AMC-List Digest, Vol 10, Issue 53

[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.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: '69 Rambler/232/T-14 clutch needed (Matt Haas)
   2. Continuing Saga of Doc the Jeep, Part II.5 (Nick Lenarz)
   3. Re: SJ Axle width? (Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM)
   4. Re: SJ Axle width? (msproviero@xxxxxxxxxxx)
   5. Re: Rear Axle ratio choices, a question
      (Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM)
   6. Re: Continuing Saga of Doc the Jeep, Part II.5 (Nick Lenarz)
   7. Re: 62 classic 6 rear axle id
      (Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM)
   8. Re: AMC Progress (Jim Blair)
   9. Re: 62 classic 6 rear axle id (Jim Blair)
  10. Re: SJ Axle width? (Sandwich Maker)
  11. Re: steering column screws wanted (Sandwich Maker)


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

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 07:50:31 -0500
From: Matt Haas <mhaas@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] '69 Rambler/232/T-14 clutch needed
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <456ADF17.5090305@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Jay,

You should be able to get that mount pretty easily through an auto parts 
store. I had no problem getting one last year for my 67 American and I 
think it was under $20.

Matt

BUS-ENG wrote:
> I want to thank Mark for the suggestions
> on replacing my clutch.  His feedback,
> and the excellent and comprehensive
> list at "Rambler Dan's";
> 
> http://www.skidmore.edu/~pdwyer/amc/american_partlist.htm
> 
> should get me enough ammo to light up
> the phones tomorrow with assorted 
> parts houses to find the clutch pieces.
> 
> However, it turns out I also need a 
> transmission mount for the same car.
> 
> Does anyone know if the Mopar mount
> for the 258 will fit?  Or, does anyone
> know of a source for the transmission 
> mount for the 232, with a T-14 stick?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jay
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "BUS-ENG" <jay@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 7:23 PM
> Subject: [AMC-List] '69 Rambler/232/T-14 clutch needed
> 
> 
>> Can anyone recommend a source for a complete
>> clutch assembly for my wagon?  
>>
>> I looked through Eddie's list (I think) fairly
>> carefully and no ready source jumped out at me.
>>
>> Of course, I am also interested in any experienced
>> comments on quality and cost.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jay
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AMC-List mailing list
>> AMC-List@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
>>
>> or go to http://www.amc-list.com
> _______________________________________________
> AMC-List mailing list
> AMC-List@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
> 
> or go to http://www.amc-list.com
> 
> 
> 

-- 
mhaas@xxxxxxx
Cincinnati, OH
http://www.mattsoldcars.com
1967 Rambler American wagon
1968 Rambler American sedan
===============================================================
According to a February survey of Internet holdouts released by
UCLA's Center for Communication Policy, people cite
not having a computer as the No. 1 reason they won't go online.



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

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 05:38:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Nick Lenarz <n9viw@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AMC-List] Continuing Saga of Doc the Jeep, Part II.5
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <954632.36185.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Some of you may recall the problem I've been having with my Jeep, under
the heading "Weird non-running issue, '82 Jeep CJ". Things are
better... sorta.
Replaced the intake and exhaust manifold gaskets today, and found that
my exhaust manifold is sprung along the X axis- a very slight vertical
bow, with the end cylinders (1 & 6) a bit (1/8") higher than the
middle. I found that the end cylinder ports were not 100% covered by
the gasket because of this, and there was a small exhaust leak at
cylinders 1, 2, and 6, right at the bottom of each port on the gasket.
The intake manifold ports were securely covered, though.
I was able to force the #1 cylinder down with a crowbar and tighten it
in place on the new gasket, and tightened the manifolds down in the
usual sequence. I started the engine up, and while the timing is still
way off (26+ degrees BTDC at idle), it runs well enough. I took it for
a spin around the block, and while it was peppy enough, it had a
disconcerting spark knock whenever I put the engine under moderate
load. I noted that yesterday, but attributed it to a manifold leak
causing a lean condition.
I took it home and completely disconnected the vacuum advance line and
took it out again, but it still has a spark knock when under load. I
had checked the mechanical weights yesterday, and found they were
moving freely and securely fastened.
One recent thought I have had regards cam timing- I know for certain
that the Comp Cams #252h is cut 4* advanced, but I seem to recall
installing the Cloyes timing set at 3* advanced as well. If this is the
case, I have 7* advanced valve timing.

<<<IMPORTANT PART>>>
The thing I need to know is, does anyone here know where I can find a
definitive documented connection between valve and spark timing, and
specifically changes of one affecting the other?
<<</IMPORTANT PART>>>

If my hypothesis is correct, the spark timing HAS to be advanced
(rather, is required to be) BECAUSE the valve timing is advanced, in
order to find that 'sweet spot' where combustion and vacuum is best.
That sweet spot, however, must then be that much narrower a crossover,
which would explain why I get the preignition (spark knock) on engine
load, but never did before I installed the cam gears.
I don't dare drive it like this, because at highway speeds I can't hear
the knock, and would worry about doing internal damage. Next weekend
I'm going to be out of town, but the following weekend (if enough
people suggest it) I think I will pull the timing cover and set the
gears back to 0* advanced (if it is, in fact, advanced at all).
Please, inundate me with your thoughts, concerns and suggestions! :D


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Want to start your own business?
Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index


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

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 08:24:53 -0600
From: "Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM"
	<Francis.Swygert3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] SJ Axle width?
To: <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID:
	<092D8CF6635129428E9B66DC582C3B3D01B3658E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

Jim didn't answer the width question directly, but if the Narrow Track
SJ axles are 1" wider than the XJ axle, it won't fit the American or
early Classic. The XJ axle is to wide (same as Eagle). The XJ axle fits
the big cars after 1967, but is slightly wider than the stock axle. Of
course there's an issue with mounts for the four link then. XJ axles
don't fit the 63-66 (or earlier) big cars, but the 67+ big car axles
will. I ran an XJ axle on my 63 Classic for a while. Had to use 3-3/4"
backset 7" wheels w/205/70R15 tires, and they were close! Any larger
would have scrubbed, and those did a little when loaded down. The 64-69
American axle is an inch or so narrower than the 63-66 Classic axle.

Mark, you might want to find out how wide CJ axles are. The Wide Track
CJ axle might be a good fit, at least as good as the S-10 axle. 



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

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:37:40 +0000
From: msproviero@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] SJ Axle width?
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID:
	<112720061437.16901.456AF8340009C9F5000042052205889116019D0A0790019D9F9C03@xxxxxxxxxxx>
	
Content-Type: text/plain

If the XJ axle is still too wide, would the Exploder 8.8 then be a candidate for 1967-down big cars?


-Spro

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM" <Francis.Swygert3@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 

> Jim didn't answer the width question directly, but if the Narrow Track 
> SJ axles are 1" wider than the XJ axle, it won't fit the American or 
> early Classic. The XJ axle is to wide (same as Eagle). The XJ axle fits 
> the big cars after 1967, but is slightly wider than the stock axle. Of 
> course there's an issue with mounts for the four link then. XJ axles 
> don't fit the 63-66 (or earlier) big cars, but the 67+ big car axles 
> will. I ran an XJ axle on my 63 Classic for a while. Had to use 3-3/4" 
> backset 7" wheels w/205/70R15 tires, and they were close! Any larger 
> would have scrubbed, and those did a little when loaded down. The 64-69 
> American axle is an inch or so narrower than the 63-66 Classic axle. 
> 
> Mark, you might want to find out how wide CJ axles are. The Wide Track 
> CJ axle might be a good fit, at least as good as the S-10 axle. 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> AMC-List mailing list 
> AMC-List@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
> http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list 
> 
> or go to http://www.amc-list.com 

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

Message: 5
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 08:54:48 -0600
From: "Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM"
	<Francis.Swygert3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] Rear Axle ratio choices, a question
To: <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID:
	<092D8CF6635129428E9B66DC582C3B3D01B365D2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

I adjusted tire size to get the cruise speed/rpm I wanted. I run a
205/70R15, which makes a big difference, The AW4 OD is also 0.70:1,
which also helps. I run just under 2400 rpm (2381 according to the
calculator at www.4lo.com, using 26.3 as tire diameter). I didn't state
the OD ratio, not sure if I mentioned tire size either. I think those
are the missing parts of the puzzle! 

The logic for getting better mileage with the 3.55 than the 3.08 rear
gears is simple -- the engine wasn't operating in it's most efficient
rpm range until it hit 65 mph or more in OD (1800-2500 rpm seems to be
the best range to operate the AMC six with a stock or near stock cam,
though I know that might be an over generalization). I could have just
rarely used OD, but then take off suffered due to the low torque
multiplication of the AW4 trans. You're correct, by the way, in stating
it's more closely related to some of the newer auto trannys. It's an
early "high efficiency" design. It needs a lower first gear for take-off
than older designs that supply more torque multiplication. My car would
take off okay with the 3.08 gears, but if it had been loaded down it
wouldn't have. It's much snappier with the 3.55 and doesn't stay in
first gear long (but it's still required -- 2nd gear take-offs are a bit
slow) and I can use all four gears. Even with the 3.55 gears I don't
shift into fourth (OD) until 50 mph. If I'm cruising on relatively level
ground at 45 mph I'll go ahead and shift into OD, but much under I just
leave it in third. All this with the 3.55 gears. With the 3.08 there was
little point in shifting into OD until 55-60 mph, and at take off you
could tell the engine was working (though not what I'd cal laboring) to
get the car moving. With the engine stressed less and cruising in it's
flattest torque range, it gets better mileage. I've found the same thing
true in my J-10, though I don't have a tach connected yet. It has 2.73
gears and a non-feedback BBD installed (it was changed by previous
owner). With the manual four speed I just treat fourth gear like OD. I
only have to use low range if taking off a relatively steep incline with
a load. No load works fine in high. 

A lot depends on the transmission ratios, tire size, and engine build.
With the stock cam 1800-2500 seems to be the best torque range of the
AMC six. It should get the best mileage when operated in that range. I'm
running a NAPA "Econo Power" cam (which I believe is made by Crane) with
just a little more lift and duration than a stock 4.0L cam. It acts
pretty much like a stock cam until 2500 rpm, where it starts producing
noticeably more power, and sucking noticeably more gas. I've noticed
pretty much the same with carbed AMC sixes, but you've got more
experience than I do! 

-----------------
Date: Sunday, November 26, 2006 11:32 PM
From: John Elle <johnelle@xxxxxxxxx>

Frank.
I tried running a 3.08 gear in mine with the torquey 4.6L stroker and
AW4. It cruised at 70-75,
Snip
Assume for comparison purposes, Az State Speed limit of 75 mph.
This would calculate out (using p205-70-14 Tires) at 3068 rpm
Snip
but stressed the engine enough that gas mileage dropped considerably
compared to the T-96 w/)D and 3.31 rear gears.
Snip
Assuming the O/D was a typical .75 the final drive ratio would then be
equivalent to 2.48:1 rear axle. Thus with the T-96 and OD using the same
size tires rpm would be 2493 rpm. This would be a decrease of 575 rpm
at 75mph. A decrease of 575 rpm should carry over into an increase of
fuel economy. That is the theory behind overdrive. Decrease rpm to
fuel economy.
<snip>
I guess what I am trying to understand is the logic that says a 3.55:1
rear axle is going to give better fuel economy than a 3.08 rear axle.
Neither my own personal experience or logic makes much sense of that
unless I missed something completely.

Snip
The AW4 converter won't slip and allow the
rpm that the TF converter does before the car starts moving, so first
could end up feeling like a lot less gear than you have now.
Snip
I did not know that! But then again, that transmission must be related
to the one in my Town and Country and one more replacement for
that one and the car will get turned into a Chevy!

John.



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

Message: 6
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 07:00:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Nick Lenarz <n9viw@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] Continuing Saga of Doc the Jeep, Part II.5
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <456069.99334.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

 WOO HOO!!! I KNEW I wasn't crazy! :p

Just got off the phone with William at Comp Cams tech help line. I
asked him what the correlation was, if any, between ignition timing and
valve timing. He told me that, depending on where the valve timing is,
the ignition timing is going to HAVE to change in order to capture the
best possible ignition time in relation to both the crankshaft position
AND valve positions.
If I had set my adjustable timing set to the 3* retarded position, my
ignition timing would subsequently have to be retarded as well to
produce power at the point the valves are closed and the piston is at
TDC; however, since I advanced the timing gears on a cam that's ALREADY
advanced, I put myself in a bind. The 7* combined valve advance would
REQUIRE ignition timing so far advanced that the moment between running
well and running poorly is like a razor's edge.
He asked me if I had a 'bodacious' (he's in TN) spark knock at
acceleration, and I said yes. He said that would well prove it- if the
engine will only run at a particularly high ignition advance but still
knock, the cam is too far advanced. If I back the crank down to 0*, I
should be able to reset my ignition timing to a more appropriate level,
which will eliminate the knock!

I say again, WOO HOOOOO!!! I'm tempted to add a "f'n" in the middle
there, but this is a family forum. :D
Tonight I'm gonna go home and strip the nose of the Jeep in prep for
getting that timing set out and repositioned. Finally, the light at the
end of the tunnel ISN'T a train!! :D :D :D


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited


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

Message: 7
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:13:35 -0600
From: "Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM"
	<Francis.Swygert3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] 62 classic 6 rear axle id
To: <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID:
	<092D8CF6635129428E9B66DC582C3B3D01B365F8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

Gears from a D35 will fit an AMC 15 -- except for maybe yours
(naturally!!). The torque tube axles (and American "big nut" driveshaft
axles, through 65 with 196/199 powered Americans) have a different
pinion shaft than the open drive axles. Now comes the tricky part! I
haven't actually measured the shafts. I THINK the torque tube splined
part of the AMC 15 pinion shaft is a little smaller in diameter and
longer than the open drive type. You'd have to pull the u-joint yoke off
a D35 on an XJ Cherokee and see if it fits the AMC15 TT axle, and if it
does measure the distance from the end of the shaft to the seal. Length
can be +/- about 1/4" and still fit, I think. There's some room in the
slip joint for the TT driveshaft. 

As I stated before, you could have a Spicer axle, but I'm not certain.
Pull the bearings and use the numbers. Any shop/parts store should be
able to get the bearings in a couple days for the Spicer or AMC axles. I
replaced AMC15 outer bearings and races just a couple years ago and they
were still being made and easy to get. If the parts store can't get
them, a bearing and drive supply can. They will need the number to cross
reference.

The 196 used a lower gear ratio way back then because there really
weren't any roads to cruise at high speeds on. Grades were steeper too,
and the lower gears helped the small engine (by today's standards, it
was only adequate back then!) move the big car well. The 196 isn't a
high speed engine design. It doesn't do well at high speeds, and will
use a bit of oil when pushed a lot. I ran one for 14 years as a daily
driver in an American. 800 miles on a quart of oil is typical when
driving at 65-75 mph for long trips. You would be better off with a 3.31
or 3.55 axle. 3.78 gears were generally used with OD trannys in later
years. My 63 American with auto trans had 3.31 gears, but they were the
optional "performance" gears. Shouldn't be to hard to find a used set of
gears if not a complete axle. Your TSM should state what stock and
optional gears were in the rear axle section (last few pages of the
section IIRC).


-----------------
Date: Monday, November 27, 2006 12:11 AM
From: d stohler <das24rules@xxxxxxxxx>

at the carquest i go to, they actually have OLD books they look in. no
it was
not under jeep. i was looking at the book with her. dona is very good at
gettin 
me the hard to find parts. it says spicer 53, and 27A. thats all. for
gaskets,
and bearings. they had the gasket in stock that looks like it is the
right one. 
i have yet to put the diff cover gasket on to find out for sure. 10
bolts on
the cover and kinda oval looking if this helps in id any. oval as in
left right 
oblong instead of up and down oblong. even www.partsamerica.com says the
spicer 
axles. parts america is who advance auto and autozone, schucks, kragar
and
checker auto parts all go thru. says the 53 has a 9.25" ring gear, and
the 27A
has a 7.2" ring gear. would i be safe maybe to guess it is the 27A? i
have yet
to find anything in parts that says "amc model 15". grr, this is getting
confusing. am i safe to guess that the 27A with the smaller gear,  might
be the 
littler axle used in the 6 cyl? its a 6cyl
 manual. no od. also, frank said that the 35 grew from the amc 15. would
it be
possible that 35 gears might be able to be adapted into the 15, if thats
even
what i have? im coming out with the gears being 9/34 turning into 3.77
g.r.
wouldnt mind getting like a 3.50 or so. just a little more highway
friendly.
maybe not even worry about it now if im going to be swapping it out any
time
soon.




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

Message: 8
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 07:16:13 -0800
From: "Jim Blair" <carnuck@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] AMC Progress
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <BAY114-F18CF5C02F36CC92A537516ACE60@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

A: What gets me is that the Prestolite vacuum advance is available, but the 
later Motorcraft one isn't! (At NAPA that is)


From: Ken Ames <ameskg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] AMC Progress
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <1164613731.456a986377f7c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

About half the Prestolite's I've checked had blown vacuum
diaphrams. Seems a
weak point for them.

Ken

_________________________________________________________________
Get the latest Windows Live Messenger 8.1 Beta version. Join now. 
http://ideas.live.com



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

Message: 9
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 07:31:47 -0800
From: "Jim Blair" <carnuck@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] 62 classic 6 rear axle id
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <BAY114-F59AC485777D60CEAB5267ACE60@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

A: Someone has given the axles the wrong terminology (A Dana/Spicer 53 is 
almost identical to a Dana 60 and not a Model 20). AFAICT, the Model 15 and 
Dana 35 share even the carrier. At least later models did (I took pics of 
the D35C cast into the housing of an '88 Eagle wagon's rear axle, but it 
still had 2 piece axle shafts). It may be possible the Model 15 is a Dana 
27A (I found only 1 ebay picture so far and the listing ended so the big 
picture was gone)
   As for gearing, 3.54 is the most common one out there in XJs. They 
practically give them away! (I've received quite a few 3.07 axles for free 
so far and I just sold a D35 with 3.54 trac lok for $50)


From: d stohler <das24rules@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AMC-List] 62 classic 6 rear axle id
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID:
<20061127051153.71521.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

at the carquest i go to, they actually have OLD books they look
in. no it was not under jeep. i was looking at the book with
her. dona is very good at gettin me the hard to find parts. it
says spicer 53, and 27A. thats all. for gaskets, and bearings.
they had the gasket in stock that looks like it is the right
one. i have yet to put the diff cover gasket on to find out for
sure. 10 bolts on the cover and kinda oval looking if this helps
in id any. oval as in left right oblong instead of up and down
oblong. even www.partsamerica.com says the spicer axles. parts
america is who advance auto and autozone, schucks, kragar and
checker auto parts all go thru. says the 53 has a 9.25" ring
gear, and the 27A has a 7.2" ring gear. would i be safe maybe to
guess it is the 27A? i have yet to find anything in parts that
says "amc model 15". grr, this is getting confusing. am i safe
to guess that the 27A with the smaller gear,  might be the
littler axle used in the 6 cyl? its a 6cyl
manual. no od. also, frank said that the 35 grew from the amc
15. would it be possible that 35 gears might be able to be
adapted into the 15, if thats even what i have? im coming out
with the gears being 9/34 turning into 3.77 g.r. wouldnt mind
getting like a 3.50 or so. just a little more highway friendly.
maybe not even worry about it now if im going to be swapping it
out any time soon.

  dave stohler

_________________________________________________________________
Get the latest Windows Live Messenger 8.1 Beta version. Join now. 
http://ideas.live.com



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

Message: 10
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:48:18 -0500 (EST)
From: adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] SJ Axle width?
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <200611271548.kARFmID12082@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

" From: msproviero@xxxxxxxxxxx
" 
" If the XJ axle is still too wide, would the Exploder 8.8 then be a candidate for 1967-down big cars?

iirc it's ~1/2" narrower - the right direction, but not much.  might
be enough though, especially with deep-offset jeep wheels.
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought


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

Message: 11
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:52:29 -0500 (EST)
From: adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] steering column screws wanted
To: kort_j@xxxxxxx, mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <200611271552.kARFqTN12169@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

" From: "Eddie Stakes" <eddiestakes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
" 
" Wanted: The correct screws (3) that hold the 1970 AMX turn signal switch 
" into the steering column, or information where to find them. The entire 
" replacement of this turn signal switch has been insane.  John Kort 
" Kort_j@xxxxxxx
" =============================
" anyone that can help John out give him a shout above, thanks,

the column is a saginaw; they should be gm parts.  beyond that i don't
know if there are any variations.
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought


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

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


End of AMC-List Digest, Vol 10, Issue 53
****************************************