AMC-List Digest, Vol 11, Issue 59

[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: 2x or 3x carb intake for 196ohv
      (Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM)
   2.  Mobil Oil Economy Run -- 1964
      (Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM)
   3. body plug or just a hole (dan whitehead)
   4. Body Plugs (JOE FULTON)
   5. '07 AMC NATIONALS DATES/LOCATION (namdra@xxxxxxxx)
   6. AMX Rocker Panels (Clifton  Danley)


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

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 08:26:25 -0600
From: "Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM"
	<Francis.Swygert3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] 2x or 3x carb intake for 196ohv
To: <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID:
	<4CC05BF0CC3F114281434B00B733E2A319CF76@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

The problem with multiple carbs on the 196 is the way the intake ports
are arranged, and the way the manifold is made. Being made onto the head
isn't the primary problem. Just think of it as a two piece manifold --
like the old cross ram 4V V-8 manifold really. The top of the manifold
(and "runners" in this case) come off. That made it easier to cast as
well as to adapt different types/sizes of carburetors, unlike Ford's
sixes. 

The intake ports are arranged as single ports on each end, and two
siamesed ports in the center. The exhaust is arranged as three siamesed
ports. The valve arrangement reflects this: I-E-E-I-I-E-E-I-I-E-E-I.  To
top it off, the ports are angled toward the center. On the ends this
isn't a problem, but for the center ports it means that the flow from a
carb placed beyond the "back" of the port ("back" being furthest from
center) must negotiate a 130-135 degree turn into the port. This isn't
to bad with twin carbs -- that's why I placed the carbs on the intake I
made with 1/3 of the bore past the "back" wall -- most of the flow could
enter that port without a big turn, and the end cylinders weren't
fighting the entire flow. The Offy intake puts the carbs right in front
of the siamesed port openings. The YF carbs I used (stock 61 L-head
carbs) were a bit bigger than the little Holley 1909 carbs (stock 61-63
for the OHV in the American, maybe earlier) the Offy was designed for. I
think the Classic carb will fit the Offy too, but it's a different model
Holley (the Classic produces 2 more hp, IIRC). 

I've considered EFI for the 196. A TBI would be easiest, but drilling
into the top plate or side of the block and mounting injectors wouldn't
be difficult. Just four injectors needed -- fire the center two over the
siamesed ports twice. Same would work for the L-head, except you'd HAVE
to go through the side of the block or use TBI -- there's a water
passage in the head above the intake "trough". 

---------------------
Date: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 10:04 AM
From: Jim Boone <fljab@xxxxxxxxxxx>

>Subject: Re: [AMC-List] 2x or 3x carb intake for 196ohv

>
>I ran a home made 2x1 intake for the 196 (there are no 3x1 intakes).
<snip>

A home made intake for these engines wouldn't be all that hard to make;
I
have a side-draft Weber that came off my brother's performance-reworked
MGB.
  That car is long gone, but I had thought of making a manifold out of
stainless or easier to work aluminum and setting it up.  Would be
unique!

A 3 x 1 bbl setup would be good to use as well, and would solve the
cylinder
fuel distribution problems inherint with a long six.  The original
Holley's
wouldn't be hard to come up with, and would be easy to work with IMO.





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

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 10:37:24 -0600
From: "Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM"
	<Francis.Swygert3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AMC-List]  Mobil Oil Economy Run -- 1964
To: <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID:
	<4CC05BF0CC3F114281434B00B733E2A319D02F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

The "economy run" was a marketing pissing contest too. At one time in
the late 50s the Rambler was all but banned -- it was put in a special
compact class. The other manufacturers (except for Studebaker!) didn't
have effective competition and were always trounced. But then Chevy was
entering a 235 powered stripped down Biscayne as competition for the
"full size" 195.6 OHV powered Rambler Six. So I really don't blame the
others for complaining. When they started making competing products they
were quick to enter them in the Rambler's though, and were usually
trounced (as in 64)!

People forget just how economical some of the 60s cars could be.
Viland's near 28 mpg is far from typical though. That was a 195.6 OHV/1V
car equipped with OD, with extensive use of the free wheeling feature
(which helped a lot more than the higher gear!). He was also a trained
and experienced economy driver -- hardly average! The average driver
with the same car would be lucky to average 23-24 mpg on the freeway,
with an overall average of closer to 20 mpg. Of course bigger vehicles
were lucky to get 18 mpg on the freeway, so there's still a big
difference. 

I wonder how a 170 (or even 225) slant six powered Valiant with OD would
have fared compared to the 273 V-8 -- and the Rambler. The V-8 was new
in the 64 Valiant, and touted as "the lowest priced V-8" -- probably why
they ran it. The 170 put out 101 hp, the 225 145 hp, compared to the
195.6 OHV output of 125 hp. 

I'd like to see something like an economy run for new cars too. Seems
like it would be a great marketing tool, especially for the winners. To
make it more fair, there could be a complete listing of specs for the
vehicle and it's performance. Actual weight, size and power of engine,
avg. fuel mileage, time to complete course/avg. speed -- those are the
minimum specs I think should be published for every car, classed in size
and/or weight categories so that "apples are compared with apples" --
only cars marketed against each other are compared. I think the overall
winner should be the one that gets the best mileage in the shortest
time. That would put a nice twist on the competition, and take a lot
more skill. Cars would have to be right off the dealer lot and sealed
against modifications. No synthetic oils or anything special unless all
come from the factory that way. Would be interesting over a cross
country course! Maybe limit the run to 200 miles, one tank of gas. 



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

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 17:16:47 +0000
From: "dan whitehead" <freebird_58@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AMC-List] body plug or just a hole
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <BAY111-F2316AFF0B05FB318492A1094C00@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

On the front of the rocker panel, behind the fender is an (approx) 1" hole.  
The back side of the rocker has one also, but has a plug in it.  The front 
hole on both sides of my AMX is just that, a hole and was like that when I 
took off the fender and seal piece that screws onto the body.  Is there 
suppose to be a plug in this one or is it empty.  I've looked in my books 
and have come up with nothing.  Any help would be appreciated, we're getting 
ready to put the inner rocker panel in and trying to make sure everything in 
correct.

Thanks
Dan Whitehead
Brodhead, WI

_________________________________________________________________
The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes is here.  Get all the scoop. 
http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/



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

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:37:37 -0800 (PST)
From: JOE FULTON <piper_pa20@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AMC-List] Body Plugs
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <300428.82328.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

I think there is supposed to be a plug in each rocker
panel hole. 

Joe Fulton
Salinas, CA


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

Message: 5
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 14:10:02 -0600
From: namdra@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [AMC-List] '07 AMC NATIONALS DATES/LOCATION
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <20061227.141003.-16482543.0.NAMDRA@xxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

The '07 AMC NATIONALS will be held September 6-8, 2007 at Cordova Dragway
Park, Cordova, IL.

We will again have AMC Drag racing, Car Show, Swap Meet, Car Corral, Free
Picnic, Awards Program and more.

Stay tuned for more info.

Jock Jocewicz - President/Editor NAMDRA     NAMDRA@xxxxxxxx
8537 Antioch Rd., Salem, WI 53168 (262) 843-4326
          JOIN NAMDRA, the best AMC club around!!
'07 AMC NATIONALS - Sep. 6-8, 2007 - Cordova Dragway Park, Cordova, IL
AMO#19, NAMDRA#46, AMCRC#974,  NHRA#41915, IHRA#6766


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

Message: 6
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 21:00:03 -0500
From: "Clifton  Danley" <am401@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AMC-List] AMX Rocker Panels
To: <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <001301c72a23$e3f673f0$6401a8c0@cliff>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response

I was going through my stash of AMC parts, and found rocker panel covers
 that I think are for an AMX. These resemble the rocker trim that is common
 on Spirits, but this is one piece and 67 inches long, with 8 mounting 
holes.
 Can anyone confirm this?

 Cliff Danley
Jacksonville, FL



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

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


End of AMC-List Digest, Vol 11, Issue 59
****************************************