RE: [BaadAssGremlins] Re: Pacer motor mounts oddities

Your exactly right that is why they ended up with the 258 and later v8's. I am sure they were going to be 2 bangers with two of those triangle things in them. They say you can get them with 3 or 4 but they are used mostly for racing because they are so expensive. The Mazda xr7 was the only car I knew of that used them in mass production. While they are an old design I remember when they first were promoted in the 70's they were suppose to be what all cars would have in them in a few short years. They died. I can also remember when the Corvair came out and the VW was in its heyday that a lot of people were saying all cars would be rear engine cars shortly. It died too. I can also remember in 68 when Olds brought out a front wheel drive car that they said it would take over. Well it did but not like the Tornado . They had straight engines with a belt going to the transaxel. Not like the sideway engines we have today.

Terry

From: Todd Tomason <jayscore@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu, March 10, 2011 9:05:38 PM
Subject: Re: [BaadAssGremlins] Re: Pacer motor mounts oddities

The motor that AMC planned on using was from GM. When GM dropped the project, they had to scramble to come up with something else.

Todd

----- Original Message -----

From: mrmopar00@xxxxxxxxx

To: BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 3:44 PM

Subject: Re: [BaadAssGremlins] Re: Pacer motor mounts oddities

Who made the wankel engine?

Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network

From: "LarryS" <vision1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Sender: BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:46:08 -0600

To: <BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

ReplyTo: BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: RE: [BaadAssGremlins] Re: Pacer motor mounts oddities

I'm not sure what a '4 banger Wankel' is, but there's some power *available*
in them.

The 13B dual stack is around 140hp, pretty much stock. The 20B three-stack
can be easily fitted with twin-turbos and get a pretty dependable 600hp ;-)
And these engines are WAY lighter than Jeep I-6 or AMC V8s by a long way.

Which is why some homebuilders use them in airplanes.

I am told that the SBC fits in a Pacer easier and better than even their own
360/401... but I dunno.

The only reason I was interested in a front wheel drive for a Pacer (rotary
or otherwise) is just because that's what it started out to be. Kind of a
'redemption' process to go back and make a few things right.

But sure, I totally agree. V8 is a better choice than a I6 if a guy wants a
hot Pacer. Heck, a V8 is a better choice for about EVERYTHING ;-)

L.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eddie Stakes
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 2:23 PM
> To: BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [BaadAssGremlins] Re: Pacer motor mounts oddities
>
> Agreed, they had to change from plan a to plan b on the fly.
> As for underpowered, I am not
> sure that the 4 banger Wankel engine would have been
> sufficient for the Pacer. I think the
> V8 early on would have been best choice, it is what Randall
> AMC in Mesa, AZ was doing, and
> AMC flew out some brass to check out the conversions, and
> figured if they can do it, AMC
> can do it at the factory and rest is history:
>
> http://www.planethoustonamx.com/stuff/randall-gremlin-xr.htm
>
> Eddie Stakes
> 713.464.8825
> eddiestakes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.planethoustonamx.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "LarryS" <vision1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 9:21 AM
> Subject: RE: [BaadAssGremlins] Re: Pacer motor mounts oddities
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1497/3495 - Release Date: 03/09/11