59 Rambler

IMHO the car will twist up if you don't tie the front and back together. A 6.0 puts out well over twice the torque that the original engine did and the body was designed for. I would add 2 x 3 or 2 x 4 rails connecting the front (and engine mounts) to the rear end. You will also need a trans support and another cross member toward the rear. Can't build a house on shifting sands.

 

Note: This is a second post since the site's autocorrect feature changed "Restomod" to "Resotored" and the title block was too small to display the whole title. I'll be linking from the other post to here. Sorry for the inconvenience...

pics

- Glenn

 

Fixed the title and put the 2 threads together.....we dont like duplicate threads.

 

I think when you get the old running gear all out and have the IRS there, you'll see that a full chassis will be the only way to hang all the hardware you mentioned. Your car may have a quite sturdy body construction but there's likely to be enough spots where you would have to cut it to fit everything, that trying to remain unibody would be more work and less car when done. It would be better to know that the body will never get bent, than to get it running great as a unibody and bend it then try to straighten and reinforce it only to find the next weakest spot. I think you would have a safer car with a frame. Just opinions, free ones. I am no racer and have never messed with Ramblers.

 

You guys are thinking about relatively modern unit bodies of the "three box" design. The 56-62 Rambler "big" cars (108"+ wheelbase) aren't that type of unit body. Neither are the 58-63 Americans (100" wheelbase). Those cars have a sill ("frame" rail) that runs the entire length of the body, bumper to bumper. It's made of 18 gauge sheet metal, but the way it's bent adds a lot of strength. And did I mention the sill is continuous from end to end?

The unit bodies you guys are used to are "three box" designs. There is the front suspension/engine bay box, passenger compartment, and rear suspension/trunk box. The passenger box's main support is the rockers. Front and rear have sills. The front and rear sills overlap the passenger box some and connect to cross braces, but not to each other (with some rare exceptions). Those need the sills connected for strength.

The front and rear box sills are usually referred to as "sub frames", but technically they are simply sills integrated with the body (the term "sill" is used in the factory body books). A subframe is what an early Camaro (and some other GM cars) uses in the front -- and actual short frame section that bolts to the unit body sills.

The old Rambler bodies (and other 50s and real early 60s unit bodies) are very stiff compared to modern three bx designs -- and a little heavier. AMC switched to a three box design with their then all new 63 Classic and Ambassador and in 64 for the smaller American.

 

Thanks farna!

This is what I was hoping to hear again since it was a common thread on a number of your previous posts. Anything in particular you would suggest that needs to be done to handle the new (~400hp) engine? Again, this is going to be a daily driver...

- Glenn

 

I don't think you will have a problem as-is, as long as the unit body is in good condition (not rusted bad). The rails start at the front, then angle out at the firewall, back in just before the rear axle. The big cars do have an extension of the front rail that goes straight back under the front seats. Wouldn't hurt to extend those rails with a light gauge channel back to meet the side rails where they turn to go to the rear axle. I doubt it's necessary, but the convertible small Rambler has straight rails between where it curves to the outside (they don't have those extensions under the front seat area). A friend is running a roadster made from the 58-63 small car (American) body. No top, no additional bracing, no flex. BUT... he removed the doors and welded in a pipe structure, and welded the outer door skin to that. If he'd left opening doors he would have most likely needed the additional bracing under neath. He runs a hopped up original six, under 200 hp. but rallys the car -- slings it around curves and such. That would show any flex issues!

 

I appreciate the information. I'm hoping the Chinook winds take away enough snow in the next couple of days to get the wagon into the garage. I've got a lift and a welder so I'll do general repair as needed and add the extensions you suggested. A little extra weight won't bring the wagon near what the Caprice weighs

On a side note, I went looking for the repowering forum on the AMC site which I understand you frequent and couldn't find it in the forum hierarchy. I'd be grateful if you could give me a pointer on how to get there.

Many thanks,

- Glenn

 

There is a "FrankenRambler" section --it's at the bottom of the "Garage" section. Not because it's frowned on by hard core AMCers (the whole idea of a different motor in an AMC is, of course), but because it is the newest section, only been there a couple years. Here's a link:
http://theamcforum.com/forum/frankenrambler_forum62&SID=4185117b9z3d973adzz92e3b7ba544883912037.html

You will also want to peruse the "56-66 rear end swap" in the Trans and Drivetrain section:
rear end swap 56-66 Classic - The AMC Forum - Page 1

 

Hi guys I'm new here. Got here searching for info on sbc's.

I had a '60 Rambler 4door sedan for years many years ago. I had lots of engine and drive train issues which were pretty easy to fix by swapping in from easily found donor cars back then. I always wanted to put in a sbc or really any modern drive train but the unibody just made it impossible.

I recently got a 60 wagon as my handle says. The body had been channeled and dropped on a s10 blazer frame that was shortened to 100 inches. Looks like a rambler, runs like a chevy! It has lots of issues, but everything in the drive train is easy to find.

Good luck with your wagon, here is mine:

 

Hi guys I'm new here. Got here searching for info on sbc's.

I had a '60 Rambler 4door sedan for years many years ago. I had lots of engine and drive train issues which were pretty easy to fix by swapping in from easily found donor cars back then. I always wanted to put in a sbc or really any modern drive train but the unibody just made it impossible.

I recently got a 60 wagon as my handle says. The body had been channeled and dropped on a s10 blazer frame that was shortened to 100 inches. Looks like a rambler, runs like a chevy! It has lots of issues, but everything in the drive train is easy to find.

Good luck with your wagon, here is mine:

You should write up a "build" in your garage section, that would be interesting!

Russ

 

It would be interesting. The small Rambler American (58-63, and 50-55 Nash Rambler -- all virtually the same chassis) is very tight under the hood and requires a good bit of work to get an SBC in there, but it's been done. I have to say it would be less work overall than cutting out the floor and dropping on a frame, but only if you're okay with a relatively stock SBC. Headers would be hard to fit, log exhausts just do clear. Of course it's a LIGHT car... doesn't take much to make it really go! But if you wanted a lot more motor... dropping on a frame is the easiest way to do it.

 

I'm not sure what headers it started with, but they have been modified to dump into a 2.5" collector with short turbo mufflers. It had no tailpipes past the mufflers when I got it. This past weekend I ran 2.5" pipes out just in front of the rear wheels. As far as power I think the motor is making around 300 hp as is. It's a 1st gen sbc bored to 355 with double hump heads and a .454 lift comp cam. The s10 frame will handle it, but I doubt the stock s10 rear end will hold much more power.

 

If you ever get it up on a lift take and post some pics. Build is interesting. Shouldn't be too hard to bring it back up to stock height. I'm guessing the floor is a little higher than the original Rambler was. You're getting a lot of interest because several people have contemplated dropping older unibody cars over newer truck frames. Easier to do with a frame/body car, but even that can be a lot of work. If the unibody will handle a V-8 it's usually easier/better to upgrade the suspension and keep it unibody, even if you have to strengthen it a bit. Many seem to be convinced it's less work to cut the body up and drop on a frame. Might not be a whole lot more, depending on the car body, but it's not less! Lots more work to do to make everything finished, as you are finding out. But at least someone else did the major part of the work before you got it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing the way your car is built. I'm actually intrigued as to how it was done, hence the request for photos. I look at all interesting builds with a "critical" eye, mainly looking to learn from what I see -- both good and bad. I see things I'd duplicate, and things I would improve... but may have tried the same way if I didn't see it somewhere else first! I mounted my Jag IRS the traditional way first -- made a crossmember and bolted everything up solid. Too much noise in a street car without a loud engine! Finally bought another stock Jag "cage" and mounted it using hte rubber mounts. Turns out it's not only a little quieter but was a lot easier than building a crossmember! I critique my own work also... it's not beyond improving! Tried three different mounts for my rack and pinion before I got it right...

 

If you ever get it up on a lift take and post some pics.

I have access to a lift on weekends. If it warms up enough in the next couple of weeks I plan to get it up on the lift and treat all the underbody with Corroseal rust converter. Amazing stuff btw. I've done some of it, but really need to get it up in the air.

I will take lots of pics once I get it up on the lift. With a lot of grinding I could lift the body up to stock, but I really like the stance and look with the vintage Cragars and 14" wheels and don't want to have to spend a bunch on wheels and tires.

 

New Jag IRS mounting pics just uploaded to my photo album. Don't know how to post pics from there to a message. There are photos of old mounting crossmember there too.

 

Will appreciate the pics!

I meant raise the suspension, not the body! I thought you meant he lowered the suspension as well as the body. Would be easy enough to raise the suspension an inch or two.

 

Slight change of plans

My grandson and I finally got a good look at the red wagon yesterday and sadly the subframe is way to far gone to save. There is so much missing at the rear of the passenger's side that we didn't have a place to set the lift to get it up in the air. Fortunately, the blue wagon I had bought as a parts car is in much better shape in every area, so we're going to proceed with work on the former parts car. The blue body has more dents and dings than the red but much less surface rust. The subframe is solid front to back. The rockers are banged up underneath from being banged over 60 years worth of stuff but should be repairable. The floor pans will need work as will the front inner fender rears but that's really all I see so far, but once I get the car gutted I should know for sure.

 

Here's my daily driver 59 Rambler. It's stone stock, I literally can tell you the changes from when it was made in Dec 1959, the buzzer to let you know the head lights are on, the stereo and speakers, the seat belts, the third brake light and tail light upgrades, oh and it has a PCV now instead of a road draft tube. That's it folks, I drive it every, single day and have for the past 6 years? I think six years, every single day. There it is parked out in front of my house with my wife running some hot water over the windows to melt the ice.

Done deal, I love opening that hood to show the flathead motor to people, I pat her dash often thanking her for allowing me the treasure of driving her every day.

Brian

 

Another change in the plans is that instead of using the IFS and IRS from the '72 Jaguar XJ6 we have, we're going to use the IFS and IRS from an '83 Jaguar XJS. I was originally going to use the XJ6 pieces because the rear is a limited slip 3.54. But after trying to locate aftermarket brake upgrades for the series 1 it became obvious that I'm better off using the later units and putting new gears (3.73) and a spool in the rear (Dana 44).

With the car on the lift we were able to make some measurements on the Rambler and a similar set with tires and wheels from the XJ6 mounted on the Jag units. Here's the comparison:

Rambler with stock (?) wheels and P195/65x15 (non-radial) tires:
Inner sidewall to inner sidewall is 50 7/8"
Outer sidewall to outer sidewall is 65 7/8"

Jaguar with stock wheels (see below) and P215/70R15 tires:
Inner sidewall to inner sidewall is 48 3/4"
Outer sidewall to outer sidewall is 66 1/4"

The jag wheels are 6 1/2" wide with a negative offset of 1 3/8" and 4 1/2" of backspace. Set up this way the Jag suspension will put the outer sidewalls 3/16" closer to the fenders and the inner sidewalls 1 1/16" closer to the frame. Since I want to run steel wheels with the Rambler hub caps I should be able to get wheels with a smaller offset and maybe 7" wide and not have to do any narrowing to the suspensions.

And for anyone interested, without wheels and tires the complete Jag IFS weighs 277.5 pounds and the complete IRS (with cage) weighs 350 pounds.

 

From what info I could find, the 56-62 models have about the same rear track as the 63-66 models. I use a Jag IRS (87 XJ6) on mine. I have 7" wheels with 5.5" backspacing/+38mm offset and they are just right (Weld Racing 90-57350). Since the Jag axle uses a 4-3/4" bolt circle and Rambler uses a 4.5", those dual pattern wheels are great! I made my own "space saver" spare by using a standard 4" Draglite wheel (1-7/8" backset) and 185/70R15 tire. I didn't try the Jag wheels. Since you're going to use the Jag front as well, no worries with bolt pattern.

Take a look at my photo album to see how I mounted the Jag IRS. The top right photos using hte Jag IRS cage and mounts is the best way to go. I drove mine for 11 years with everything bolted up solid to a crossmember. You lose the Jag park brake that way due to clearance issues, and you get a bit of vibration. I use 24" four link bars for the trailing arms with RideTech RUBBER bushings in front, heims at the Jag lower arms. All I did for the front bar mount was reinforce the Rambler sill ("frame" rail) and run a bolt through. All I did was bend some 1/8" (10 gauge) steel in a U the width of the sill and tall enough to hit the floor, then tack welded in place, drilled a 5/8" hole through. Bolt runs through sill and reinforcements, then rubber rod end, washer on end with nylon lock nut. Have run that way since I built the car in 2003. I originally had urethane rod ends on both ends of the trailing arm -- fixed end at the axle, screw in at body. After about 8-9 years of driving one of the end pulled out!! Just felt the rear end steer a bit. Got out and looked, stuck it back in and carefully drove home (was only about 1/4 mile away!). The end threads had worn due to twisting. The arc of the Jag suspension arm turned the rod end in the arm just a little, but all the time! Should have foreseen that! If I had just greased the threads every so often it would have been fine (think I'd have drilled and welded a nut on to hold a grease zerk). The heims I use now have the little rubber add-on seals, will see how long they last on a street car. I live on a dirt road too, so gets a little mud thrown up on occasion. Don't drive it much anymore, so I suspect the heims will last a long time...

 

I had read your post on the AMC board before I started posting here and the information gave me a good basis from which to start planning. The fact that you had problems with the link ends leads me to think I'll look at spherical rod ends like they use in off road suspension to allow for the rotation of the links as the lower control arms move up and down. I'm also planning on adding some form of torque control to minimize rotation of the cage during acceleration. I'm grateful for you sharing your experience and I hope maybe to have something to add to it when I'm done.

 

The rubber mounts on the cage aren't real soft. I don't think you will need any kind of torque control -- the trailing arms will handle that. I can't recommend the combo of RideTech rubber (not poly!) rod ends at the body and spherical rod ends (heim joints) at the control arm of the IFS. Not much noise or vibration. I tried heims on both ends first -- lots of noise!! The noise was so bad I couldn't tell you if there was more vibration or not, don't remember, plus I had a slip-yoke binding which caused a lot of vibration (mostly at high speed). Have it all straightened out now. First thing I changed out was the rubber rod ends in place of the heims in front. Then the Jag cage and rubber for the direct bolted on crossmember, then I discovered the binding slip yoke. Though it was a driveshaft out of balance at first. Just to be sure I replaced the slip yoke AND driveshaft.

 

The rubber mounts on the cage aren't real soft. I don't think you will need any kind of torque control -- the trailing arms will handle that.

The trailing arms only keep the axles aligned fore and aft and won't do anything to keep the cage from trying to rotate during hard acceleration. I've seen talk on several of the Jag sites that with high horespower lumps that the stock mounted cage can twist due to the torque. The solution is pretty simple with a plate mounted on to the top bolts that secure the differential to the cage that extends forward (sometimes rearward for exhaust clearance) that ties to the chassis with a rubber transmission mount. I may not need it, but it seems easy and inexpensive so I'm planning on doing it.

I can't recommend the combo of RideTech rubber (not poly!) rod ends at the body and spherical rod ends (heim joints) at the control arm of the IFS.

The rest of what you wrote seems to indicate that you *can* recommend this method. Is that correct?

- Glenn

 

I meant to say "I can't recommend (it) enough".... Can't seem to go back and edit the post now. Referring to post 25 in this thread.

 

That's what I was hoping you meant. If not, you went into a lot of detail about how *not* to do it

 

Are you using the stock XJ6 shocks and springs in your wagon? If so, how does it ride? I can't find spring data for either the front or rear of either the XJ6 or XJS. The Rambler service manual conveniently provides spring rates so I would have a starting point for figuring out springs if I had Jaguar spring rate data.

- Glenn

 

The trailing arms DO limit roll of the cage. The trailing arms are attached to the outer ends of the lower control arm, and the control arm is attached to the lower edge of the differential. The control arm rides in roller bearings, not rubber bushings, so it can't twist. Therefore the trailing arms HAVE to limit roll. The stock Jag trailing arms mount to the body with a really big and flexible rubber bushing. Now it may not control roll very well, but I'm using heim joints at the lower arm and a RideTech rubber bushed rod end at the body -- not a lot of flex in either, but good vibration damping at the rubber bushing. The cage mounts can move some, but at least new ones are pretty stiff. There is less roll of that cage than with leaf springs without traction bars. I wouldn't use the IRS in a drag car -- better to use a live axle. It will handle 500+ hp easily, will easily handle the limit of a Dana 44 axle anyway (around 600 hp). So I think your concerns about the cage rolling are unfounded.

This from a Corvette board -- 'vettes used a D36 and D44 center section...
"I have pumped 700 hp 654 tq through my 44 for 2 years and only broke the half shafts.Then I went to 950 hp 836 tq at the motor and ate the u-joints 3 times in 6 runs.I make sure I tork everything to factory spects.
I also have found if you stage just a little off center ,Bang the half shafts u-joints and outer spindle axles will blow.1.49 60' More than a few times will kill it real quick.
I have put 450 hp 382 tq at the motor on my D-36 3.07 1.68 60' and haven't lost it yet ,go figure.I have also noticed if the body when launching pushes down past the center point of the half shafts the rear will break u-joints and spindles.I run a spool in my D-44 and 3.92 gears.28/11.5 MT drag slicks 7 1/2 back spacing 10 in wheel.
You never know what these rear ends will do ,I run 9.37 with the D-44 but I don't trust it ."