Re: [Amc-list] why "upgrade"?

[Matt Haas <mhaas@xxxxxxx>]

Mark,

Have you considered taping up the vent windows (something like the green 
masking tape) to see if the noise is actually coming from them? How are 
the roof rail seals (it's a hard top, right?)? Glass aligned well?

Matt

Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Speaking of wind noise.
> Does anyone know if putting in the replacement wing window seals
> someone started repoping makes any difference?
> Between wind noise and my stereo cranked up so I can hear it I 
> go about half deaf!
>   I remember there always being wind noise, anyway the new seals help?
> I'd consider taking them out if i thought it would make a difference, but
> man that would kill the nostalgia!
> Though after a 110 miles today, I'm not feeling very nostalgic!
> 
> --
> Mark Price
> Morgantown, WV
> 1969 AMC Rambler, 4.0L, EFI, T-5
> 2004 Grand Cherokee Laredo, 4.7L, Quadratrc II
> " Chronic Pain Hurts"
> 
>  -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Frank Swygert <farna@xxxxxxx>
>> My 63 Classic has been upgraded a good bit -- Jag IRS, AMC/Jeep 4.6L EFI six, 
>> AW-4 auto trans (w/manual controller), T-bird rack and pinion steering, 79 
>> Spirit front disc brakes (plus Jag rear discs), S-10 tilt steering column, power 
>> bucket seats from a 90 or 91 Eagle Premier (at least it's somewhat AMC!), and 
>> 90s Ford Ranger power booster/master cylinder. Even so, it hardly feels like a 
>> modern car. You still have the wind noise and occasional vibrations and sounds 
>> from the 63 body that modern cars just don't have. So even with extensive 
>> upgrading you still have some of that "old car" feel. I've left the original 
>> instrumentation alone simply because the 1-12 speedo is part of the "Rambler 
>> look". But I agree with you in principle, old cars should be enjoyed for what 
>> they are, not envious of what they aren't! My goal when building was to build a 
>> modern Rambler, something similar to what AMC would have been capable of 
>> producing had they kept the 63-66 body through the mid 80s. 
>>
>> I've always felt they should have kept the 69 Rambler (American) sedan and gave 
>> it a facelift to replace the Rebel instead of a bigger car, but stretch it to 
>> the 112" wheelbase of the 63-66 Classic for more leg room. Drop the Ambo, then 
>> use the Matador as the largest car, especially since the main difference between 
>> the Matador and Ambo is the extended wheelbase that adds no room! The American 
>> could have even had a similar extension and replaced the bog body altogether. 
>> Similar to what Chrysler did in the 80s -- using the Volare/Aspen body to 
>> repalce their big cars. Would have kept AMC as the compact leader and saved lots 
>> of money with just two major car lines (Hprnet/Gremlin then the American/Ambo 
>> combo). Could have even left the American name on the smaller one. Then spend 
>> money on developing a good four for the Gremlin instead of more car models. I 
>> think attempting to compete with the big three was a fatal mistake, and history 
>> seems to prove me correct. Just one of the thi
>>  ngs I'd have considered, but then I have 20/20 vision in the matter working for 
>> me now! 
>>
>> INCORRECT TOM!! My car had the M-35 with 3.31 axle. You're forgetting that the 
>> torque converter has a torque multiplication factor of at least 2.5:1 (more 
>> likely 3:1). So you need less axle for the same performance. I installed a 3.78 
>> axle from an OD car behind my auto once. Left it in their about two months then 
>> switched back. No performance gain whatsoever -- at least nothing noticeable. 
>> The only thing it did was increase engine rpm by 500 at cruising speed. A stick 
>> has to have more gear since there is no torque multiplication helping it out. 
>> Now the stock 2.87 gear would probably have been a dog in comparison to the 
>> 3.31. 
>>
>> ---------------
>> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:38:31 -0800
>> From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>
>>
>> I'm all for -- if you are driving and old car, it should drive like an old 
>> car. OK scary brakes and crappy tires must go, etc, but utterly modernizing 
>> an old car -- what's the point? Get a modern car!
>>
>> The secret is I think as I said before, the 3.77 axle and manual trans. 
>> With an auto and around 3:1 this car would suck for performance. 
>>
>> -- 
>> 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
> 
> 
> 

-- 
mhaas@xxxxxxx
Cincinnati, OH
http://www.mattsoldcars.com
1967 Rambler American wagon
1968 Rambler American sedan
=================================================================
According to a February 2003 survey of Internet holdouts released
by UCLA's Center for Communication Policy, people cite
not having a computer as the No. 1 reason they won't go online.

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