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

[Ken Ames <ameskg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I believe it was Car&Driver, but at the moment I can't find the issue. 

Ken
Quoting 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
> 


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