Re: [Amc-list] "A Pacer in Your Future"

[Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx]

I'd be interested in seeing that article.
Still, even if the car had been designed as FWD the change to rear drive would probably have been cheaper then scrapping the whole design. In the 70's the rear suspension would have probably been designed as a live axle anyway to keep costs down.
   My favorite Pacer was the one HotRod or Carcraft built with a 401 in it. All I can remember is they painted it white and IIRC blanked out the quarter windows to make it a Ute. That last mod would have killed half the appeal of the Pacer as the good viewing area was one of its selling points.
  Shame it couldn't have been intro'd during the musclecar era. A Plain Jane, stripper Pacer with a 401, 4 speed would be just plain cool!
 Of course a Plain Jane anything with a 401, 4 speed is always cool!!!

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

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Frank Swygert <farna@xxxxxxx>
> The assumption of front wheel drive is one that I had too for years, but an 
> article turned up from an auto design magazine disproving that idea. A GM rotary 
> engine was to be used, but it would still be rear drive. AMC did some market 
> research in Atlanta that explored various engine placements. Rear drive was the 
> most accepted, with many disliking front drive to the point of saying they 
> wouldn't consider buying a US made front drive car. Funny that GM switched, but 
> GM hasn't cared what customers really think for a long time -- if it's 
> cheaper/better for THEM then is also that for the customer -- like it or not! 
> 
> I don't know what transmission was planned, but would assume the same ones AMC 
> was already using. The key attribute of the rotary was its compact size and 
> relatively light weight for the power produced. It didn't get better mileage 
> than similar sized piston engines. That was one problem GM faced -- that and 
> that it produced higher amounts of some pollutants (I forget which). GM just 
> gave up since they couldn't get better mileage and would have to switch a large 
> percentage of production over to achieve any cost savings. Rotary's also have 
> fewer moving parts and potential savings in production costs, but would need 
> completely new tooling -- nothing from a piston engien could be used. So instead 
> of the massive cash layout GM canned the project. They had asked the US 
> Government for a freeze on pollution standards for the rotary to give them more 
> time to fix it, but the gov't said NO. GM said "we'll write the development 
> costs off then". End of engine! AMC had spent way to much mo
>  ney on development of the Pacer to can the project like GM could afford to do, 
> so they modified the firewall and engine mounts to stick their six in. They 
> didn't make it wider to enclose the driveshaft -- it was already that wide! 
> That's another myth debunked by the article. 
> 
> I don't know if performance would have been any better with the GM rotary or 
> not, I have no clue as to size or power ratings. The Pacer was a heavy car for 
> its size though, so it may not have been better performing even losing a couple 
> hundred pounds. I don't think trimming a couple hundred pounds from a stock 258 
> Pacer would help a noticeable amount. 
> 
> --------------
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:45:59 -0400
> From: "John Elle" <johnelle@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> SNIP
> Kent wrote: 
> I can't help but wonder what the Pacer would have been, had GM not screwed
> up the engine deal.  Did AMC change the trannie out to the one that was
> used, or was that trannine planned for the rotory engine, as well?  Anyone
> know about that?
> 
> SNIP
> 
> It is generally accepted that the Pacer was originally designed to be a
> front wheel drive automobile using the Curtis Wright Rotary engine and a
> transaxle sourced from GM. When that fell through the corporate AMC I6 and
> the 904 torqueflyte was installed as quickly as possible into the existing
> design. If you get the chance to work on a Pacer you will find that the
> front sub frame (which has a bit of notoriety as an alternative to a Mustang
> II front suspension in hot rods) still exists and is held on to the car with
> 4 bolts common to the techniques used by contemporary front drive cars. The
> fact that the cradle is there does make the car a bit awkward to work on
> with the engine and trans combination that came with the car but you can get
> a bit of an insight into what it might have looked like if the best laid
> plans of mice and men had not gone awry! 
> 
> -- 
> Frank Swygert
> Publisher, "American Motors Cars" 
> Magazine (AMC)
> For all AMC enthusiasts
> http://farna.home.att.net/AMC.html
> (free download available!)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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