Hot Rod Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Rambler American engine conversion #2

107K views 221 replies 26 participants last post by  ramzoom 
#1 ·
:mwink: Oh boy here we go again....

You might already know we are in the middle of a conversion on a 60 Rambler 2 dr. wagon with a Mazda Rotary...well I also own a pretty clean 59 Rambler American sedan. The motor runs really good but it is looking like a rebuild is coming up so if all goes as planned we will be yanking the stock l head 6 and trans tomorrow and looking to replace it with something "modern"...actually it is a pretty cool powerplant that will provide good pick up and driveability..no it is not a smallblock anything :mwink: The stock IFS and rear end will remain in the car..I will post pics and info as we go..we are hopeing to have this one done in the next few weeks and then back to the wagon.

If all goes well I should be posting some more info within a day or two......

 
See less See more
1
#9 ·
The problem with the 58-63 American is the width of the engine bay. A modern four cylinder doesn't even fit good because the intake manifold sticks so far out to the side. I helped put a Pinto 2.3L (or was it 2.0L?) in a 54 Nash Rambler (50-55 Nash Rambler is virtually the same car as the 58-63 Rambler American), but it was an early model Pinto engine. The carb and intake just did clear the left side after a slight bit of "massaging" to the inner fender panel.

The one more or less modern engine that will easily fit is the Ford I-6 with the intake made onto the head. A late 80s 250 would be great! All you'd need to do is fab engine mounts and have a driveshaft made. I have used a hot rod type tubular crossmember to install an engine in an early American -- the rails are 27" apart on the inside (the engine compartment is only 20-1/2" wide at the narrowest spot, right where the suspension mounts). You will have to make a trans crossmember. Those cars have a continuous rail from bumper to bumper, almost like a frame with a floor pan welded to it. I just made a simple angle iron crossmember for the trans and used carriage bolts going through the floor and rails, the rounded heads weren't felt under the carpet. The rails are 18 gauge steel, so not heavy enough to screw into, and the inner rockers are made in such a way that you can't run a bolt sideways through the rail without cutting a big hole the rocker cover. You could probably drill new holes in a wrecking yard rear trans crossmember and mount it the same way. You'll need to swap a trans that will fit the engine you use, of course. The early (60-65?) Falcon and Mustang 200 sixes used the same manual three speed trans as the Rambler (BW T-96), but the 250 uses a SBF bolt pattern and never used that old tranny.

A V-8 or V-6 will fit, but that narrow section makes it tight! The engine compartment does get wider above the upper a-arm mounts though. The main problem with a small V-6 is the accessory mounts, but you could use early hot-rod type mounts to get the accessories up high instead of off to the side. Forget a later model AMC six, they are too long! The compartment is rather short too, all but the small Ford six (144/170/200/250 -- the 240/300 is way too long!), even the Nissan I-6, is 3-4" too long.
 
#10 ·
Hey Farna,

Tell me about Rambler engine room...Geesh :drunk: They really didnt make it easy for a guy..

I was going to run a DOHC Miata 4 cyl. and 5 speed..I looked at a motor and found the throttle body came off the pass. side and it is tight in the Rambler.

Another member asked if I was using a quad 4 which at the time I said no..but now.....

If you look at the dimensions of the quad 4 it is really compact. More compact than the miata engine. The intake comes off the drivers side and we can fab a intake to run a carb. There is nothing down low to hit the steering box and its stubby enough to clear the steering. I know we will need to trim the firewall for the trans as well as the tunnel. There is a guy that already has adapters to run the T5 5 speed trans.
You can get a flange to weld up yur own exhaust so we can route that where you must like we did on the rotary rambler.
I found the engine so I just need to get it shipped today so we can start...
Take a look at the quad 4 and let me know what you think.....Should be good for around 150-160 hp. A little better than stock.
Thanks,
Robert
 
#11 ·
Based on this photo (http://www.britishv8.org/Articles/Alternative-Engines.htm) it just might fit. The intake plenum is high on the engine, so it would be above the narrow point in the engine bay. Transmission adapters/bells are high at $474 though (www.quad4rods.com). I think the bolt pattern is the same as other GM fours and small V-6s though, so you should be able to use a Camaro trans or Jeep 2WD trans (the Jeep 2.5L used the same pattern as Chevy fours and small V-6s). Not positive on the bell pattern though, might be unique to the Q4.
 
#12 ·
Yeah that bellhousing is up there but whats a guy to do. You hit it on the head..the engine is pretty compact and the intake is up high on the drivers side so you have more room. The exhaust is on the pass. side where it is tighter to the inner fenderwell. I do not want to cut the innerfenders at all if poss..maybe just a small recess if nec. but I dont think we will have to do that. I will post the conversion once we get going. I picked up a rebuilt longblock quad 4 for 800.00 bucks..hard to beat that. We have a couple 4 speeds laying around to use but I think I will go with the T5.
Engine got paid for today so it will be here in a couple days so we will go from there..Will make for a really nice driver when done.
Off topic....I will have a L-head 6 and 3 spd laying around..the darn engine actually runs great but smokes for a few miles at start up then clears up..probably needs valve guides and maybe a ring job. The trans works perfectly and has O/D.
 
#13 ·
UPDATE...

Quad 4 arrived and look great..I ordered some engine components and they are on the way.

Found a th200-r4 and plan to pick up this weekend. I still have a Muncie 4 speed laying around so there is still a chance it will go in the Rambler. Not sure..I like a 4/5 speed for fun and it would be cool to have a hurst floor shifter with the little white ball poking out of the floor... but my gut says go with a auto and make the car a nice cruiser. What do you guys think? Stick or auto/od. This car will probably get sold in '09 so I am thinking an auto would appeal to more people..alot of girls and wives love this little Rambler so I am leaning toward the auto..I know my wife would prefer it that way. Throw a lokar shifter out of the floor nice and simple...???

Engine and trans got the yank last Wed. We are cleaning up the engine compartment and front suspension this week and hopefully painting the engine and setting it in the car to see how it will set in there.
I will post some pics later today.....
 
#16 ·
Measure out and watch the steering. Like Farna said..the accessories can get in the way. I am hopeing we do not have to cut the inner fenders on this one. People have put Chevy V6's in these but I have not seen one done up close to see the way it fits and what has to be cut or moved. I went with the quad 4 because of the narrow size and the intake and exhaust are up high. Besides it just looks cool. We have some plans for the quad 4 to make it a little different. The goal is to change over a Rambler American without blowing the entire car apart. We are continuing tomorrow so I should have more pics in a day or so.
Good Luck :D
 
#19 ·
Nice Rambler, I am surprised at the choice of the Quad 4. Just my opinion, but a 231 buick is compact, relaible and would easily fit in thhat engine compartment. Very good drivability with decent fuel mileage. The 225 buick v-6 version was used in many factory CJ5 jeeps from the 60-70's. The jeep Cj's also have very limited engine compartment space.
 
#20 ·
Stude, NOTHING easily fits in the little Rambler engine compartment except a straight six with an integral intake manifold. A small block or V-6 can be made to fit, but requires a bit of trimming of the inner fender panels, and exhaust is tight. The narrow V-6s are a better fit except for accessories. Get hot-rod (30s style) high/narrow accessory mounts and you're all set.

Ramzoom may have to trim the inner panel on one side for the Q4 to clear the intake. Not much needs to be trimmed, just the "hump" right above the upper control arm mounts. The hump is a leftover from the early 50s -- the unitbody is virtually the same from 50-55 (Nash Rambler) and 58-60. In 61 the outer panels and firewall changed, but the rest is the same as earlier models. This is the only car that ever dropped out of production from more than a year and was revived as a successful product -- with minimal changes.

When Ramzoom gets some engine bay photos you'll see just how tight it is! I hope he posts a photo with the original engine still in (but I think it's out already...), or at least with no engine before hanging the Q4 in and getting photos.
 
#21 · (Edited)
Here ya go....







Farna is right..the engine compartment is tight..The main problem is the steering components. If you cut the inner fenders/humps you gain some width up top but you still have to fit around the stock steering box and the front steering. The distance from the front steering to the firewall is very short. I looked up the Buick 231 v6 out of curiosity and found it is approx. 25" in length(if what I found was correct)..Quad 4's are 19.250 tall, 18 inches wide from oil filter to water pump intake. 21 inches from belhousing flange to front pulley. Makes all the difference unless you want to start cutting which is what we are trying to avoid. I actually like the Quad 4 looks..makes the engine interesting to look at and has a vintage look. When done she should put out around 200 hp which is plenty for a Rambler that weighs around 2475 lbs with stock drivetrain.
Thank you Studebaker for the suggestion about the v6..your right it is a very compact v6 and I appreciate any suggestions..but the Quad 4 made about the most sense of any modern engine for size, availability, power and looks.
 
#22 ·
Just to add to the "it doesn't fit" discussion regarding "V" motors--I recently mocked up an Olds 215 block (similar dimensions to the Buick V6) in a '60 American engine bay and.....surprise, it didn't fit. As others have stated, side clearances can probably be handled with some cutting, but the stock steering is the biggest problem.

Farna and Ram-- do you know if anyone has ever run a carbed 22R? I bought my American for an LS1/T56 swap, but am looking at a possible "temporary" motor after I set up the Mustang II. Just a thought at this point.

-Mark
 
#23 ·
Hi Mark,
There used to be a 58-60 American wagon near my home town that ran a Toyota 4 cyl. Because this was back in the late 80's I would figure it was a 22r. I never saw the engine compartment..just knew from word of mouth that that is what he ran in it.

Guys run 2.3 Fords as well..

Good luck,
Robert
 
#24 ·
BOY, looking at the engine compartment it is tight! What about a Ford 2300 four Cylinder, great little engine with a lot of after market parts available. They are a little tall, seems like it would fit, they actually have very good power for the CID, and they made millions of them with manual trans or auto's. .
 
#25 · (Edited)
Does your front bench recline to meet the rear seat and make a bed? My car is still in storage and I went to see it the other day, I didn't realize I had the split bench seat, never bothered paying attention because I was sure I was going to replace it with early Mustang buckets. I have been told if it is a split back bench seat, it also folds down into a bed. If this is true, I am definitely going to restore the bench and keep it, it is just too cool of an option to throw away. I didn't know that it had the option of reclining before I went to see it the other day so I didn't check it, the car is kinda far away from me, so I don't get as much time with it as I would like to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top