Re: [AMC-list] early 232 using 258 intake??

[adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)]

" From: Bruce Griffis <bruce.griffis@xxxxxxxxx>
" 
" []
" 
" Having a hard time finding a '65 232 pulley for a short shaft water
" pump ('65 American w/ 232, later CJ5 with 232). Not sure what options
" from other manufacturers will swap in.

iirc *any*jeep* '65-'74 with the 232 will have the short pump and
pulley.  this means big jeeps too!

" On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 8:57 PM, tom jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx> wrote:
" > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Matt Haas <mhaas@xxxxxxx> wrote:
" >
" >> I would not to expect long life from the T-96. Even the later "beefed up"
" >> version (T-96J) is spindly compared to the T-14 that replaced it. These
" >> trannies just don't last long behind the later sixes.

the t14 is much beefier [enough for 2bbl 290s and 304s] and it does
have better synchros, but for me the win is synchro 1st - makes
stop-and-go -much- more pleasant!

bruce - '68-'70 americans and javelins with 232 have the t14 and
driveshaft you'd need, and while you can't use the jav rear [too wide],
any '66-9 non-big-nut m15 american rear will do.

i used a '72-6 t14 and long yoke with the original driveshaft in my
'68 american with 199.  nb. pre-'72 t14s have the coarse bw spline but
while '72-up are the same length - ~2" shorter than t96 - they have a
fine tf904 spline instead and the rear mount position moves around a
bit.

" > they don't last long behind the 195.6! it's very very tiny, an ancient and
" > not very robust design. weak synchros. expensive to repair.

i had t-96s with 199s in my americans for many years and tens of
thousands of miles, without any problems.  they were daily drivers.

" > the clutch is 8" too, also hard to find.

later 196s used the same 9 1/8" as 199/232/258 sixes, and while their
flywheels aren't drilled [afaik] with the 11 3/8" clutch pattern for a
10" clutch - same size '64-'71 ones are - the mopar pp first used with
the short-lived 273 but also for decades as hd with the 225, bolts to
the 10 5/16 pattern, same as the 9 1/8" pp.  the 10" disk - which is
now also hard to find - was hd with the t14 in the early '70s, and
apparently crosses to a mopar disk of the '50s.

i had a 10" clutch behind one of my 199s.  my only problems with it
were finding a -real- 10" pp - 10.5" [b&b style] won't clear the
bellhousing - and initial adjustment; pedal travel was longer.

" > Still driving my 63 American. Engine and trans are fine, runs great. If this
" > driveline dies prematurely, and i continue this path, it will get a "modern"
" > (sic) 4 banger and manual trans. Still think the a KA24 transplant is the
" > way to go 

what's a ka24?

" > minus 300 lbs and plus 50 hp and the little thing will SCREAM.

not too startling.  the 196 is a [late] '30s design.  the 199/232/258
and 4.0 weighs the same and that's not a lightweight.

more extreme comparison - the 'hurricane' 4 in cjs up to about '70 was
an american bantam design from the '20s!  the buick 225 v6 kaiser put
in weighed -less- and had twice the hp.
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought
_______________________________________________
AMC-list mailing list
AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com