Re: [Amc-list] Look

["Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM" <Francis.Swygert3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

TomJ:
(I always fantasize about fitting a 58-59 American mono-gauge
dash in it...)
------------------

Frank:
So what's stopping you? To sweeten the idea, some suppliers make an all
electronic early CJ speedo/gauge cluster (all in one 5" or so pod) that
should fit -- or can be fitted. I think it would definitely be a
conversation piece, especially since one is more likely to find a newer
model dash grafted into an old car, not so much the other way around. 

If you really hate the dash, just pull it and make a flat metal cover
for the defroster duct and such, and mount an old 50 or so Nash
"monopod" on the column! ;> 

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

TomJ:
I think this quality problem exists in other American cars of
the era, I don't really know if AMC was better or worse. It's
not simply the increased amount of plastic; the plastic in the
'63 is still good! there was an overall thinning of wear margins
all around that makes them "tinnier". I bought a 76 Hornet,
then a 77 AMX, brand new off the showroom floor, and both were
squeaky and noisy in ways that 20+ years later I now know were
by design (because I've learned more and have taken apart/built
identical models).

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

Frank:
I agree -- all 70s US cars suffer quality problems, and that's one
reason people started turning to foreign makes, especially for small
economy cars. The US producers, even AMC (which had the most economy
experience), just weren't ready to deliver decent small cars. There's
very little difference in costs to build a small car vs. a large one,
for one thing. Some of the dies are larger, and there's a bit more
material, but all the labor is about the same. The material and tooling
cost is really insignificant. There's more perceived value in a larger
car -- it's hard to sell a small car with the same profit margin as a
larger one because people just don't feel they're getting much for their
money. So selling small cars just isn't (wasn't) as profitable. That
perception has changed a bit now, people are willing to look at features
and styling as much as size, but it's still there to a degree.

I think the manufacturers had some lessons to learn about substituting
plastic for metal in the early 70s Tom. Today's cars use more plastic
and have much less squeaks. Even a Concord isn't as bad as a Hornet --
but the move up-scale meant it couldn't be. So there was a learning
curve. 

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

Tom:
My 63 Classic, and the 62 Ambo, the 59 American, had their
share of old-car-itis and designed-in skimpy brakes etc, but
fit'n'finish was/is excellent. Repairability, maintainability,
documentation, etc were/are all better.

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

Frank: 
Well, as far as the brakes and mechanicals are concerned, I think you're
comparing apples to oranges. Driving conditions and expectations were
much different when those cars came out than they are today. Even great
brakes in the early sixties are probably barely adequate for today. A
172.6 flathead powering a 1950 Rambler convertible made it "spunky", a
laughable description if you drove the car today -- my 195.6 flathead
powered 61 American sedan (virtually the same car under the skin,
thought the convert was a little heavier), even after the engine was
rebuilt, could be described as "adequate" with OD and a 4.11 rear axle,
but never would I have called it "spunky"!! 

I have to agree 100% on (most) repairs, maintenance, and docs. The 61
American owner's manual has everything needed to maintain the car, no
shop manual needed for anything but major repairs! The later ones
weren't as good though. 
_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list