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

["Larry R. Daum" <mramc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

There were at least two early articles on the GM rotary AMC was 
suppose to use. One in Hi-Performance Cars and another in I believe 
Popular Mechanix. Both jumped the gun on releasing info on the GM 
Rotary. I have both article here some where. I just can't remember 
where I put them. Anyway the GM Rotary was about 120 Horse power . It 
would have made the Pacer several hundred pounds lighter and much 
more RX-7 Mazda like. Keep in mind the RX-7 was Rotary front engine 
with rear wheel drive. I've actually given serious thought to getting 
a Pacer and putting a Hi-Po Mazda Rotary engine in one. It would be 
interesting just to get a good idea of what the original production 
concept of Pacer would have been. LRDaum mramc@xxxxxxxxxxx



Frank Swygert 
<mailto:amc-list%40amc-list.com?Subject=%5BAmc-list%5D%20%22A%20Pacer%20in%20Your%20Future%22&In-Reply-To=>farna 
at att.net
Mon Sep 17 14:03:48 PDT 2007


----------

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 money 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" 
<<http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list>johnelle at qwest.net>

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>http://farna.home.att.net/AMC.html
(free download available!)




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amc-list.com/pipermail/amc-list/attachments/20070918/2526417b/attachment.htm 
_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list