Re: [AMC-list] 64 Classic engine swap Frank, Tom?

[Frank Swygert <farna@xxxxxxx>]

> From what you said about the way it shifts, I bet they ran out of adjustment on the 2-3 rod and thought that pushing it "a bit futher into gear" would solve some of the problem. Apparently it did help for a while, but then the extension could have been recent compared to when it was parked. 

If there isn't a lot of slop between the two shift arms on the shifter I'm with you -- the shift rails are messed up in the trans, or the lack of a detent ball is the culprit. It's more likely that ball, as that holds the shifter arm in place. I bet they just lengthened the linkage so it would push the arm further past where the detent would have held it, and the arm would more than likely stay in place at that angle. The missing detent ball says a lot! If the trans had been rebuilt and they lost that ball, thus leaving it out, you might be able to replace it and have a good trans. Something to look at after you swap the known good one in. 

----------
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 16:07:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joe Fulton <piper_pa20@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Some previous owner of my 64 Classic swapped a 232 into it instead of the 195.6 it came with.  The engine mounts are suppored by a piece of 2x4 channel steel on each side.  For some reason, the P.O. felt the need to modify one of the transmission shift rods (T96 tranny).  He welded an extension onto one of the rods (2-3 rod I think).  The other rod is not modified. I'm just curious about why he would have done it.  Did the geometry of the shifter versus the tranny change that much? 

--
Frank Swygert
Publisher, "American Motors Cars" 
Magazine (AMC)
For all AMC enthusiasts
http://farna.home.att.net/AMC.html
(free download available!)

_______________________________________________
AMC-list mailing list
AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com