Re: [Amc-list] Performance 196

[Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>]

> I'd love to do something to a 196 OHV, and turbo does seem to be the way.

Besides head/block sealing issues, the intake side is so poor that I think 
the thing to do is simply leave stock valve sizes and simply boost it. I 
doubt that massive port and valve work would get you what another 2 psi of 
boost would get, cheaper and faster. Plus the stroke is so long it simply 
takes a long time to fill a cylinder.

Stock, the whole motor pumps 212 cfm at 5000 rpm! I assume 75% volumetric 
efficiency for that calc, which is probably about right or maybe optimistic!

A suck-through turbo with a Weber or Holley 390 would be simplest.

Would the very low volume of the cast-in-head manifold help with lag 
issues? With backfire explosion side effects?

There's the issue of no cams available, apparently not even 
stock-replacements! Frank had one re-ground, but almost certainly a turbo 
just wins all around.

Dick Datson makes some arguments that the 195.6 OHV has a massively strong 
bottom end, hence would take a lot of boost, but who knows. It's at least 
not inherently weak, other than only 4 mains. But even double torque isn't 
THAT much force.

Doubling the cylinder charge somewhere in the rpm range of 2000 - 4500 
would be a huge, huge improvement, if you could keep the head sealed!

> Another issue I'm curious about is oiling; Besides the oil filter/full
> flow vs partial flow difference between the '65 and those in prior years,
> are there any differences in the pump itself?  Are there any oiling
> issues that could be addressed as part of a quality rebuild (like on the
> 290-401s)?

I think Frank said that the pump body itself is different, eg. the partial 
vs. full flow... but it allegedly bolts on, but will not fit in a pre-64 
American. It MAY fit, apparently, with a remote oil filter adapter.

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