Re: [Amc-list] Bummer

[Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>]

Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>
>> In my experience 199's are uncommon, and 232's common as dirt.
> 
> I thought that too, till I built my American!
> Two of the three I parted had 199's in them!

Huh. I wonder if it's a coastal thing?

Well put some stamps on the next 199 crank and rods and mail it to me. 
Actually, just the rods would do, I've got one crank.

My eyes were opened about stroke and revs and power when I finally went 
through the numbers with SCDynoSim. I knew the relationships, but I'd 
never done the what-ifs. Stroking made sense for AMC, Grandma doesn't 
like the noise of an engine at 4000 rpm. And displacement is cheap.

But a motor I can peak to 6000, and run occasionally above 5000, would 
be lots of fun and not too expensive.

I know it won't fit, but a 61-63 American wagon keeps sticking in my 
head. Have to open up the firewall (ouch)


> The good thing about the 199 cars is they both had 3:31's in them. One even had a twingrip ready to go!

Oooh that's a nice thing! small rear with 3.31 twingrip!!
_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list