Re: [Amc-list] Re; NEED 195.6 (forwarded)- Sort of

[adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)]

" From: "John Elle" <johnelle@xxxxxxxxx>
" 
"  
" 
" Snip
" 
" 3. There is a good alternative engine -- a late model Ford 200 or 250 
" (the tall deck 200, made through the late 80s, not related to the 300).
" 
" Snip
" 
" Or the earlier 140 or 170 cu in I-6 but this is also an engine that has 
" a cast in (to the head) intake manifold leaving almost no options to 
" carburetion modifications and when new as compared to other engines of
" the same size developed less horse power and got worse gas mileage than
" other I-6's of the time. This is an engine that I would not want in a
" Falcon or a Ford Pick Up and surely would not go through the effort to
" back fit into an AMC product that I own. But then again, that is my
" opinion. 

this is true of us-made engines.  however, ford in australia and
argentina also made these engines, with a 12-port head and separate
intake.  these heads are quite popular with ford six fiends up here.

the intake i've seen pictured is quite wide from a rambler
perspective, so you might not be any forrarder unless you can fab an
intake.

another possible point in favor of the ford:  falcons and mustangs up
to '65/6 used a '2.77' tranny that looks -a-lot- like a warner t-96.
i haven't been able to find anything that says one way or the other,
but i know ford did use other warners, t-86s and t-89s.  if it is a
warner, the 200 could be bolted directly to the rambler tranny without
adapters.
________________________________________________________________________
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