Re: [Amc-list] 1956. Oil Filter Trivia

[Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, farna@xxxxxxx wrote:

> I'm more familiar with the 195.6 than I want to be anymore! I
> can't see you having a problem running detergent oil. I did in
> my American w/195.6 OHV for 14 years, no problems. And I drove
> it back then -- 5-7K annually for all but three of those years


Yeah, it's not a real worry. I am puzzled by the concerns over
lack of zinc (ZDDP) in modern oils. While it's hard to get
hard data about lubrication (why is that?!) it does seem the
zinc is for extreme cases, eg. metal on metal caused by heat,
hig shear, etc, and not just cold/startup. It just seems that
in a low-performance, high-clearance motor like the 195.6, the
gains of modern oils (life, lubricity, stability, blah blah)
totally outweigh the possible disadvantages.

The lack of full filtration is the worst feature of that motor
(so it seems, I haven't owned one before, the annual head-torque
and valve adjust doesn't bother me, like most of us nuts here
I over-maintain my cars).

The brain-surgeon guy a B & E Transmissions in San Francisco
told me years ago that advances in trannie fluid alone improves
life and performance of old-design transmissions. Can't hurt,
look how long my little air-cooled trans lasted in my Classic
wagon, behind a 232, and I used it hard.



> It's adequate for an American as long as you have the 2V
> carb. In a Classic it's a bit strained in today's traffic. I
> stopped running it because I wanted something with a bit more
> room inside and mainly because I wanted a more modern engine
> for a true daily driver. If I wasn't relying on the car for
> transportation I'd have kept it.

I have a fantasy of driving this thing to Irvine, 45 miles each
way, but I do have other cars so it wouldn't be a hard-core
commuter. I take it slow 60 - 65mph max (to the consternation
of O.C. drivers, 80mph with cellphone glued to ear, screw those
people!), it's all flat and level and never gets THAT hot here.
A good cooling system, ignition and modern maintenence it should be
fine.


> Put a Pertronix in it by all means, and a hotter coil.

I have a brand-new-in-box MARK TEN capacitive discharge ignition,
it will take more restraint than I have to not install that! It's
just too cool!  Complete with manual, warrenty card and window
sticker! 1974 high-tech!



> Get
> rid of the stock muffler and put a 2" pipe front to back. Even
> a modern 2" in/out muffler (not turbo type) will flow more than
> the stock one with that 1.25" tailpipe!!

It's bigger than that, isn't it?! It is small, also very rusty,
but it will have to last a little while. It's all intact for now.
But you're right, even 2" would be an improvement.


> Don't forget to read up in the TSM on the Twin-Stick --
> it's really a five speed!!

I drove one before, I really enjoyed it. With these old trannies,
you don't get to shift fast. With the manual everything, clutch
pedal, two levers, you just move along in city traffic... at a
slower pace, not so much HP, as overall pace. I drive slower
in my 63 Classic, not because it's slow, but because it's a
total pleasure to drive this big, silent, smooth, soft-sprung
thing... luckily I'm enough of a curmudgeon to willfully
ignore all the in-a-hurry losers around me not enjoying their
drive. Their lifestyle choice, not mine!


Hey, maybe you know... mine's got a vacuum switch, mounted on
the passenger side inner fender. Two wires run into the harness,
a steel line and hose runs to the manifold. It's not in the 62
TSM, and I don't have one for 63 (yet). Any idea what it's for?!
_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list