Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board - Reply to Topic
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Engine> best engine swap for 65' rambler american and 63' rambler american?
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Thread: best engine swap for 65' rambler american and 63' rambler american? Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
10-10-2012 06:01 PM
farna The L-head was never put in the big cars for a reason! I have to tell you though, after driving a 196 powered 63 American for 15 years (initially a 1V, shortly upgraded to 2V, and with an upgraded cam when it was rebuilt... plus modified air filter housing and exhaust system) the 196 is barely adequate for the big cars. Mine put out about 170-175 hp in the end and it would keep up with modern traffic most of the time. I had an automatic with 3.31 rear axle (the "performance" ratio) but no air. The 58-59 Rambler Six wagon (the big Rambler) had a 3.78 rear gear ratio with standard three speed, 3.31 with auto (3.78 was optional), and 4.38 with the three speed OD trans. That's a bit lower than the American, so it will be buzzing at highway speeds. The little motor needs the gearing to pull the big car around. It's adequate, especially around town, but try holding 65-70 mph with a couple big adults on board and maybe a long weekend of luggage and it will strain pulling hills WITHOUT air conditioning.

It's a great little motor, and yes, the factory put in AC even with an auto trans, but there were few places you could cruise at 65-70 mph for long stretches until the mid 60s. The Interstate system didn't start construction until 1956, and minimal then. Most of it was still under construction in 1958. The six cylinder Ramblers were economy cars, as you mentioned, and not intended for high speed cruising. Keep speed down around 55 and it should hold speed up all but the steepest hills. The 196 would be turning ~2800 rpm at 65 mph with 3.31 gears, and that's a little high for the old 196. It's most comfortable in the 2000-2500 range (as are most AMC sixes with stock cams, even the 4.0L EFI six, but the bigger ones will pull with less gear). 60 mph is just a tad over 2500 -- 2566 rpm. That would be a lot better for it.

The 196 always uses a little oil, it's just the old design. Not too much, but it will use a quart every 1000-1200 miles when run hard (around 2500 rpm and higher). It will use a quart about every 1500-1800 miles regardless (which is just 1 quart between changes, assuming 3K mile changes). Run it at 65-75 all day like I have in the past and it will use a quart about every 800 miles. I mean on a 16 hour trip (made all in one day!) on the interstate. That's just normal for the old gal!
10-09-2012 11:16 PM
59RAMBLERSUPERWAGON The 195.6 aka the 196 is plenty of motor to run AC, it was a regular factory option on the Rambler Six which ran that motor. I am planning to add factory AC on my 59 or a retro fitted pump and coils from something else. the factory HP i belive was 125hp but torque was like 145 that is stock carb etc. it was built for economy. it was a great improvement over the L head 195.6 which only put out 90hp
03-22-2012 09:25 AM
johnnyg
Quote:
Originally Posted by techinspector1
I'm not sure why, but when I read this kind of question, the hair on the back of my neck stands up. It really pizzes me off when someone asks if so-and-so will fit. Holy Jesus dude, this is hotrodders.com, not restoration.com. With a Sawzall, a cutting torch, a hand grinder and a MIG, anything will fit anything. If it won't fit, start cuttin' everything out of the way that's in the way, then build it back after the motor is fitted.

If you are unwilling or unable to do heavy mods, then you should take up another hobby and leave the hot rodding to someone who has the wherewithall to make it all work.
Which is why boothboy said to shoehorn a V12 in it!!
03-22-2012 09:08 AM
farna Well, his description does say "curmudgeon".

Anyway -- delivery could have been milder, but he IS right, to an extent. I believe the question could have been better... more like will the 4.0L EASILY fit.

Enough of that -- the answer is YES. The 64+ Ramblers will take just about anything. As several have pointed out, big blocks are really tight, but they were designed from the factory with the then under development AMC GEN-2 "small block" in mind. The bigger cars were designed to hold the GEN-1 AMC/Rambler V-8, which is about the same size and weight as a Ford Y-block/Chevy 396, so a big block will fit them just fine. The 64-65 American engine bay is a couple inches shorter than the later models though. There is a mod to the radiator brackets and upper support filler panel (remove the filler) that will gain 1.5-2.0" though. That's all you need for the 4.0L. Might have to use an electric fan or do away with the clutch and use an aftermarket flex fan (on a Wrangler or Grand Cherokee water pump -- fan won't fit an XJ Cherokee pump and the bearings aren't made for it).

To use a 199/232/258 a CJ-5 (NOT CJ-7!) water pump and pulley are required. They are a bit shorter than the standard AMC six water pump and pulley. That pump was originally designed to fit the 232 in the 65 American, worked for the short CJ-5 too.

AMC "big" cars are the Classic/Rebel/Matador and Ambassador. Everything else is considered "small" and use similar parts and have similar sized engine bays.

The little 58-63 Americans and 50-55 Nash Ramblers (the same car under the skin!) are a totally different story. Those cars were literally built around a short and narrow L-head six, so the bay is tight! Already spoke about that though...
03-18-2012 07:58 AM
68NovaSS [QUOTE=********************** I registered to say that. *************![/QUOTE]

And you can leave by the same door...banned.
03-17-2012 04:37 PM
techinspector1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonhog
While you may be right your delivery sucks! Lighten up
Go away boy, you bother me.
03-12-2012 05:43 PM
Nonhog
Quote:
Originally Posted by techinspector1
I'm not sure why, but when I read this kind of question, the hair on the back of my neck stands up. It really pizzes me off when someone asks if so-and-so will fit. Holy Jesus dude, this is hotrodders.com, not restoration.com. With a Sawzall, a cutting torch, a hand grinder and a MIG, anything will fit anything. If it won't fit, start cuttin' everything out of the way that's in the way, then build it back after the motor is fitted.

If you are unwilling or unable to do heavy mods, then you should take up another hobby and leave the hot rodding to someone who has the wherewithall to make it all work.
While you may be right your delivery sucks! Lighten up
03-12-2012 11:58 AM
techinspector1
Quote:
Originally Posted by spree001
Will the 4.0l fit in the 65' ?
I'm not sure why, but when I read this kind of question, the hair on the back of my neck stands up. It really pizzes me off when someone asks if so-and-so will fit. Holy Jesus dude, this is hotrodders.com, not restoration.com. With a Sawzall, a cutting torch, a hand grinder and a MIG, anything will fit anything. If it won't fit, start cuttin' everything out of the way that's in the way, then build it back after the motor is fitted.

If you are unwilling or unable to do heavy mods, then you should take up another hobby and leave the hot rodding to someone who has the wherewithall to make it all work.
03-12-2012 08:06 AM
mooseman1377
64 or 65 Rambler American engine swap

I have done this twice, once in the 70's and also this past year. The first time several of us put "Big Block" Fords which was tight. 352, 390, and 427 was great for a "sleeper" but this year I have put a 400 Chevy small block which was easier. The only challenge was the headers, as I had to cut one inch off each tube where they bolt to the block and then re-weld them back on. This made it difficult for removing the spark plugs, so now I just unbolt the headers, move them up a few inches, change plugs, and then rebolt the headrs back on. I will post a couple pictures of the early big block Ford and the newest small block chevy version. Mooseman1377
12-23-2011 11:54 AM
farna The early 2300 had a carb intake that fit up close to the engine and might fit, the late model Ranger 2300/2500 with intake curving over the valve cover just
will, but the 2.3L turbo won't due to where the turbo is mounted. The 60 V-6s fit, but you have to use some rather expensive "hot rod" accessory brackets to pull them in, or make your own. The factory brackets put everything out beside the motor where there's no room under the hood in the little Rambler. That's in the 58-63 Americans (same under the hood except for the firewall/heater). Almost anything will fit in the 64-69 models -- even big blocks (though they are tight).
12-07-2011 03:19 PM
AutoGear 3.8 SC?

There was a guy on the opel forums (dont ask...guilty pleasure) who basically built an opel GT around a 3.4 w. a T5. What about a turbo 2300 with a T5? That thing would be a hoot
12-07-2011 02:49 PM
Hotrodrobert I had a 64 American with a 396/425hp Big Block Chevy and Muncie 4 speed, Mustang 9 inch rear. Only real issue was steering shaft too close to the number three exhaust. Rear end bolted right in.
Also had a 64 American wagon with a 350 Chevy and 350 turbo trans, Ford rear.
Motor mounts were not too much trouble, rear crossmember easy, rear bolted right in. Had under dash AC, Chevy compressor, custom hoses. Radiator in both were Ford because that is what I had. Bottom hose has to cross over as Ford and Chevy lower hoses connect on opposite sides.
Drove the wagon 6-7 years, untold miles no problem. Pretty quick in the light car, set up with Q Jet got 21 and change driving from NC to LA and back.
No big changes under the hood except to make the motor mounts but they were easy, SBC cast iron exhaust went right in. Real fun car. My wife loved it.
12-07-2011 02:29 PM
cobalt327 I wonder if a 60 V6 like a 3.4L Chevy would shoehorn into the '63. It's easily carbed (Edelbrock has an intake and cam) and plentiful in the 'yards, stock it made something like 160 HP in a Camaro.



1963 AMERICAN ENGINE BAY
12-07-2011 12:57 PM
AutoGear I knew a girl who had a jeep TBI I6 with OD Auto in a gremmie. Looked factory.

Quad4s LOOK kick *** when you strip all the junk off them; sort of offy-esque. But, aside from the adapter, some parts aren't exactly common for those anymore.

V6 with a 200-4r would be pretty kick *** in that lil car; T-type anyone?
12-07-2011 12:22 PM
39cent early 90,s Jeep engines had over 190hp. great little motor, had all the newfangled options, auto,air, fuel injection.

chekitout
http://www.jeep4.0performance.4mg.com
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.