[Amc-list] t96, torque, revvy sixes, was Re: more information on my 63 770

[Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>]

On Sunday 05 August 2007 14:27:02 Frank Swygert wrote:

> The only real problem with changing the engine is the Twin-Stick. I'd
> definitely want to keep that! The 195.6 used a T-96 transmission with OD
> unit, so it's not suited to anything bigger. You could probably get by
> with using behind a 232 IF you are easy on the car. I used one behind a
> 4.0L six, was easy on it, and it still ripped the synchronizer out in
> less than 100 miles (more like 50).

I'm pretty good at ignoring reality when it doesn't suit my needs, apparently. 
As I actually MEASURE stuff in repeatable ways though it gets harder to 
ignore the facks...!

I've always tried to keep the revs down and tune for mileage and on sixes (OK 
all the AMX owners just left the room) but I do drive the hell out of my cars 
so $ and reliability matters. But My recent 2000+ mile trip at 75mph with 35+ 
degrees advance, and John Elle's 3000+rpm 258, and Barney Navarro's Indy 
motor made me think that I've been simply wrong in my approach.

I am beginning to think that the way to get good power, good mileage, 
reliability etc with lightweight Rambler driveline using the 64-up six is to 
rev the sh*t out of it. Assuming that you have and want a six in an otherwise 
ordinary Rambler.

Admittedly a bit out there as an example, Navarro seems to have run his first 
(single turbo) Rambler six over 7000 rpm. It's a 199 sleeved down to 181 ci 
or so. OK he added 30? psi boost, let's skip that. But he did it was a DEAD 
STOCK 199 bottom end! No mods to the block other than some drilled oil 
passages to feed the head (and the dry sleeves, forget those here too). I 
assume he balanced the crank, rods and pistons in the usual way.


Take a dead-stock 199 in good condition, even used. Get a spare early head, 
port it, maybe bigger valves (not much more $$ than a valve job), put good 
induction (81-up stock aluminum 2bbl if it would flow enough, and it's 
matching exh manifold) a big exhaust, and gear it to cruise 75mph at 3600 - 
4000 rpm. This would require a new cam, but that can be done in-car easily 
enough.

I suppose a 4.0 head with EFI if you go in for electronicated motoring (I do 
too much of that crap daily to want it in my cars).

(Back to the original quoted message...) since torque would not be increased, 
only revs, you could to this in an older car in front of a T96, I bet, unless 
you revved to do hole shots. A 199 is not exactly torquey.

A key side effect of the 199 bottom end is that it's a bricksh*t house block 
(used as-is for the bigger motors) and a cast steel crank. It appears that 
all of the 199 cranks are cast steel. No one wants them! Free!

Boost would require good pistons and all that. Increasing revs yet under 6000 
would be easy and cheap.

I guess it's time for me to drag out the old Desktop Dyno program and do 
what-ifs with displacement at stock revs vs. 199ci with cam and high revs.
_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list