But when you figure the Pacer was never supposed to HAVE the Jeep engine,
the lack of interchangability makes a lot more sense.
It was *supposed* to get the fancy, new, rotary engine in *front wheel
drive* -- a configuration, I might add, that does not exist domestically
even to this day.
Remember, too, that the 40Mil included not just the initial work, but all
the re-tooling and re-engineering to PUT that I-6 in there -- ain't cheap.
They couldn't even use a 4cyl, the car was too heavy! Even with the 6, it's
a relative dog, but the cornering is wonderful (for the time) and the ride
is nice so the straight-line laziness was kinda easy to overlook.
I had always wanted to do the FWD thing to a Pacer and if I could find a
decent coupe body (I have a wagon), I'd carve FWD into it (perhaps a 3.8 gm
setup). In the doing, I'd carve out the huge tunnel, too, front seat AND
back. It would be very cool, IMO,
and be slackjaw impressive to any other
Pacer owner -- it'd look like it was always supposed to have looked ;-)
Flat floors, and wide open spaces.
Or, I might ditch these Pacers altogether. There's an old farmer with an
old fastback Marlin (67 or so?) about 4 miles from me. I might see if he's
emotionally attached to that thing. It didn't look all that bad, really.
Might drop a 460 in it just to be different.
L.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eddie Stakes
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 8:22 AM
> To: Ken Ames; AMC, Rambler, Nash, Jeep
and family
> Cc: baadassGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [BaadAssGremlins] Re: Pacer motor mounts oddities
>
> Seems like a odd thing to spend $40 million on development
> and production of the Pacer
> which shared few parts with anything else AMC too....just a
> couple years before AMC had
> spent $40 million buying Jeep from Willys you know.
>
> So AMC got away from mode that made them
> successful.....interchangability of
> parts.......in the 60s, and much spent for glass, sheetmetal,
> dies, pressing, molds,
> rather endless here of what things unique as the Pacer
> itself. And Matador coupes. And
> Marlin lessons not learned before them.
>
> Not knock on Pacer, Matty coupes or Marlin, it is just
that
> AMC was top of game with
> getting away with 'new' models with cosmetic changes. How
> many of you remember AMC
> mentioning that "they were going to introduce a NEW model
> every SIX months" in 1970?
>
> By 1971......you had 3 different Gremlins; 7 different
> Hornets; 3 different Matadors; 3
> different Javelins; and count them.....7 different Ambassador
> series. Total *23* models to
> choos from in your nearest AMC dealership. Easy as looking at
> back of your NOS 1971 full
> line color catalog and see choices! So subtle and not so
> subtle changes made a new model
> for AMC...easy as 'base' to 'DPL' to 'SST' for instance.
>
> For all customers price ranges. That was marketing genius in
> my humble opinion, sort of
> what you see companies doing now, making smaller cereal
> boxes, or concave bottom of glass
> jar of peanut butter......looks same, costs same at store,
> just uh, getting LESS product.
> New & Improved! That's the Spirit Thing, lend a hand! As
> Gomez would say.......
>
> $40 million. I could hang with Charlie Sheen for a night in
> Veags and his girls with that.
> Eddie Stakes
> 713.464.8825
> eddiestakes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.planethoustonamx.com
>
Back to the Home of the AMC Gremlin