Re: [Amc-list] Rambler six comma fast

[adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)]

" From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>
" 
" Frank Swygert wrote:
" > In order to get the best transmission options you definitely want a 72+ 
" > block! 
" 
" Absolutely. I can't think of any transmission I'd LIKE that would fit 
" behind the old six pattern. (What's the choice, the BW autos, T96, T14, 
" anything else at all? Funky old Nash crashboxes don't count :-)

i really can't think what i should ask for it, but i have one of the
infamous 'mexican' bellhousings.  this will put an amc t-10 onto a
pre-'72 six, and by that token would also accept a doug nash 5sp and i
suspect a dne 6sp with the amc input from a 5sp.

i've mentioned this before - it has the shape and reinforcements to be
drilled for a gm tranny pattern but it's also clearly way too deep for
any gm trannies i know.  very mysterious...

" > A 72-mid 80 block (cast iron intake) would be best as they are 
" > slightly heavier than mid 80+ (aluminum intake). Lucky for you the bore 
" > is the same for the 199/232/258, and the manual trans crank flanges are 
" > the same. 
" 
" And luckily those are common enough. The 'tall deck' years are in there 
" too, right? Damn, someone needs to go through the TSMs and Datson books 
" and type all that crap into one huge-a** spreadsheet so we have it all 
" in one place! bore stroke rod length pin height deck height ... not 
" rocket science. Four people in a room with beer and keyboards could get 
" it done in an afternoon.

i could probably do it all myself without beer in a couple hours.

on the 199/232/258/4.0:
bore:		199, 232, 258, 3.75".  4.0, 3.88"
stroke:		199, 3.00".  232, 3.50".  258, 3.895".  4.0, 3.44".
pin height:	1.6" +/-, except '80-'90 258s, 1.65"
rod length:	199, 6.125".  232, 5.875" '64-'70; 6.125" '71-9.  258,
		5.875".  4.0, 6.125".
	or:	6.125", 199, '71-9 232, 4.0.
		5.875", '64-'70 232, 258.
deck height:	'64-'70, 'low'.  '71-up, 'high' [+ ~1/4"].

exact deck height can be derived from the 199 and 232, which were
designed for zero deck clearance at tdc.  they used different pistons;
the 258 was designed to run 'down the hole' so slugs could be shared
with the 232 - until '80 when the 232 was dropped.  '80s slugs won't
fit any six but the 258, but afaik they fit all 258s.  they come back
to [near] zero deck clearance.

block weight:	'64-'80, heavy.  '81-5, light.  '86-up, variously
		heavy.
bellhousing pattern:	'64-'71, small early six.  '72-up, gen2 v8.

head:		'64-7, 56cc closed chamber.  '68-'76, 66cc open
		chamber.  '77-9, 74cc open chamber.
		'80s - afaict started out 74cc but then shrank almost
		immediately - back to 66cc? - then possibly again in
		'83 and/or '86; i recall late-'80s specs of 9.2:1
		which would be ~60cc.
		4.0, 56-58cc closed chamber.

		also, '72 - first bridged-rocker head; '74 - last
		shaft rocker head.

pistons change for those years also, and by my calc even though cr
dropped in '77 the slugs still have smaller dish than '68-'76.

'68-'70 199 slugs were flattops.  afaik '65-7 weren't but were
obsoleted long ago, service replaced by the flattops.

i still wonder if the 4.0 isn't -really- 3 7/8" x 3 7/16" - 3.875" x
3.4375"...
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought
_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list