Re: [Amc-list] that NOS rebuild 195.6OHV...

[Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>]

Tech items:

The "volcano" lump on the 58 (automatic) crankshaft: the flywheel fits 
just fine over it. I can't remember which way the clutch disc goes in, 
springs towards the front or the rear of the car? If rear, then the 
clutch disc clears the volcano too! I doubt the pilot would work out, 
too far to the rear of the car.

I gave a good stare at the top of the thing with an eye towards the 
headbolt issue and turboing. I think Dick Datson is wrong, 
unfortunately. Yes, the bottom end of this motor is grossly overbuilt, 
that's no problem. The problem is headbolts -- I am in no way a motor 
builder, but sheesh, you don't have to be a mechanical engineer to 
notice that the headbolt count, size, spacing, and placement are really 
terrible.  Spacing is wildly uneven, some of them are not adjacent to 
vertical walls, they're too small, and many are far from the cylinder 
walls (some over an inch). You might be able to add two headbolts but 
they might end up in the intake port. Why bother. Maybe larger, or 
locked-in studs, but the gains don't seem like it would be worth it.

What with the headbolts needing retorquing at interval already, adding 
boost to the mix sounds like asking for disaster.

The stroke is so long, and the bottom end so massive, there's no way to 
easily make it rev very much either. So it's likely to be destined not 
that much more than stock HP. (A cylinder with piston at BDC looks like 
a beer can with the top removed -- really.)

Not that I was planning on making a fast motor, but I will likely 
abandon any ideas of a "good" head for this thing, and just make a nice 
reliable engine.

It really looks like the 1930's in there. I'll take photos. It's clearly 
at the end of it's design life, you can see what improved in the '64 232!

_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list