AMC-List Digest, Vol 12, Issue 31

[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. (no subject) (payam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
   2. Re: 258 6cyl swap into 63american convertible
      (Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM)
   3. T-150 to T-5 adapter available!! Should be T-96 also!!
      (Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM)
   4. Re: 258 6cyl swap into 63american convertible (Jim Blair)
   5. Re: 258 6cyl swap into 63american convertible (Jim Blair)
   6. Re: 258 6cyl swap into 63american convertible (Sandwich Maker)
   7. Re: T-150 to T-5 adapter available!! Should be T-96	also!!
      (Sandwich Maker)
   8. Re: 258 6cyl swap into 63american convertible
      (Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM)
   9. Re: 'She's My Little Rock 'n Roll' (Jim Blair)
  10. Re: 258 6cyl swap into 63american convertible (Jim Blair)


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

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:37:41 -0500
From: payam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AMC-List] (no subject)
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID:
	<f6d91262ec174f89b20c1fb903eee767@ed4de16597954b35950a270e80fbfdc0>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://www.amc-list.com/pipermail/amc-list/attachments/20070119/913ba0bb/attachment.ksh
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: payam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:37:41 -0500
Size: 555
Url: http://www.amc-list.com/pipermail/amc-list/attachments/20070119/913ba0bb/attachment.mht


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

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:55:04 -0600
From: "Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM"
	<Francis.Swygert3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] 258 6cyl swap into 63american convertible
To: "Sandwich Maker" <adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID:
	<4CC05BF0CC3F114281434B00B733E2A325AE8F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

The Aussie EFI intake with the runners curved over the valve cover MIGHT
fit in a 58-63 American without removing the hump, the carb intake
definitely won't. There's only a couple inches difference (estimating
from the pics), but that's enough! Take the outer barrel off the carb
intake and it would fit. The left to right placement of the two barrel
carbs is what I found that prevented using a modern four cylinder also.
I didn't find one that placed the barrels front to back and a bit closer
to the head. Since they all used progressive linkage the side to side
mount works better. The early 2.3L Ford used progressive linkage, but I
don't recall if the barrels are side to side or front to back. I do
recall the intake doesn't stick out as far as later, better flowing
ones. 

The early American engine bay is tighter side to side than the early
Mustang/Falcon/64-69 American. That engine barely fits in a Mustang bay.
The header shown on the Ford Six site won't fit either. I'll haveto
check, but I seem to recall the engine bay as being 23-24" between the
suspension mounting points. It gets wider above the upper control arm
mounting points, but the distance between the humps is only a couple
inches more at the peak of the hump. The humps stick out at least two
inches from the rest of the inner fender panels. Cut the humps at just
the right spot and you can weld the inner panel to the outer without
adding metal (I THINK...), but I'd add a piece anyway for strength. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Sandwich Maker [mailto:adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 5:11 PM
To: Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] 258 6cyl swap into 63american convertible

i can't stop thinking about the ford swap!

you mentioned side clearance vs. the ford's cast-in intake.  would the
ford aussie 12-port head and intake
http://classicinlines.com/proddetail.asp?prod=OZ%2D250%2D2VH
have adequate clearance?  from what i can find, the argentinian head
seen here http://classicinlines.com/categories.asp?cat=48 but the
intake is definitely snarkier, though it sticks out a little farther
too.

another good view of the aussie head is about 1/2 way down here
http://classicinlines.com/orderonline.asp and notice it's on a 200.
making the assumption that the ford '2.77' is a warner t96, the
'64-'80 200 is the largest block that'll take the '60-5 bell and bolt
straight to the amc tranny.  '80-up 200s got a modified sbf pattern.

after the engine is snugged into place and running well, you could
step up to a t5 with a late '70s 'srod' bell, redrilled.

a toploader would bolt straight up to the '67 - mid '70s bell, and a
tremec to the srod one, but i've assumed they'd be too big for the
tunnel.  however - didn't these cars use the iron warner auto before
the aluminum ones became available?

[i got the bellhousing info from the 'chainsaw al' pages mentioned at
fordsix.com, but they're long gone now.  i saved the manual tranny
swap pg but the adapter pg was already down and neither al nor the co
he sold his biz to responded to inquiries.  a real shame as he
explicitly mentions a 2.77 - t5 adapter]

more radical possibilities are the crossflow head adapted to a 200
here http://www.fordsix.com/tech/engine/crossflow/crossflow.php
or an entire aussie crossflow engine as detailed here
http://www.fordsix.com/tech/engine/crossflow/xflow.php
scroll almost 2/3 down to "Assembled and almost ready" to see the
excellent efi intake in the shop, and at the bottom for it in the car.
imagine how that'd look under the hood of a bathtub nash!

he says the flywheel is the same as the us 250 but i didn't catch
anything on the bellhousing pattern.  i -presume- it's the same sbf
also.
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought



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

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:12:56 -0600
From: "Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM"
	<Francis.Swygert3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AMC-List] T-150 to T-5 adapter available!! Should be T-96
	also!!
To: <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID:
	<4CC05BF0CC3F114281434B00B733E2A325AEB3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

Found this while looking at a Ford Six page because of the discussion
about using the 200/250 six in an early American, and Andrew bringing up
the Aussie crossflow heads. One of the articles states that a Ford top
loader to T-5 adapter from California Pony Cars. A search turned up a
vendor that carries them (www.cjponyparts.com). Not cheap at $365, but
adapters are available for early bells (64-66 -- should be T-96??) and
"later early" bells (65-73, "top loader" pattern, also T-150). Theses
are kits, not just the adapter, that include the crossmember and
driveshaft yoke. The T-96 model would use the same u-joint as the early
Fords, not sure about the T-150 u-joint. The CPC link has an e-mail
contact, but the site is "under construction"

Contact info: 
California Pony Cars
1906 Quaker Ridge Pl
Ontario, CA 91761
United States
909-923-2804  888-225-7669
fax: 909-947-8593
www.calponycars.com




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

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:45:45 -0800
From: "Jim Blair" <carnuck@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] 258 6cyl swap into 63american convertible
To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <BAY114-F282CC30868294F1B70C28ACA90@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

A: Just a little more here: The 250 is NOT the same size (length) as a 200 
(it may still fit though) as it is based on the 300 and earlier 240. (Found 
this out when I went to put power steering on my 170 which IS the same as 
the 200) I don't know when they changed the 200 bell to fit the same as V8, 
but I used an '80 something Ford Fairmont 200 C4 auto bellhousing to mount 
my 170 in place of a 300 in my '75 F150 van. The 170 was replaced with a 
factory new 200 about 5 years later (lifter collapsed and a rocker canted, 
knocking the valve spring loose from it's keepers and dropping a valve 
through the piston) but it didn't have nearly as much power as the 170 
(which came from a '72 Mercury Comet)
   The AMC 4.0L is much shorter in front than the 258/232 and MAY fit in 
there.


From: "Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM"
	<Francis.Swygert3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] 258 6cyl swap into 63american
convertible
To: <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <redamc1963@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID:

<4CC05BF0CC3F114281434B00B733E2A325A8EB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

I'm afraid Andrew is 100% on this one! This subject has gone
around on
the list a time or two before, I think Andrew and I have it all
worked
out! The ONLY options for a more modern and/or larger powerplant
is the
Ford 200/250 six. The AMC later six is just to long -- it's
about three
inches longer than the 196 -- just the block, not including the
fan and
water pump. You can only squeeze about another inch out of the
58-63
American (and 50-55 Nash Rambler) engine compartment. I know of
one 258
installed in a 61-63 -- it required removing the heater and
setting the
engine back into the firewall.

The 200 or 250 Ford will fit. They are both the same length,
very close
to the length of the 196. The 250 is a tall deck 200 (1.7"
taller deck,
0.78" longer stroke). You can find more info on these at
http://www.fordsix.com/. The only drawback is you're limited in
he
carburetion department. They have the intake cast into the head,
but no
removable plate like the 196. This isn't a big problem -- the
200 has
about the same power as the 196 stock (1969: 120hp @ 4400, 190#
@ 2400),
the 250 a good bit more (1969: 155hp @ 4000, 240# @ 1600). The
250 is
actually a good choice, and was used into the mid 80s. The SBF
trans
pattern is used, but you can't use an SBF flexplate or flywheel
due to
balance (balanced to the V-8, like AMC V-8s). You can, however,
use a
Ford 300 six flexplate/flywheel (I think the 300 also uses the
SBF trans
pattern -- the 300 is to long for the engine bay as well, so
don't get
that idea!). You can use a 300 trans setup and get a five speed.

You will simply have to alter the engine bay to fit any V-8 or
90 degree
V-6. Pick up a current issue of Hot Rod. There's a 61  American
wagon
with a SBC in it that looks near stock under the engine bay.
Well,
that's because the guy hand formed new inner fender panels to
look stock
but still fit the engine!

You CAN put a V-8 in with minimal cutting. The only thing that
needs to
come out is the "humps" just above the upper A arm mounting
points. The
humps are left-overs from the 1950-53(?) front suspension
design. A rod
used to go up to the apex (where there should be a small hole)
and
extend down to the upper shock mount for support. The upper
shock mount
was redesigned around 54 and the rod eliminated, but the
stamping was
never changed.

I've assisted with this, but didn't see the finished project --
don't
know how the exhaust ended up. With an SBC it's hard to get to
the plugs
-- the engine will need to be jacked up or access holes cut into
the
inner fender panels at just the right location. Then you take
the tires
off and use a long extension. This can be done and look neat. I
saw one
with 2-1/2" plastic plugs along the side for sparker access. One
solution to the exhaust is to mount the manifolds backwards
(swap left
to right) and curve the pipes back from the front. I saw one in
a
magazine (a 1950's "Speed Mechanics" -- might have been the
first V-8
small Rambler ever!) that did this.

Forget headers, unless you use "over the rail" types for an
early Nova
and cut holes in the inner fender panels near the firewall for
them to
exit. There was a 61-63 drag car built over the last couple
years that
uses that method (I have photos -- used in an AIM article).
Block
huggers MIGHT work, but I think the center exit will interfere
with the
steering box or shaft on the left side.

Another possibility is the 60 degree V-6s, Ford or Chevy (I
think all
the Chrysler V-6s are 90 degree?). The only problem is you'd
have to use
hot rod style accessory brackets. I looked at a Ford 2.9L in a
Bronco II
as a candidate once, and a 2.8L in an S-10. Both mount the
accessories
way off to the side of the engine, making it a wide
installation. This
can be corrected, but may take some custom brackets. I think
there are
aftermarket brackets for the GMs though.

I looked into four cylinders. The only one narrow enough to fit
without
major engine bay mods is an early 2.3L Ford. Later ones, and all
other
modern fours I could find (around 1994-95, when I was seriously
considering repowering my 63 American), had intakes that stuck
out to
far to the left. It is still possible to use one, like the Jeep
2.5L
from a Wrangler or Cherokee, but the left hump will need to come
off. At
least there's clearance on the right side though.

How it looks depends on how you finish off the inner fender
panels after
the hump is cut off. A flat piece of sheet metal is usually
welded in.
Grind the welds smooth and paint and it could look neat if not
near
stock. Put a vertical ridge or bead in it through the center and
it will
look stock. That's what the guy in the current hot rod magazine
did, and
I can assure you it looks stock enough I did a double-take -- I
know the
V-8 won't fit without removing those humps! Had to read to see
what he
did. It's very admirable work, even if it does have a Chevy
engine! The
only thing that would make it better is if it had a 250 or 290
AMC
V-8... though I'm sure most would go larger. I only mention the
250
because it was made at the time (last year was 61), and could
have
been...

_________________________________________________________________
Invite your Hotmail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live 
Spaces 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us



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

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:51:53 -0800
From: "Jim Blair" <carnuck@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] 258 6cyl swap into 63american convertible
To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <BAY114-F29470B776B78946B2C3447ACA90@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

A: I don't know why I forgot about this! My son's friend is selling my old 
'86 Comanche with 2.5L and 2wd 5 speed (the 4x4 one got crunched) It's a 
high miler (250,000+) but still runs surprisingly well. All the Renix TBI 
system still works fine. He wants $600 for it, but the 4.10 axles are 
probably worth something of that (far less than that mileage on them because 
I installed them at @200,000). (D30 reverse cut front with D35 rear)


From: Archimedes <Freedom@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] 258 6cyl swap into 63american
convertible
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: M Walter <redamc1963@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.1.20070118102024.019d6488@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed


"M Walter" <redamc1963@xxxxxxxxxxx> said:

>Here I am again asking advise on yet another idea on a
>powertrain swap for my beloved little red 'vert.  The thought
of cutting up
>the engine bay on this car to put in a 290  really makes me
cringe.
>Especially after seeing a couple examples on ebay.  So my
thoghts are now
>leaning toward a 258 or a 232, because it has to be an AMC.  I
have so far
>kept the car period correct, but not totally origional.  The
car is just to
>nice to be sporting the 196 ohv.  There is no aftermarket for
it and not
>much potential.  I already have a T14 to hook it up to.  Also
is there any
>difference in bell pattern up to '85or '86?

Since the later six is a lot longer than the 196, have you
thought about
finding a fuel-injected AMC 150 4cyl from a Jeep or Dakota
instead?  It
would fit in the engine bay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_Straight-4_engine

-- Marc

_________________________________________________________________
Laugh, share and connect with Windows Live Messenger 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline



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

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:14:14 -0500 (EST)
From: adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] 258 6cyl swap into 63american convertible
To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <200701191714.l0JHEEx22066@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

" From: "Jim Blair" <carnuck@xxxxxxxxxxx>
" 
" A: Just a little more here: The 250 is NOT the same size (length) as a 200 
" (it may still fit though) as it is based on the 300 and earlier 240. (Found 

no it isn't the same as the 144/170/200, but no it isn't based on the
240/300 either.  when they raised the deck they also
1. moved the cam
2. enlarged the water pump and oil pump
3. redesigned the bellhousing pattern and flywheel to sbf dimensions
as a result it's a couple of inches longer than the 200.

many things like cam, pistons, dist, and head are shared with the
littler sixes.

" I don't know when they changed the 200 bell to fit the same as V8, 

'80 according to fordsix.com.

" but I used an '80 something Ford Fairmont 200 C4 auto bellhousing to mount 
" my 170 in place of a 300 in my '75 F150 van.

early '80 maybe, '79 leftover?  the fairmont came out in '78...
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought


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

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:07:03 -0500 (EST)
From: adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] T-150 to T-5 adapter available!! Should be
	T-96	also!!
To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <200701191807.l0JI73h22334@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

" From: "Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM" <Francis.Swygert3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
" 
" Found this while looking at a Ford Six page because of the discussion
" about using the 200/250 six in an early American, and Andrew bringing up
" the Aussie crossflow heads. One of the articles states that a Ford top
" loader to T-5 adapter from California Pony Cars. A search turned up a
" vendor that carries them (www.cjponyparts.com). Not cheap at $365, but
" adapters are available for early bells (64-66 -- should be T-96??) 

afaik all the adapters originated with 'hacksaw al', linked to at
http://www.fordsix.com/tech/index.php - unfortunately, he's out of the
biz and the pages are long gone.

i didn't get the adapter info but i did manage to save the bellhousing
pg before it vanished.  his dates are a little different - '60-5 for
the ford '2.77' [t96?] and '67 - mid-'70s for the '3.03' [aka t150],
with a few others scattered about.  maybe that '64-6 is for the
dagenham 4sp used briefly.

they added a second bellhousing pattern in '66, a slight variation on
the earlier, and there's a '66-7 bell used with a '4-bolt topcover'
tranny not otherwise identified.  he did say this bell is a little
taller than earlier ones.

i did catch that he sold his adapter line to a vendor, but neither of
them returned my emails.

" and "later early" bells (65-73, "top loader" pattern, also T-150).
" These are kits, not just the adapter, that include the crossmember and
" driveshaft yoke. The T-96 model would use the same u-joint as the early
" Fords, not sure about the T-150 u-joint.

wouldn't matter - just use the t150 yoke.  the output splines are the
same!

" The CPC link has an e-mail contact, but the site is "under construction"

since july 3rd!  what are they waiting for, carpenters?
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought


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

Message: 8
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:15:49 -0600
From: "Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM"
	<Francis.Swygert3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] 258 6cyl swap into 63american convertible
To: <carnuck@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID:
	<4CC05BF0CC3F114281434B00B733E2A325B017@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

NEGATIVE JIM!!!! Check the Ford Six site. It's easy to get the 240/300
confused with the 144/170/200 and the 250. The Ford site has extensive
photos, and head swaps between the 200/250. I know you've done a lot of
work on Canadian cars, being so close to the border. Maybe Canadian
Fords had a bored 240 that was used in mid to large sized cars before
the 250 came out? I always thought the 250 was based on the 240/300
block, but found out I was wrong a couple years ago. 

The 240 came out in 1964, 300 in 65 for trucks. As far as I have been
able to determine the 300 was never used in cars. It appears that the
240 was phased out after 1971, the 300 ran through 1996. The 250
appeared in 1969 and was produced through 84. Wikipedia has basic info
on the Australian Falcon six, which is derived from the 250. It's
basically the same block, but since 88 it has had fuel injection and a
single overhead cam (SOHC) head, since 2002 a DOHC head. It is still
being produced, apparently. 

To recap: the Ford 250 is a tall deck version of the 144/170/200 family.
The deck was raised over 1.5" to get a longer stroke (0.78" longer, I
believe, but that may not be an accurate number). The cam location was
also moved up, so the timing set is different. Many other parts,
including heads, will interchange. It IS NOT based on the old 240/300
block. Check the Tech section and the "200 - 250 Swap FAQ" for
differences. 



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

Message: 9
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:28:44 -0800
From: "Jim Blair" <carnuck@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] 'She's My Little Rock 'n Roll'
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <BAY114-F53151897A4DE7B1735ADFACA90@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

A: If gas price continue to climb (they are touching the $3 a gallon mark 
here near Seattle again) then a 2.5L conversion with EFI would be better. A 
2wd front axle from an XJ or MJ may yield the rotors needed for the disc 
conversion as well (there are 2 kinds. 1 piece hubs with tapered bearings 
and complete hubs like 4x4 XJs use)


From: "Brien Tourville" <hh7x@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AMC-List] 'She's My Little Rock 'n Roll'
To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <45AEDF59.18392.9C5BB2C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII




{quote]
Hello AMC people!   Here I am again asking advise on yet another
idea
on
a
powertrain swap for my beloved little red 'vert.  The thought of
cutting
up the engine bay on this car to put in a 290  really makes me
cringe.
Especially after seeing a couple examples on ebay.  So my
thoughts
are
now
leaning toward a 258 or a 232, because it has to be an AMC.  I
have
so
far
kept the car period correct, but not totally original.  The car
is
just
to nice to be sporting the 196 ohv.  There is no aftermarket for
it
and
not much potential.  I already have a T14 to hook it up to.
Also is
there
any difference in bell pattern up to '85or '86?    THANK YOU
once
again,
M.Walter redamc1963@xxxxxxxxxxx
]quote}


<>


Get a '97 or newer 2WD JEEP cherokee 4.0 engine / auto. trans /
ECM &
harness & shiftier out of a donor and install the package - you
will
be glad you did.

Shop www.car-parts.com > find who has lo mile offerings,
and eMail an offer of around $1,500.00 for the whole shooting
match - delivered.   You will find a taker in this market.

also: NAXJA.org > post a wanted there.

the value of the Red vehicle will improve dramatically which
helps
when you're trading in for that new Chevy Impala later on.....

Make a stand for the 196 & T14 in your garage & put  Museum
Lamps
on 'em for effect - buff out that valve cover ......

I like 'period mechanics' as well as the next gear Nasher,
buhutt
a Red convertible that can go anywhere, service anywhere and run
with
the Greyhounds is a logical choice.

upgrade the front brakes to DISC while your putterin.

Between this list and the Strokers list, you'll have little
difficulty in completing an up to date 4.O Efi 4spd. Automatic
Red convertible 'Classic' that sips gas and swats Hoodoos.



Gonna' skin your knuckles regardless - and the end money will be
the
same.

_________________________________________________________________
Turn searches into helpful donations. Make your search count. 
http://click4thecause.live.com/search/charity/default.aspx?source=hmemtagline_donation&FORM=WLMTAG



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

Message: 10
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:34:40 -0800
From: "Jim Blair" <carnuck@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] 258 6cyl swap into 63american convertible
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <BAY114-F2272305F6BECCA286DEA2DACA90@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

A: Aah! Taller deck! So that's why the PS and alt brackets, etc didn't work 
from a 250 to 170 (they were the same brackets as the 300 I originally had 
according to the part numbers) The 250 did have a V8 bell and not the same 
small bell as the 200/170 (it was in a '75 Granada)
  Maybe an Ozzie Falcon OHC 250 would be fun in an older Rambler, but I'd 
still go with the AMC 2.5L (which isn't as wide as the GM 2.5)


NEGATIVE JIM!!!! Check the Ford Six site. It's easy to get the
240/300
confused with the 144/170/200 and the 250. The Ford site has
extensive
photos, and head swaps between the 200/250. I know you've done a
lot of
work on Canadian cars, being so close to the border. Maybe
Canadian
Fords had a bored 240 that was used in mid to large sized cars
before
the 250 came out? I always thought the 250 was based on the
240/300
block, but found out I was wrong a couple years ago.

The 240 came out in 1964, 300 in 65 for trucks. As far as I have
been
able to determine the 300 was never used in cars. It appears
that the
240 was phased out after 1971, the 300 ran through 1996. The 250
appeared in 1969 and was produced through 84. Wikipedia has
basic info
on the Australian Falcon six, which is derived from the 250.
It's
basically the same block, but since 88 it has had fuel injection
and a
single overhead cam (SOHC) head, since 2002 a DOHC head. It is
still
being produced, apparently.

To recap: the Ford 250 is a tall deck version of the 144/170/200
family.
The deck was raised over 1.5" to get a longer stroke (0.78"
longer, I
believe, but that may not be an accurate number). The cam
location was
also moved up, so the timing set is different. Many other parts,
including heads, will interchange. It IS NOT based on the old
240/300
block. Check the Tech section and the "200 - 250 Swap FAQ" for
differences.

_________________________________________________________________
FREE online classifieds from Windows Live Expo ? buy and sell with people 
you know 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://expo.live.com?s_cid=Hotmail_tagline_12/06



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

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


End of AMC-List Digest, Vol 12, Issue 31
****************************************