Re: [Amc-list] Convertible conversion?

[Archimedes <Freedom@xxxxxxxx>]

Victor the Cleaner <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Just out of curiosity...
>
>I've got a two-door 64 Classic that's been reduced to a shell - the
>287 was getting pretty bad (oil consumption), so I pulled it (and
>the tranny) a few years ago and haven't yet gotten a chance to do 
>anything with it.  Body's not in too bad shape - floor pan and front 
>fender rust perforation and some minor front-end accident damage.  
>But I've been wondering what it'd be like to chop the roof off and 
>turn it into a ragtop.
>
>Can anyone offer any experiences (pos or neg) or opinions?


You know, I had a 64 Classic hardtop, as well as a 64 Ambassador hardtop, and I always thought it would have been perfect as a convertible -- and wondered why AMC didn't do it.

They would need *some* additional bracing underneath.  The basic chassis is from the American (as I recall the doors will interchange between the Americans and the Classic-Ambassador, so that should be an clue...), and the Classic/Ambassador hung some additional weight on the car -- so you'd definitely want some more beef underneath.

I would think some time spent underneath a '65 Classic or Ambassador droptop, as well as under a 64 American droptop, would be well-spent.

The extra bracing need not be very heavy, either -- it wasn't on the factory 'verts.  The Rambler unibody was one of the stiffest designs ever built.  It wasn't until the eighties that downsized unibodied cars from other manufacturers started getting as stiff.  Anyone who has ever hopped from a Rambler to a Falcon to a Valiant can tell you the difference in body flex.

Now that I'm thinking about this, I'm wondering why AMC didn't just take the components from the convertible American and use them on the Classic/Ambassador.  If they are basically the same platform, then they already had done all the engineering they needed.

Mark price says:


>As for vert conversions.
>I read the article in Hotrod in about 84-85 about doing the conversion on That series Mustangs.
>The roof assembly would be a beyotch.  The Mustand project used a scratch built frame and I bet it was a nightmare!
>The body takes wome serious, serious bracing!  We're talking full length tubes inside both rockers, diagonal bracing etc; Lots of it.


Yes, but that's on a *MUSTANG*.  They were well-known for having a weak structure.  Remember they have those two additional long stiffener rods under the hood.  Ford had to continuously diddle around with the chassis on the Mustang, especially as larger engines were dropped into them.

If I remember right, the SC/Rambler had the same basic structure as the original 64 American, plus just two additional braces under the floor.  Jack one up next to a Mustang of the same vintage, and look closely.


>The only ways I would consider doing a roof to convert conversion would be if a convert was not available in the body style I desired 


Indeed.  I always wanted to make a 69 Ambassador 2 door hardtop.  They're the same width as the 67 Ambassador convertibles; all of the notable changes were in front of the firewall (including 4" more length in the front frame).  I assume the easiest way to do such a conversion would be to remove the entire front clip of of both cars, from the front subframe upwards, by removing all the pinch welds and swapping from there.  Everything behind the front door would be the same.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARC MONTONI
Richmond VA
Cu vi parolas Esperanton?
Freedom.  Responsibility.  www.LP.org 
I'd rather push a Rambler than drive a Toyota.
Visit www.AMCRC.com or www.AMONational.com .
------------------------------------------------------------------------


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