Re: [AMC-list] American wagons...

[wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Easy fix on the Heater hose issue. 
Buy a core for a 69 ($43) overnight available from many parts stores. Then you can forget about the water pump conflict. Good time to do the DMT seal kit too!
    Well worth the time. Oh, you can cheat and not tear the whole box apart. If you are very careful you can spray the adhesive and place the foam on the hot air door without removing the rivets and side cover. A/C box? I don't know if you can  cheat on it. 
   I solved my water pump issues by installing a serpentine belt 4.0L :)

Tom, I'd say to try and hold out for the wagon. One will come along. After all those years with a wagon you will sorely miss the space!
   For a daily driver I'd ignore the hard tops. Personal choice, I just like to be able to grab a door frame and slam the door shut! Plus the windows aren't nearly as had to get adjusted for a good seal. 
   Be aware that roll down rear windows became an option sometimes before 69 in the 2 door sedan and even with roll downs they only come down about 8"s. 
  I wanted roll downs, but ended up not having all the pieces to do the swap. In the end it does not bother me. 
  My true dream car would be a 2 door wagon! I've seen a couple of conversions, SWEET!  Alas,Babylon. Not to be. 

   GOOD NEWS! My neighbor is loading the scrap! Yay!!!!



Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device from U.S. Cellular

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Haas <mhaas@xxxxxxx>
Sender: amc-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 12:21:30 
To: AMC, Rambler, Nash, Jeep and family<amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: "AMC, Rambler, Nash, Jeep and family" <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-list] American wagons...

Tom,

Style-wise, I think the 64 and 65 are better looking than the 66-69 but 
parts-wise, I think you'll be better off with a mid-68 through 69. The 
reasons for this are that firstly, the bodies are stronger (benefit of 
improved safety standards) so that means less wear and tear on the body 
towing and the other benefit is that the T-14 was available in place of 
the T-96 (You could still get that too for whatever reason. Probably the 
same reason they offered a vacuum wiper option the first few years 
electrics were standard).

On the down-side, these same years with the stronger bodies are also 
stuck with the early style shoulder belts which suck. Besides not being 
able to move around (great if you're racing, bad if you just want to 
change the radio), those tend to hit me (I'm 6'1") right across the 
neck. I'm not safety expert but something tells me that's not the idea 
thing to use to hold my upper body in place in a crash.

As far as telling an early 68 from a mid-year, it's pretty easy. The 
mid-year 68's have a VIN tag on the dash as well as the shock tower. You 
can also peek under the car and see if the front and rear frame sills 
are tied together. BTW, you can't go just by the shoulder belt. That was 
offered as an option the first half of the year.

Also, there was a water pump change for 1968 that makes it a pita to 
find the correct water pump for 64 - 67 199 and 232 cars. The change is 
that the heater hose nipple went from 5/8" to 3/4". It isn't an 
insurmountable problem but if the water pump goes out on the road, it's 
one more pita to deal with to get it going again. The water pump with 
the 3/4" nipple was used from 68 up through 80 or so and is generally 
stocked by parts stores. Parts stores will list the 68 and up style pump 
as fitting but it doesn't really because of the nipple size difference. 
The 64-67 engines also use different pistons than 68 and up which makes 
them more expensive (I think mine were about $70 each for cast 
replacements) and harder to find.

As far as gas mileage goes, my 68 4 door with a T-14 and 232 (slightly 
higher compression than stock [flat top pistons from a 199] and an RV 
cam) gets about 26 mpg on this highway. My 67 wagon with an automatic 
and a 199 (bone stock except for the .030" overbore) gets about 20. I've 
also head that 232's with a 2bbl do better than the 1bbl.


Matt

On 8/21/2010 12:39 AM, tom jennings spouted this sage advice:
> Thanks for the words, Bruce. I'm slowly moving in the direction of a
> non-wagon. I think a 65 (earlyish) American is the way to go. There's far
> more of them than wagons. I honestly don't care 2 or 4 doors, both have
> their advantages. I imagine 4 doors are easier to find. A sedan will be
> better as a daily driver (though the dogs love the station wagon most of all
> -- they hang out in it when I leave the doors open parked in the yard).
> There's only one hardtop, 67? Unlikely to find one. Wouldn't rule it out
> though if I did!
> 
> I should have enough money to buy someone's full restoration. I'm not saying
> I will keep it totally stock, but a clean intact car with good paint and the
> right setup, I doubt I'd do more than bolt-on changes (wheels, tires,
> Pertronix, etc). Speakers in the door and rear shelf would be the biggest
> atrocities. Probably remove any stereo, return the AM radio, these days, I
> do a brick amp under the seat with the 1/8" stereo plug to an iPod clone.
> Nothing to steal!
> 
> I know the feeling about "cheating", and it not being *my* project, but
> buying someone's resto is a hell of a lot better than buying some stock 90's
> used plastic car! And the one thing I can't do for the next year or so is a
> full ground-up project.
> 
> 
> It's gotta be a six, and I strongly prefer no power steering nor power
> brakes. Prefer manual, but auto would not be a deal killer on the right car.
> I honestly think the 199 or 232 would be better; mileage matters more than
> power for daily use.
> 
> 
> I don't know the details in the 64 - 69 models (I like the earlier body
> styles better), I know some years (69?) there's a good selection of front
> suspension and such aftermarket. Not sure about the early stuff, but
> trunnions are not one of my worries.
> 
> I probably wouldn't even do a disc swap; I'd do what I did to my little
> American. The fully ventilated brakes are GREAT.
> 
> 
> Yeah, it will tow the little trailer just fine. Like I do now, just slow
> down for the tough stuff,  crawling a long hill with a trailer is like .001%
> of my driving time, saving that extra hour on a long trip isn't worth the
> cost of a bigger car that other 99.999% of the time. We've found that the
> camper negates the need to cram the wagon full of crap.
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Bruce Griffis <bruce.griffis@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> 
>> That sounds like a great driving/camping/cruising project!
>>
>> Tom, I've taken my '65 American sedan camping - and while it is not a
>> wagon, it is a nice little car. It did well with the 600 pound or so
>> popup. It's fun to drive. I love draping an arm on the bench seat, or
>> hanging a hand on the open vent window. But when I give it thought -
>> the idea of a Rebel or Matador wagon keep popping up.
>>
>> I know you don't like the newer cars with plastic and all that. But I
>> wonder if a Rebel wagon with a 232 and 3 speed manual would make a
>> good every day car? Easier parts, still a Rambler.
>>
>> But on the other hand, an American with a 232 and 3 speed manual would
>> be pretty cool, too. Especially a wagon. Have fun searching and
>> deciding!
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Joe Fulton <piper_pa20@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>> Tom if you wanted a project I have a 63 Classic wagon, less than 80,000
>> miles (I forget exactly), sat in Nevada  for over 20 years..   195.6
>> aluminum (stuck) BW/auto.  The interior is cooked but I have an NOS dash
>> pad, extra 195.6, or I have a 232 freshly rebuilt, Ambassador seats
>> (somewhat matching the tan Classic interior).  All fairly cheap.  Wagon
>> needs paint and all the mechanicals gone through.  The underside looks
>> factory new though, unbelievably clean.  Brake lines and fuel lines are
>> still bright.  Oh and I have a windsheld for it.  Lower tail gate is rusty,
>> but I have still another one if you don't use the spare I sold you.  This
>> thing is a time machine.
>>> Joe Fulton
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AMC-list mailing list
>> AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://list.amc-list.com/pipermail/amc-list-amc-list.com/attachments/20100820/9070d6ce/attachment.htm>
> _______________________________________________
> AMC-list mailing list
> AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com
> 
> 
> 

-- 
mhaas@xxxxxxx
Cincinnati, OH
http://www.mattsoldcars.com
1967 Rambler American wagon
1968 Rambler American sedan
=================================================================
According to a February 2003 survey of Internet holdouts released
by UCLA's Center for Communication Policy, people cite
not having a computer as the No. 1 reason they won't go online.
_______________________________________________
AMC-list mailing list
AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com
_______________________________________________
AMC-list mailing list
AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com