Belly up to the trough!!!
> (Mark Price)
> 12. Re: AMC-List Digest, Vol 9, Issue 51
> AMBASSADORS (now trucks)
> (Mark Price)
> 13. Re: AMC Spirit questions (Mark Price)
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 12:41:57 +0000
> From: farna@xxxxxxx
> Subject: [AMC-List] re EPA/DOT standards
> To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx (AMC-List)
> Message-ID:
>
>
<102120061241.1894.453A1595000C160A0000076621602813020E029D0E00@xxxxxxx>
>
>
> http://www.cfact.org/site/print.asp?idarticle=233
>
> That article is a bit skewed:
> "So the facts are clear. Contrary to much of what
> you hear, SUVs are not the safety or environmental
> villains they are made out to be."
>
> I'm not so sure...
>
> "Light truck fuel efficiency has increased 55
> percent since the 1970s. In fact, in many instances,
> today's light trucks and SUV's get better gas
> mileage than compact cars of the 1970s."
>
> True, but there are also more being used just for
> crusing around in, and they don't get the mileage
> that smaller, lighter, same-year cars get.
>
> "...the new car fleet average fuel economy has
> doubled from about 14 mpg to 28 mpg and light trucks
> have improved by 50 percent."
>
> Note how they conveniently left out how much light
> trucks/big SUVs have imporved! I'd leave the smaller
> cross-over, more practical vehicles out of this
> argument -- it's the most truck-like that I think
> they are skewing/defending here. Average mpg for a
> large SUV/half-ton truck with six is in the low 20s
> on the highway, but that with sixes. At least half
> (probably more) are V-8s that get in the high teens
> and MIGHT hit 20 if driven carefully. So half-ton
> capacity vehicles have improved on average (across
> the board) from about 8 to 16 mpg. Proponents will
> use lighter capacity, smaller engined vehicles to
> dilute the figures, and they look good when you only
> use one of each model to get the average for a
> manufacturers line-up, but when looking at
> production numbers the V-8s will overshadow the
> sixes (no fours in half-tons!). Think Explorer or
> Trailbalzer and larger. Lots of sixes in that group,
> but they only get 22 mpg highway (rated -- actual is
> usually a little less for most d!
> rivers)
> . That might put the high for trucks/SUVs that size
> and larger (the majority) at 19 mpg? I think more
> like 18, but haven't crunched the numbers. I'm not
> "picking" on the larger vehicles -- the smaller,
> lighter ones are made more for passenger conveyances
> and to get better mileage though, much more
> practical for that purpose too.
>
> "If safety is the highest priority for a driver,
> they should choose the vehicle type with the lowest
> overall fatality rate. According to The Insurance
> Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), that vehicle
> type is the largest of the SUVs."
>
> So let's all go out and buy Peterbilts. Let's not
> even consider that more damage to the other
> vehicle/property is doen by a larger vehicle. I'll
> be the first to say that if one of us has to go, I'd
> rather it be one of you rather than me (and I'm sure
> you guys feel the same way!), but driving a
> behemouth then charging over the roads like you own
> them is a bit on the selfish side! I've had big
> vehicles come over on me and switch lanes or pull
> out in front of me (much to close!) where the driver
> would have thought a bit more carefully in a smaller
> or more average size vehicle.
>
> "So the facts are clear. Contrary to much of
> what you hear, SUVs are not the safety or
> environmental villains they are made out to be."
>
> Clear as mud, now that the bottom of the pool's been
> all stirred in!!
>
> Someone mentioned an exception for real work
> vehicles for EPA/DOT standards. That wouldn't work,
> not in simplest terms anyway. There would have to be
> a change in what consitutes a passenger vs. utility
> vehicle. That's what has manufacturers skewing the
> rules now, and is to easy to abuse. There isn't much
> difference in the efficiency and power of trucks and
> SUVs now -- hardly enough to notice that much. The
> safety standards are what's mostly pushed, and for
> the more luxurious those are being brought up now
> due to consumer concerns and competition. Some
> standards like bumper height are different, but can
> be designed around easy enough given a few years
> notice. In simplest terms it would be best to have a
> GVW standard and put it at the biggest SUVs. I don't
> think many will buy anything bigger than a
> Navigator!
>
>
>
>
> --
> Frank Swygert
> Publisher, "American Motors Cars"
> Magazine (AMC)
> For all AMC enthusiasts
> http://farna.home.att.net/AIM.html
> (free download available!)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 12:48:23 +0000
> From: farna@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [AMC-List] AMC-List Digest, Vol 9,
> Issue 51 AMBASSADORS
> (now trucks)
> To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx (AMC-List)
> Message-ID:
>
>
<102120061248.5112.453A1716000E3031000013F821602813020E029D0E00@xxxxxxx>
>
>
> Joe, there are people like you that have a truck and
> aren't afraid to use it like one, but you're in
> maybe a 20-25% group. 75-80% just use it for
> transportation and occasioanlly pulling a trailer.
>
> --
> Frank Swygert
> Publisher, "American Motors Cars"
> Magazine (AMC)
> For all AMC enthusiasts
> http://farna.home.att.net/AIM.html
> (free download available!)
>
> -----original message------------------
> Frank. Now what you said about new trucks is not
> entirely true( no offence).NOT trying to argue but..
> In 2004 i bought a brand new(first BRAND NEW
> vehicle)2004 F150 4x4 FX4 off road supercab.Will
> never
> buy a new vehicle again SINCE i got laid-off from
> the
> good paying factory job i had back them. There are
> NO
> good paying jobs available in Illinois for older
> (i'm
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:03:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] FW: Re: sIZE isn't everything
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0610220103000.2126@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006, John Elle wrote:
> Why put up with one of those wimpy Cadillac's when you can have a
>
> NAVISTAR
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6026041/
How many cup holders does it have?
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] Re; AMC Spirit questions - TOM
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0610220109320.2126@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006, John Elle wrote:
> SNIP
> Dual YFs would be nice! :-)
> SNIP
>
> They sure would, if you could find a manifold for them, multiple carbs
> are great oooo aaahhh factor too!
Well I plan on heading to the u-pull-it to measure jeep
chassis. Maybe I'll take home an aluminum intake to see if I
can hack it for dual YFs.
Dual carbs are cooler than EFI! (Even if it is twice as hard
and half as good :-)
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] Film at 11:00 or Belly up to the trough!!!
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0610220111470.2126@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006, Mark Price wrote:
> Follow the link to some trough pictures.
>
> http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l103/Wrambler_242/
Very, very cool fix. Have you driven on it much yet? Nice
looking motor too!
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 05:57:29 -0400
From: AMC74Hornet@xxxxxxxxx (Mr. AMC)
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] Size Isn't Everything
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <29882-453B4089-6506@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Ok I have a question and you can take it as funny but it is actually my
lack of knowledge and real lack of interest in any new cars or trucks,
but what is a Navistar?
"Doc"
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
AMC-List mailing list
AMC-List@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
End of AMC-List Digest, Vol 9, Issue 55
***************************************
Back to the Home of the AMC Gremlin