Re: [AMC-list] engine setback in a Matador

[Frank Swygert <farna@xxxxxxx>]

I'm pretty sure the driveshafts were the same for the Ambo and Matador. The 65-66 Ambassador also had a longer wheelbase than the Classic but used the same torque-tube. Cheaper and easier to make a slightly longer dirveshaft compared to a torque-tube, but the logic of using the same part whenever possible remains. 

It is unusual to hear of six cylinder 67 Marlins! By then the dealers had figured out it was more of a personal luxury/sporty car like the later Monte Carlo et. al. 

---------
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:00:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)

" Andrew:
" rebel 67-70 WB=114"
" Ambo 67-68 WB=118"
" Ambo 69-74 WB=122"
" Matador 71-78 WB=118"
" Are You sure they used diferent cross members and not diferent length drive=
" shafts?

they might've used different driveshafts but they definitely had
different crossmembers.

my '67 marlin had a 6, and at the 4seasons amc/rc concours the only
'67 to show up also had a 6.  true, this doesn't say how common ambo
sixes are.

--
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