Re: [Amc-list] '66-'69 Rambler American differences

[Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Your absolutely correct.
I would not install an 8 in a prehang mod American without at least a set of subframe connectors.
It's been done many times by lots of people, but I would not do it!
A guy back in my youth dropped a friggin 454 in a 63? Chevy II like the little tiny American version!
 I rode in it, ONE TIME! You could honest to whatever power you believe in feel the floors buckle when that thing torqued the body! It ran in the mid 12's. No way I would ever get in it again.
  A solid 390-401 would do much the same to an American. If driven hard often, someting is going to crack.
Maybe not, If it's not a stock resto, Why take the chance when building a car from scratch!

Oh, yes the Chevy had subframe connectors and a six point cage in it the next year!!! 
Even the crazy owner wized up!
I never rode in it again though, I don't particularly like riding in a 11 second car when some else is in control!!!
Not  a Typo it ran 11.90's after he fixed all the body flex and it hooked up!

--
Mark Price
Morgantown, WV
1969 AMC Rambler, 4.0L, EFI, T-5
" I was different before people dared to be different" 

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Matt Haas <mhaas@xxxxxxx>
> As I've been writing this, it's starting to sound like a slam against 
> certain year cars but it's not my intention to do that. American's are 
> well designed and built cars but it's just that some years are better 
> able to cope with tons of torque. With that being said...
> 
> Actually, I would think you'd have a good chance of tearing up anything 
> earlier than a mid year 1968 body with the torque put out by a stock 390 
> without doing some structural work. I think I recall hearing that stock 
> 343's were enough to cause cowl cracks (and maybe even cracked 
> windshield but I'm less sure about that) in the 67's (the cowl was 
> cracked in my 68 American when I got it and it just has a six). Also, 
> the cowl was changed for 1969 and it looks like the changes were to make 
> the panel more rigid.
> 
> The sub frame extenders Andrew mentions are part of a change that AMC 
> made in 1968 to meet a new federal crash worthiness standard (it had to 
> do with how far the steering column was allowed to move into the 
> passenger compartment in an accident). To meet this standard, the 
> American's got new floor pans, new fire wall, the front frame sills were 
> extended to tie into the rear sills, the inner fender panels between the 
> firewall and shock towers were changed, and there was some bracing added 
> in various places.
> 
> Speaking of bracing, SC/Ramblers have torque links from the factory. 
> There are braces that go inside the frame sills for them. If you are 
> going to put them on and what them to look and work properly, you'll 
> need to do some floor surgery to install them.
> 
> For the most part, the rear body tub (everything behind the firewall) is 
> the same from 64 - 69 with the exceptions of the changes I noted above 
> and the rear window openings. The rear tail pan does change over the 
> years but a later pan could be put on an earlier body since the quarters 
> and trunk pan are the same. 67 -69 use the same tail pan and I think the 
> other years are all one year only deals. For parts in front of the 
> firewall, there were lots, and lots of changes. Everything on a 1966 is 
> basically one year only (except the hood and bumper) and it's different 
> enough that there's some effort to put different year parts on it.
> 
> For more research, take a look at http://www.amcyclopedia.org/node/17 
> and http://www.amcyclopedia.org/node/18.
> 
> Matt
> 
> Sandwich Maker wrote:
> > " From: Jeffrey.Bohler@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > " 
> > " Along with another car, I purchased the remains of a SC/Rambler almost 4
> > " []
> > " removed all the parts he could, cut up the body, and got rid of it.
> > " []
> > " 
> > " If I were to find a different hardtop shell to use as the basis, other than
> > " the taillight panel on the '66, are there any other differences that would
> > " need to be addressed or would make one of these years not usable?
> > 
> > the grille and lower front valance are different too; the headlight
> > doors are symmetrical and swappable r/l.
> > 
> > the floor doesn't have the long front subframe extenders on '66s,
> > maybe '67s too.
> > 
> > since you're making a clone for driver fun, if you find a '66 - why
> > not leave the '66 details?
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> mhaas@xxxxxxx
> Cincinnati, OH
> http://www.mattsoldcars.com
> 1967 Rambler American wagon
> 1968 Rambler American sedan
> =================================================================
> According to a February 2003 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Amc-list mailing list
> Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list

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