 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / November 2008ORPHAN CARS
Does anyone share my interest in the great orphan cars? Hudson, Packard, Studebaker, Kaiser, Willys, Nash, AMC, and the like? > Does anyone share my interest in the great orphan cars? Hudson, > Packard, Studebaker, Kaiser, Willys, Nash, AMC, and the like? Yep. Think I answered you once before and we talked about Crosley. I daily drive a '75 AMC Hornet and have a few other AMC/Rambler cars. Not show cars, just nice drivers. I was able to make it out to the national Studebaker show in September, there were some amazing vehicles there.  SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> Does anyone share my interest in the great orphan cars? Hudson, >> Packard, Studebaker, Kaiser, Willys, Nash, AMC, and the like? > Yep. Think I answered you once before and we talked about Crosley. Yes, a cute little thing. There are a few collectors, they wre fun little things. Somebody should bring them back. > I daily drive a '75 AMC Hornet and have a few other AMC/Rambler > cars. Not show cars, just nice drivers. I was able to make it out > to the national Studebaker show in September, there were some > amazing vehicles there. I have some die-casts of a few Studs. I have a golden hawk and a 53 president. I owned a 68 AMX and a 70 Javelin. I bought both new and loved both. The AMX was a real screamer. 390 4spd. I used to go hunting Corvettes and Camero SS's. Took on a few 500KR Mustangs too - the ONLY cars I'd not race were the big MOPARS. Fords and Chevys were lunchmeat till you got up to the exotic cobras. There were TONS of great orphans. Packards. Nashes the Hudsons. Maybe not race cars but unique and worthy of discussion. The Lowey Studs were a dramatic design change. Never figured out why they didn't catch on and the Lark did as ugly and lackluster as it was. > There were TONS of great orphans. Packards. Nashes the Hudsons. Maybe > not race cars but unique and worthy of discussion. The Lowey Studs were a After World War II, George Mason of Nash wanted to see all the major independents merge into a company which was to be called "American Motors" in order to compete with the Big Three after the sellers' market of the initial postwar period ended. Mason's overtures were initially rejected since all car companies were selling everything they could pump out of the factories. A few years later that happy sales situation had ended. Hudson was in bad shape, and wound up being bought out by Nash in 1954. The combined companies became American Motors Corporation. As you may recall, production of "real" Hudsons was halted and all production consolidated into the Nash factory in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Hudsons models continued to be built for a few more years using Nash body shells. Packard bought out Studebaker (a fatally ailing company) the same year. Mason's idea was that Studebaker-Packard would would also become part of AMC but that idea was abandoned when Mason died unexpectedly and George Romney took over the company. > dramatic design change. Never figured out why they didn't catch on and the > Lark did as ugly and lackluster as it was. The driving public at the time was becoming increasingly interested in compact cars. The economical Rambler had become quite successful, small imports were becoming more popular, and the Big Three all had compact designs in the pipeline. What's interesting is that looking at the early Larks you can see that what was done was to essentially lop off the front and rear overhang from a standard-size Studebaker to create a compact. If you focus on the center section of those cars you can really see it. Lark sales were initially excellent and kept Studebaker afloat for a few more years. AMC did a similar type thing when they hacksawed the Gremlin out of the Hornet to create a subcompact. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> There were TONS of great orphans. Packards. Nashes the Hudsons. Maybe >> not race cars but unique and worthy of discussion. The Lowey Studs were a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > initially rejected since all car companies were selling everything > they could pump out of the factories. I think the jury is out on whether that would have worked in the end. The problem was piss poor management and a lack of ideas, which Preston Tucker clearly demonstrated in 1947. Any one of those companies could have bult cars to compete with Tucker. None wanted to. They all suffered the same malaise, ALL of them were run by BANKERS and not car people. When the founders dies off the financial wizards came in and engineerring went oiut the window. Last to fall victim to that was Studebaker in the early 50's with the Lowey designs. There was some half hearted futzing with Lowey's enginering (Hawks) but no real vision to build quality cars. (Hawks due largely to Andy Granatelli who also spured the Avanti) > A few years later that happy sales situation had ended. Hudson was > in bad shape, and wound up being bought out by Nash in 1954. The [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > models continued to be built for a few more years using Nash body > shells. Some were nice looking. Ending Hudson was a bad idea. > Packard bought out Studebaker (a fatally ailing company) the same > year. Mason's idea was that Studebaker-Packard would would also become > part of AMC but that idea was abandoned when Mason died unexpectedly > and George Romney took over the company. And Romney killed it with the Rambler. >> dramatic design change. Never figured out why they didn't catch on and >> the >> Lark did as ugly and lackluster as it was. > The driving public at the time was becoming increasingly interested in > compact cars. The economical Rambler had become quite successful, small > imports were becoming more popular, and the Big Three all had compact > designs in the pipeline. Yes - the Corvair, the Pinto and eventually the Vega. NONE were with blowing up. Both the Rambler and Lark were far better cars. The problem is that neither had the dealerships to compete with GM and Ford. > What's interesting is that looking at the early Larks you can see > that what was done was to essentially lop off the front and rear > overhang from a standard-size Studebaker to create a compact. If > you focus on the center section of those cars you can really see it. > Lark sales were initially excellent and kept Studebaker afloat for > a few more years. I don't see it. The Studs of that time were Lowey low slung designs. I don't see the similarity with the slab sided boxes that the Larks were. Look at the 1955 Studebaker President - I see no similarity. > AMC did a similar type thing when they hacksawed the Gremlin out of the > Hornet to create a subcompact. That's true.They had a concept car at the auto shows using the AMX with that rear end. The Gremlin was an ABORTION at best. I called it at the time; "design afterbirth." They threw the baby out (The AMX concept car everybody loved) for that slug. It was a poorly thought out rush job. ..... >> The driving public at the time was becoming increasingly interested >> in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > problem is that neither had the dealerships to compete with GM and > Ford. The Pinto and Vega came much later (1970) and were significantly smaller than the Rambler and Lark. It is not reasonable to claim they were competitors to the Lark or Rambler. The "Big 3" competitors to those cars were the Covair (at least initially), Falcon, Comet, Valiant, Dart, Chevy II, Tempest, Skylark, F-85, and later the Fairlane and Meteor/Montego (although they eventually grew larger) and I suppose eventually the Maverick. ..... > I don't see it. The Studs of that time were Lowey low slung > designs. I don't see the similarity with the slab sided boxes that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > (The AMX concept car everybody loved) for that slug. It was a poorly > thought out rush job. But they sold a lot of them (almost 700k). Ed >>> The driving public at the time was becoming increasingly interested in >>> compact cars. The economical Rambler had become quite successful, small >>> imports were becoming more popular, and the Big Three all had compact >>> designs in the pipeline. >> Yes - the Corvair, the Pinto and eventually the Vega. NONE were with >> blowing up. Both the Rambler and Lark were far better cars. The problem >> is that neither had the dealerships to compete with GM and Ford. > The Pinto and Vega came much later (1970) and were significantly smaller > than the Rambler and Lark. It is not reasonable to claim they were [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (although they eventually grew larger) and I suppose eventually the > Maverick. Well yes in the aerly 60's, by the mid 60's the GM cars had bloated.(Skylark, Cutleass etc) But you are right about the Falcon. >> I don't see it. The Studs of that time were Lowey low slung designs. I >> don't see the similarity with the slab sided boxes that the Larks were. >> Look at the 1955 Studebaker President - I see no similarity. >>> AMC did a similar type thing when they hacksawed the Gremlin out of the >>> Hornet to create a subcompact. >> That's true.They had a concept car at the auto shows using the AMX >> with that rear end. The Gremlin was an ABORTION at best. I called it at >> the time; "design afterbirth." They threw the baby out (The AMX concept >> car everybody loved) for that slug. It was a poorly thought out rush job. > But they sold a lot of them (almost 700k). I am not sure of the sales figures but they were UGLY as hell. But the WORST - the absolute worst was the PACER! > I am not sure of the sales figures but they were UGLY as hell. > But the WORST - the absolute worst was the PACER! I suppose, but at least they were trying. The Pacer was an attempt to make a roomy smaller car. I never actually rode in one, but I sure remember seeing them on the highway. At least AMC was trying to break out of the "me too" mold. They were never going to be successful building Nova clones. And I don't think they were so ugly. Different yes, ugly no. A Pontiac Aztec is ugly. A Pacer was different. Ed >> I am not sure of the sales figures but they were UGLY as hell. But the >> WORST - the absolute worst was the PACER! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "me too" mold. They were never going to be successful building Nova > clones. AMC had the best A/C system in a car ever. (Kelvinator) However the Pacer was a greenhouse. Even in Wisconsin, in the summer you baked your brains. In Florida here it was intolerable 9 months of the year even with tinting. > And I don't think they were so ugly. Different yes, ugly no. A Pontiac > Aztec is ugly. A Pacer was different. The Pontiac Aztec was a contest at GM to design the MOST ugly car ever to hit the road. Then it had that awful yellow/green paint. As they drove down the street people would throw ucp just looking at it. > I think the jury is out on whether that would have worked in the end. Hard to say. Certainly Studebaker was in very bad shape, as Packard found out the hard way. > And Romney killed it with the Rambler. The Rambler carried AMC to its height of popularity in the late 1950s, and for a short time Rambler outsold Plymouth. The Rambler's popularity continued into the early 1960s. AMC sales started suffering after Romney left the company to go into politics. Roy Abernethy became AMC president, he was a "big car" guy who rapidly diluted AMC's reputation as a compact-car specialist and set the company on a suicidal course to compete head-on with the Big Three. A case in point was the Marlin, a sporty fastback originally conceived as a compact (called the Tarpon) by designer Richard Teague. In response to the wildly popular Mustang, Abernethy ordered AMC's fastback to be built as a larger, and much more ungainly, car. Needless to say, it was a flop. > I don't see it. The Studs of that time were Lowey low slung designs. I You have to look at the shape of the doors and windows. It was pretty evident at the Studebaker show where one could examine the cars close up. The Brooks Stevens restlying of the original Lark did effectively erase the visual ties to earlier models. FWIW, the Wikipedia entry for the Lark states: "The Lark was ingeniously designed around the core bodyshell of the full-sized 1953-1958 Studebakers. By reducing the front and rear overhangs and shortening the wheelbase, the car could still seat six people comfortably and hold a surprising amount of luggage." > "design afterbirth." They threw the baby out (The AMX concept car everybody > loved) for that slug. It was a poorly thought out rush job. The Gremlin had its good points. It did not suffer from the self-destructing engines of the Vega or the exploding gas tanks of the Pinto. Since the front half of the car was a Hornet, it had much more front-seat room than most subcompacts. Also more power since Gremlins came standard with the Hornet's six-cylinder engine. (A V8 was also available for a while, and a four-banger late in the production run.) On the other hand, the Gremlin had practically zero room for rear passengers, and was relatively heavy and ponderous being made out of the parts of a larger car. It actually *needed* power steering. With nearly all the weight up front it understeered like crazy, and the light back end made driving in slippery conditions an "interesting" proposition. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> I think the jury is out on whether that would have worked in the end. > Hard to say. Certainly Studebaker was in very bad shape, as Packard > found out the hard way. Packard was in bad shape too. The cars after the war were, in the best light, uninspired designs at Packard. The 55 Caribbean was a striking looking car buy a horrible piece of engineering. Nothing worked. The push button trans was a nightmare. Was at least a year away from being ready. Toprsion bar suspension prone to break. Nice looking car it just live in the repair shop and that killed Packard. >> And Romney killed it with the Rambler. > The Rambler carried AMC to its height of popularity in the late 1950s, > and for a short time Rambler outsold Plymouth. The Rambler's popularity > continued into the early 1960s. > AMC sales started suffering after Romney left the company to go > into politics. Roy Abernethy became AMC president, he was a "big > car" guy who rapidly diluted AMC's reputation as a compact-car > specialist and set the company on a suicidal course to compete > head-on with the Big Three. Yep instead of carving out their own market they tried to compete with GM when GM was startuing to build crap. > A case in point was the Marlin, a sporty fastback originally > conceived as a compact (called the Tarpon) by designer Richard > Teague. In response to the wildly popular Mustang, Abernethy > ordered AMC's fastback to be built as a larger, and much more > ungainly, car. Needless to say, it was a flop. It was ugly. Handled like a pregnant walrus. >> I don't see it. The Studs of that time were Lowey low slung designs. >> I > You have to look at the shape of the doors and windows. It was pretty > evident at the Studebaker show where one could examine the cars close up. > The Brooks Stevens restlying of the original Lark did effectively erase > the visual ties to earlier models. What they did as an economy move is use the doors from the other cars that's all. > FWIW, the Wikipedia entry for the Lark states: > "The Lark was ingeniously designed around the core bodyshell of the > full-sized 1953-1958 Studebakers. By reducing the front and rear > overhangs and shortening the wheelbase, the car could still seat > six people comfortably and hold a surprising amount of luggage." I know that is said but look at the two cars. A 55 President and the Lark. Hard to see. >> "design afterbirth." They threw the baby out (The AMX concept car >> everybody >> loved) for that slug. It was a poorly thought out rush job. > The Gremlin had its good points. It did not suffer from the > self-destructing engines of the Vega or the exploding gas tanks of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (A V8 was also available for a while, and a four-banger late in > the production run.) The 6 was the old Nasg 7 main bearing 6 dating back to the 40's. BULLETPROOF. > On the other hand, the Gremlin had practically zero room for rear > passengers, and was relatively heavy and ponderous being made out > of the parts of a larger car. It actually *needed* power steering. > With nearly all the weight up front it understeered like crazy, > and the light back end made driving in slippery conditions an > "interesting" proposition. Then they wrote the PACER! > The 6 was the old Nasg 7 main bearing 6 dating back to the 40's. > BULLETPROOF. It was similar in some ways (such as 7 main bearings) to the old Nash mill, but was a newer-design engine that first saw life in 1964 as 232 CID six in the Rambler Typhoon. It ultimately replaced the old 195.6 L-Head and OHV sixes previously used, whose design dated to the 1930s. The "Typhoon" inline six continued in production for over 40 years, with numerous engineering updates, powering Jeeps through 2006. (It was also the basis for the AMC/Jeep 4-banger.) SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> The 6 was the old Nasg 7 main bearing 6 dating back to the 40's. >> BULLETPROOF. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the old 195.6 L-Head and OHV sixes previously used, whose design > dated to the 1930s. That was essentially the same engine updated. It was one of the most reliable in-line 6's ever built along with the Mopar slant 6. Of course there was the Continental Red Seal six used in the Kaisers. You couldn't hurt those things. I know some folks still using their 53 Kaisers as a daily driver with working on the second million miles. It was also the engine for some of the old taxicabs becayse it would run forever. Slower than crap but they never quit. > That was essentially the same engine updated. It was one of the most There were some common design concepts but I don't think there was any parts interchangeability. Different block design, different head design, all internal parts different. This contrasts with the 199/232/258 AMC/Rambler six and the Jeep 4.0, where major components such as cylinder heads and crankshafts can be interchanged and the engine mounts are in the same place -- a 4.0 from a 2006 Jeep will happily drop into a mid-1960s Rambler. (Right up to the end the 4.0 block even had the mounting bosses that had been added to the 258 for the 4WD AMC Eagle's front differential.) > there was the Continental Red Seal six used in the Kaisers. You couldn't > hurt those things. Funny you should mention Kaiser. The engineer who designed most of AMC's engines starting with the 250/287/327 V8 was David Potter, who left Kaiser for a job at the then-new American Motors. It happens that he had designed a prototype V8 at Kaiser. Given that experience, he brought the 1st-generation AMC V8 from drawing board to production in less than a year and a half, quite a feat in those pre-computer days. Needless to say, that AMC V8 closely resembled the Kaiser prototype. The 1st-generation AMC V8 debuted in 1956 in 250 CID form. In 1957 it was enlarged to 327 CID and installed in the Rambler Rebel, an early muscle car. (That car was supposed to get Bendix electronic fuel injection, but that's another story.) AMC had initially entered the V8 world by purchasing engines and Ultramatic transmissions from Packard. That turned out to be unsatisfactory, partly due to the high cost of the Packard components and partly because Packard reneged on an arrangement to buy parts from AMC. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> That was essentially the same engine updated. It was one of the most > There were some common design concepts but I don't think there was any > parts interchangeability. Different block design, different head design, > all internal parts different. Pretty much the same block. Same cam and crank. Changes were for oil filter and overhead valves. Very little engineering changes. Minor difference in bore. > This contrasts with the 199/232/258 AMC/Rambler six and the Jeep 4.0, > where [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > AMC > Eagle's front differential.) >> there was the Continental Red Seal six used in the Kaisers. You couldn't >> hurt those things. > Funny you should mention Kaiser. The engineer who designed most of > AMC's engines starting with the 250/287/327 V8 was David Potter, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > pre-computer days. Needless to say, that AMC V8 closely resembled > the Kaiser prototype. The Kaiser protype was to be aluminum. What REALLY demised Kaiser - a little known truth - is that a conspiracy went on to put the Oldsmobile V8 into the Manhattan. A deal was made by the manufacturing people to cicumvent the "orange juicers" (the name for the Kaisers) and try it out. It was a great deal, even Oldmobile regterred licensing it to Kaiser because it was so quick. The factory folks quickly built 50 cars and were ready to ship them when Edgar Kaiser (who was running the company) caught them in the act. The Kaisers wanted an ALUMINUM V-8. PERIOD. Whern Kaiser saw the Cars, he ordered them destroyed and padlocked the plant. The company was screwed financially anyway. It was slowly bleeding the rest of Kaiser industries. It could have kept on for a little while but Edgar's tantrum ended it. > The 1st-generation AMC V8 debuted in 1956 in 250 CID form. In 1957 > it was enlarged to 327 CID and installed in the Rambler Rebel, an > early muscle car. (That car was supposed to get Bendix electronic > fuel injection, but that's another story.) That was a very quick car. Supply problems with fuel injection. Early FI had a multitude of problems. > AMC had initially entered the V8 world by purchasing engines and > Ultramatic > transmissions from Packard. That turned out to be unsatisfactory, partly > due to the high cost of the Packard components and partly because Packard > reneged on an arrangement to buy parts from AMC. The Packard V-8 was actually, as the story goes, one that transmuted from Studebaker engineers. If you notice the AMC engine was a clone of those engines. They were damn good engines. Lots of people thought the AMC 390 was really a Ford. You could not tell them that not only was the bore and stroke too different, but the V angle was different. They didn't seem to know why that would make a difference. Similarly lots of Chevy people SWORE that was a Chevy 327 in the Rebel. NOT EVEN CLOSE. Hello: An AMC 390 looked like a Buick motor, as did all the last generation AMC engines. The 327 looked unique, with wide cylinder heads, and two phillips bolts holding on the valve covers. No other American auto maker's engines lasted close to 110K miles, but the Rambler/AMC engines made it way passed that. As long as you did the timing chains, before you bent a bunch of valves. RK >>> That was essentially the same engine updated. It was one of the most > [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > seem to know why that would make a difference. Similarly lots of Chevy > people SWORE that was a Chevy 327 in the Rebel. NOT EVEN CLOSE. > An AMC 390 looked like a Buick motor, as did all the last generation AMC > engines. Everyone had ideas that it was somebody else's engine. It was 100% AMC. Look at the degree in the V. Nobody else was close to it. > The 327 looked unique, with wide cylinder heads, and two phillips bolts > holding on the valve covers. > No other American auto maker's engines lasted close to 110K miles, but the > Rambler/AMC engines made it way passed that. As long as you did the timing > chains, before you bent a bunch of valves. The biggest shortcoming in the AMC V-8's were the valve guides tended to wear. But a new 390. Install aftermarket guides, an aftermarket timing gear set up, get rid of the Carter AFB, put a Holley double pumper on, put a forged steel flywheel (get rid of that aluminum crap) and tune it on a chassis dyno, change distributor springs and you add almost 100 HP to the wheels. They were an unbelievable engine. 100K miles, and hardly a ridge in the cylinder. RK >> An AMC 390 looked like a Buick motor, as did all the last generation AMC >> engines. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > chassis dyno, change distributor springs and you add almost 100 HP to the > wheels. > They were an unbelievable engine. > > 100K miles, and hardly a ridge in the cylinder. I had one of the first 100 AMX's built in 1968. I ordered it before production started. Spec'd it out. 390 4 spd. Changed it out and tuned it in a Clayton Chassis dyno at a hot rod place near the Wisconsin State Fair I used to go out HUNTING Corvettes (427's) and Cameros (SS 396) and Mustangs (500KR's) and I whip them all the time. The ONLY cars I would back off of was the big Mopars. Nothing street wise that GM or Ford built bothered me.It was a damn good engine if you understood it was NOT a Chevy or Ford engine and you learned what it needed. Had to get rid of those nylon timing gears and a WEAK timing belt. I forgot to add that you needed a better oil pump. I did the mods and the car constantly did in the high 12's in the quarter to the low 13's. With ME driving. A pro drove it once at hit 12.5 with it. I was more into trans-am than dragging, >>> An AMC 390 looked like a Buick motor, as did all the last generation AMC >>> engines. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> on a chassis dyno, change distributor springs and you add almost 100 HP >> to the wheels. There were people in The Bronx, NY: That had 290's running in the high 11's, a special fond memory was the Duo-Coil Ignition distributor, that was available for the AMC. A lot of AMX's and Javelines came with Dana 44's, a good rear. Plus they used the Borg Warner T-10. Great cars, that ended too soon. RK >> They were an unbelievable engine. >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >>> on a chassis dyno, change distributor springs and you add almost 100 HP >>> to the wheels. > There were people in The Bronx, NY: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Great cars, that ended too soon. I saw a couple AMX's that ran consistently in the 10's but were not STOCK - the mods I did didn't take it out of NHRA stock rules. > An AMC 390 looked like a Buick motor, as did all the last generation AMC > engines. They looked similar due to the cast aluminum housing up front for the timing chain, oil pump, and Delco distributor. But it was an all-AMC design. (With a little bit of Kaiser thrown in via David Potter.) > The 327 looked unique, with wide cylinder heads, and two phillips bolts > holding on the valve covers. I had a '65 Classic hardtop with that engine years ago. Four-barrel carb and twin-stick manual tranny. That was one fast little Rambler! Wish I'd kept it. > No other American auto maker's engines lasted close to 110K miles, but the > Rambler/AMC engines made it way passed that. As long as you did the timing > chains, before you bent a bunch of valves. They made the mistake a lot of American auto makers did: nylon timing chain gears. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) > No other American auto maker's engines lasted close to 110K miles, > but the Rambler/AMC engines made it way passed that. As long as you > did the timing chains, before you bent a bunch of valves. Huh? I have driven a 1957 Ford with a 312 with over 150k original miles (not my car). Plenty of 50's era Chevy and Fords running around with well over 110K miles. I would say that almost any engine with reasonable maintenance can last well past 150k miles. I've never actually had to replace a car because of engine problems, so I don't have any idea from personal experience how long an engine can last (most I've ever driven a car I owned from new was 150k miles). Ed >> No other American auto maker's engines lasted close to 110K miles, but >> the Rambler/AMC engines made it way passed that. As long as you did the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > personal experience how long an engine can last (most I've ever driven a > car I owned from new was 150k miles). The AVERAGE for the Ford 6 was 50K and it needed valves. 75K it needed rings. The V-8's were not much better after they left the flatheads which ran forever. You talk about averages. Most Chevys never made it close to 100K. >>> No other American auto maker's engines lasted close to 110K miles, >>> but the Rambler/AMC engines made it way passed that. As long as [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > flatheads which ran forever. > You talk about averages. Most Chevys never made it close to 100K. I can only go with what I know. When I was growing up my parents and grandparents owned nothing but Fords. First Ford car I can remember was a '57 full size Ford Station Wagon (312 V8). First truck I can remember was a '56 F100(?) with a V-8. The truck was replaced in 1962 with another Ford truck (292 V8). The car was replaced in 1964 with a Fairlane Station Wagon (260 V8). My grandfather had a 1959 full size Ford Fairlane (292 V8). None of these engines needed valves or rings while we owned them. One of my high school buddies had a 1957 Ford with a 312 (this was circa 1969). Original engine, 150k miles. Ran fine, didn't smoke, as far as could be told, the engine was all original (he drove it for at least 50k miles his self). The only Ford vehicle with an in-line 6 I ever owned was a 1992 F150. In 14 years the engine never gave me any problems. This engine was closely related to the 6 from the 50's. I've always heard how great those old Ford 6's were. I've seen many of them in industrial applications, so I have a hard time believing they were junk in the 50's. Ed >> The AVERAGE for the Ford 6 was 50K and it needed valves. 75K it needed >> rings. The V-8's were not much better after they left the flatheads which [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > old Ford 6's were. I've seen many of them in industrial applications, so I > have a hard time believing they were junk in the 50's. The old flathead Ford engine would run forever. Same with the 4cyl Fords. Ford was always snake-bit when it came to the inline 6. Individual experiences vary but the V-8's of the later 50's through the 80's were not that good. I don't know who told you the Ford 6 was great. Of course the truck engine and the car engine were different animals. In the cars upper oiling was always a problem. Oil passages easily clogged. Lots had to do with the kind of oil you used. If you used a straight weight Texaco oil the engines would be okay. If you used a Pennsylvania oil you were lucky to hit 50K.You really have to separate the trucks from the cars. Ford has always built a decent truck with few exceptions. Their cars suck. >>> The AVERAGE for the Ford 6 was 50K and it needed valves. 75K it >>> needed rings. The V-8's were not much better after they left the [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > really have to separate the trucks from the cars. Ford has always > built a decent truck with few exceptions. Their cars suck. My family has owned both Ford trucks and cars, and were happy with both. There were two families of Ford inline 6's in the 60's through the 80's. The old big 6 (240, 300) was directly related to the 50's era 6 cylinder. I've never heard anyone say anything bad about it. The 144, 170, 200, 250 "small 6 family" was originally released for the Falcons. It was also the basis for many Australian Ford engines. I've never heard anyone say anything bad about the US version of this engine either, except that it was hard to modify because it had an integral intake manifold (cast with the head). Personally I rate either of the Ford 6's as very good if somewhat underpowered engines. The 300 six I had in my 1992 F150 was terrific. Better than the 302 V-8 for that application. Pulled great, ran smooth, got decent mileage. Only real problem was the weight. If made the truck nose heavy (weighed as much as the V-8 and the center of gravity was further forward). If they still sold it in a truck, I'd buy it in a minute. It is a very common industrial engine. Ed >> The old flathead Ford engine would run forever. Same with the 4cyl >> Fords. Ford was always snake-bit when it came to the inline 6. Individual [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> Ford has always built a decent truck with few exceptions. Their cars >> suck. > My family has owned both Ford trucks and cars, and were happy with both. > There were two families of Ford inline 6's in the 60's through the 80's. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > was hard to modify because it had an integral intake manifold (cast with > the head). I was attacked by Chevy owners for suggesting that thr 3.8 liter V-6 was NOT the best engine ever devised by any manufacturer in world history. I can find you people who believe the YUGO was the best car to ever hit the road. By FAR better than a Rolls Royce.That's their experience and their belief. I can only say that the Ford 6 in cars had a dismal reputation for starving for oil especially in the upper engine.The oil passages were too small, the oil pump too underpowered, and it was too prone to gunk up and just starve the valve train etc till it burned up. The engines were okay IF you used the right oil. I would suggest that HAD Mobil 1 been available in the 60's and that had been used in the Ford 6 the engines might have held up pretty well. HOWEVER - if you used a Pennsylvania oil 50K was a VERY optimistic figure. If you used Taxaco Havoline or Shell Rotella the engine performed fairly well.You just had to change the oil and filter regularly. That 6 was just NOT a good engine when you compare it to the Mopar slant 6 or the AMC 7 main bearing 6 or the Hudson 6. Any of which would outlast the Ford 6 by decades. > Personally I rate either of the Ford 6's as very good if somewhat > underpowered engines. The 300 six I had in my 1992 F150 was terrific. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > further forward). If they still sold it in a truck, I'd buy it in a > minute. It is a very common industrial engine. The 6 in the trucks is NOT the same engine that was in the Falcon. It was an OKAY engine. >>> The old flathead Ford engine would run forever. Same with the >>> 4cyl Fords. Ford was always snake-bit when it came to the inline [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > the AMC 7 main bearing 6 or the Hudson 6. Any of which would outlast > the Ford 6 by decades. I doubt you have proof of this. I know of several Mustangs running around with original 200 small 6s from the mid 60s. I've never heard anyone else claim you'd have to rebuild a Ford small 6 after 50k miles. The engines were very common in Mustangs, Falcons, and Fairlanes when I was growing up, and I never heard of anyone having the sort of problems you are alluding to. My cousin ran a full service gas station / garage. I spent many hours hanging around the garage until I was old enough to drive. I saw them do many valve jobs on Chrysler slant sixes (apparently they were good for burning valves) but never even saw the valve cover off a Ford small 6. I know nothing about Hudson 6s or even AMC 6s, I've never seen one. The small town where I grew up only had a Ford, a Chevy and a Chrysler dealer, and for the most part, those are the only cars you ever saw around town or in the garage. Maybe my cousin's shop got a lot of the Chryslers that needed work because the Chrysler dealer was directly across the street, but I sort of doubt it. I can find lots of articles on the Ford small 6 on line. None mention the oiling problems you allude to.... http://www.mustangmonthly.com/techarticles/173_0312_inline_six_cylinder_performa nce_guide/index.html http://www.fordsix.com/tech/engine/hopup.php - actually says it has a good oiling system http://www.mustangandfords.com/techarticles/mufp_0710_turbocharged_six_cylinder_ mustang/index.html http://www.fordsix.com/tech/engine/old_250.php >> Personally I rate either of the Ford 6's as very good if somewhat >> underpowered engines. The 300 six I had in my 1992 F150 was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The 6 in the trucks is NOT the same engine that was in the > Falcon. It was an OKAY engine. No it isn't (I said that myself already). But the big six was sold in full size Ford cars (both as a 240 and a 300). The small six was sold in compacts (Falcon, Maverick, Mustang, etc.) and intermediates (Fairlane, Torino, Granada, etc.) and at least at times in some trucks (if you want to call Rancheros, Broncos, and Econoline vans, trucks). When I took drivers ed in the 60's all the driver's ed cars were big Fords with 240 sixes. In fact, most of the non-police state owned cars at that time were big Fords with the 240 sixes. Smooth running, but not particularly fast. Ed > I doubt you have proof of this. I know of several Mustangs running around > with original 200 small 6s from the mid 60s. I've never heard anyone else [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Chryslers that needed work because the Chrysler dealer was directly across > the street, but I sort of doubt it. OKAY everything but the Ford is sh.t! GOT YA! Been through the same bullshit with Chevy owners. I DON'T WANT TO PLAY AGAIN! FOR RULES everything else is sh.t! This crap gets old fast. Prove it? PROVE that cars made 40+ years ago had this or that reputation???? I don't have the time for this. >> I doubt you have proof of this. I know of several Mustangs running >> around with original 200 small 6s from the mid 60s. I've never [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > OKAY everything but the Ford is sh.t! I did not say that. The only bad thing I said about Chryslers was that I saw them do lots of valve jobs on slant 6's (a lot being fewer than a ten in a couple of years). I also know the slant 6's were very popular and had a great reputation. I also remember them as the engine of choice in gasoline powered Massey-Ferguson combines. We had MF tractors (but not a combine) and I often talked with the head mechanic at our dealer (an old Navy guy). He loved those engines. > GOT YA! Been through the same bullshit with Chevy owners. I DON'T > WANT TO PLAY AGAIN! > FOR RULES everything else is sh.t! This crap gets old fast. Prove > it? PROVE that cars made 40+ years ago had this or that > reputation???? I don't have the time for this. I was just pointing out that your recollection didn't match mine as far as Ford 6's were concerned. I had no opinion of AMC or Hudson 6's because I just never was around any of them, or even people that owned them (well except for one guy I went to college with - he had an AMC Hornet). I certainly don't think your claim that Ford 6's routinely required rebuilding after 50k miles is credible. I knew to many people who had Falcons and Mustangs with 6's that never had any problems to think that could be true. Ditto for Chevy inline 6's. I never heard anyone complain about those. And now that you mention it, I actually have experience with one of those. We had a 1957 Chevrolet dump truck with some sort of inline 6. The engine was great. The rest of the truck, no so much (mostly bad brakes and a bad transmission). We quit using it around 1981. That old truck sat on the edge of the woods until last year - it even had a tree growing in the bed. We finally parked it because the brakes and transmission were beyond fixing, but the engine still ran when we gave up on it. And the whole thing was worth a lot as scrap last year:) Ed >>> I doubt you have proof of this. I know of several Mustangs running >>> around with original 200 small 6s from the mid 60s. I've never heard [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>> lot of the Chryslers that needed work because the Chrysler dealer was >>> directly across the street, but I sort of doubt it. >> OKAY everything but the Ford is sh.t! > I did not say that. The only bad thing I said about Chryslers was that I > saw them do lots of valve jobs on slant 6's (a lot being fewer than a ten > in a couple of years). IF we wanted to do some serious research - which we do NOT - we could go back to the old Consumer's magazines of the time. They had simplistic but fairly ACCURATE charts on cars. Simple dots from clear to black. Black being major problems reported. The 1960-70 Falcon had a collection of BLACK DOTS. Engine oil failures figured prominently in the black dot for the engine. Brakes were none too great either. I was part owner of an auto parts jobber. We worked with several engine rebuilders. Because I had a Falcon right after I got out of the service I always had a small interest in the little Ford 6. ALL of the rebuilders bitched endlessly about the oil passages being gunked up and how it was a nightmare to ream them out, and how MOST of them simply installed an OUTSIDE oiler for the upper engine. Even then it was a LOUSY engine. On the other hand Consumer's and every other magazine I am aware of rated the Chrysler slant 6 is one of the best in line 6's built at that time. The Chevy 6 rated fairly well too. Everyone considered the 144/170 to be crap. I also know people who LOVED them. But as I said - I know a guy who thinks his YUGO is the best car ever made. > I was part owner of an auto parts jobber. We worked with several engine > rebuilders. Did you ever deal with the aluminum Rambler and Chrysler sixes? I know the AMC/Rambler aluminum motors were pretty disastrous, they were only built a few years and many were replaced under warranty with cast-iron engines. These were a fairly advanced design for the time, with a die-cast, open-deck block, but the metalurgy was not really quite up to the task yet. (At this late date they are very rare birds.) I've never seen one of the aluminum Chrysler slant-sixes, but have read about them. > people who LOVED them. But as I said - I know a guy who thinks his YUGO is > the best car ever made. Yugos are interesting, if I found one cheap that still ran I might be tempted to pick it up just for grins. Definitely not the "best" of anything much, though. Malcolm Bricklin strikes again! SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> I was part owner of an auto parts jobber. We worked with several engine >> rebuilders. > Did you ever deal with the aluminum Rambler and Chrysler sixes? Yopu don't mean the ALuminum V-6 that AMC got from GM do you? > I know the AMC/Rambler aluminum motors were pretty disastrous, they > were only built a few years and many were replaced under warranty with > cast-iron engines. These were a fairly advanced design for the time, > with a die-cast, open-deck block, but the metalurgy was not really > quite up to the task yet. (At this late date they are very rare birds.) Only GM had modest success with an aluminum block, but it had cast iron sleeves in the block. Still not a great engine. > I've never seen one of the aluminum Chrysler slant-sixes, but have read > about them. I've never heard of them. >> people who LOVED them. But as I said - I know a guy who thinks his YUGO >> is >> the best car ever made. > Yugos are interesting, if I found one cheap that still ran I might be > tempted to pick it up just for grins. Definitely not the "best" of > anything much, though. Malcolm Bricklin strikes again! You can never make an absolute statement about any car. > Yopu don't mean the ALuminum V-6 that AMC got from GM do you? No, from around 1961-1963 AMC had an aluminum version of the 196.5 straight six. It was a die-cast, open-deck block with iron liners. For a while this was made the standard engine in the "Big" Ramblers. (Disaster soon followed.) Around the same time period Chrysler sold an aluminum version of the slant-six. > I've never heard of them. One of the old car magazines (Hemmings, I think) had an article on the aluminum slant-sixes within the last year or so. I'll see if I can locate it in my stack of back issues... SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> You don't mean the ALuminum V-6 that AMC got from GM do you? > No, from around 1961-1963 AMC had an aluminum version of the 196.5 > straight six. It was a die-cast, open-deck block with iron liners. > For a while this was made the standard engine in the "Big" Ramblers. > (Disaster soon followed.) I don't remember the engine, but I was not a fanatic about Ramblers. > Around the same time period Chrysler sold an aluminum version of > the slant-six. >> I've never heard of them. > One of the old car magazines (Hemmings, I think) had an article on the > aluminum slant-sixes within the last year or so. I'll see if I can locate > it in my stack of back issues... Interesting. The cast iron slant 6 was long rated tops for an inline engine. > I don't remember the engine, but I was not a fanatic about Ramblers. The biggest problem with them was corrosion. Antifreeze additives of the day were not really designed for aluminum, and many people had the habit of using straight water in warm weather. Needless to say these engines did not take kindly to overheating either. Owners could neglect cast-iron engines and still get halfway decent service life out of them, not so with the aluminum mills. > Interesting. The cast iron slant 6 was long rated tops for an inline > engine. I've never actually seen one of the aluminum slant-six engines, they were offered as an option in Chrysler compacts for only a couple of years. Don't know how well they held up either, but I would expect they'd suffer from the same maladies as the Rambler engines at the hands of owners inexperienced in properly maintaining them. I did find the magazine article on this engine, it's in the April 2006 edition of "Hemmings Classic Car." Highlights from the article: The original design spec finalized in 1958 for the slant-six called for aluminum block, head, and intake manifold. As insurance, designs for cast-iron block and head were also done. It was intended that if the aluminum program were successful, development of the cast-iron version would be terminated. Numerous setbacks with the aluminum design forced Chrysler to go with cast-iron when the engine debuted in 1960. Development on the aluminum design continued, and in 1961 over 10,000 aluminum engines were installed as optional equipment in Plymouth Valiants and Dodge Lancers. About 36,000 more were installed in 1962. The blocks had an open deck and thin iron cylinder liners, as in the Rambler aluminum six. Also like the Rambler engine, they had cast-iron heads. (Chrysler was unable to overcome the difficulties in producing workable aluminum heads other than a few prototypes.) The aluminum engine program was terminated at the end of the 1962 model year by consensus of Chrysler Engineering and Manufacturing, since manufacturing efficiency was much lower with the aluminum engine and demand for the slant-six was soaring. The advantage of the aluminum's lower weight was in the end not considered worth the effort. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> I don't remember the engine, but I was not a fanatic about Ramblers. > The biggest problem with them was corrosion. Antifreeze additives > of the day were not really designed for aluminum, and many people > had the habit of using straight water in warm weather. Needless to > say these engines did not take kindly to overheating either. Owners > could neglect cast-iron engines and still get halfway decent service > life out of them, not so with the aluminum mills. I am not sure - but it seems to me that even till today - nobody ahs rfeally built a successful aluminum engine for long term use. >> Interesting. The cast iron slant 6 was long rated tops for an inline >> engine. > I've never actually seen one of the aluminum slant-six engines, they were > offered as an option in Chrysler compacts for only a couple of years. > Don't know how well they held up either, but I would expect they'd > suffer from the same maladies as the Rambler engines at the hands of > owners inexperienced in properly maintaining them. On no - the slant 6 was around for years, To be specific 1960 to 1983. That's a bit more than a "couple of years." Look it up in Wiki. > I did find the magazine article on this engine, it's in the April 2006 > edition of "Hemmings Classic Car." Highlights from the article: > The original design spec finalized in 1958 for the slant-six called for > aluminum block, head, and intake manifold. > As insurance, designs for cast-iron block and head were also done. > It was intended that if the aluminum program were successful, development > of the cast-iron version would be terminated. > Numerous setbacks with the aluminum design forced Chrysler to go with > cast-iron when the engine debuted in 1960. One setvack is the VASTLY different expansion/contraction factors of the two metals. > Development on the aluminum design continued, and in 1961 over 10,000 > aluminum engines were installed as optional equipment in Plymouth Valiants [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > was unable to overcome the difficulties in producing workable aluminum > heads other than a few prototypes.) > The aluminum engine program was terminated at the end of the 1962 model > year by consensus of Chrysler Engineering and Manufacturing, since > manufacturing efficiency was much lower with the aluminum engine and > demand for the slant-six was soaring. The advantage of the aluminum's > lower weight was in the end not considered worth the effort. Ah you meant ONLY the ALUMINUM engine was only around for a couple years, not the Slant 6. What EVERYONE who tried Aluminum engines soon learned (which they SHOULD have known if they spoke to a metallurgist) was the vastly different expansion/contraction properties between different metals. Iron and Aluminum or steel and aluminum. They tried all sorts of tricks that didn't work long term. There were some successful aluminum engines used in racing. However conditions are VASTLY different from personal auto use. In racing you run the crap out of the engine for 500 miles or so and then TOSS IT and put in a new one for the next race. No long periods of hot and cold changes. > Iron and Aluminum or steel and aluminum. They tried all sorts of tricks that > didn't work long term. There were some successful aluminum engines used in > racing. Some of the little foreign jobs had successful aluminum engines. Subaru comes to mind, they used aluminum block and heads in their flat-four engine starting in the 1960s. I don't know how well the very early engines held up, but the ones I've dealt with (mid-1970s through early 1980s) were pretty much bulletproof. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> Iron and Aluminum or steel and aluminum. They tried all sorts of tricks >> that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > very early engines held up, but the ones I've dealt with (mid-1970s > through early 1980s) were pretty much bulletproof. I am not so sure the Subaru was "successful." > I am not so sure the Subaru was "successful." I'm not aware of any severe problems that Subaru aluminum engines had, at least starting in the 1970s. Anecdotally I have family and friends who purchased Subarus during that time period (2nd gas crisis!) and those little motors were darned near impossible to wear out. What usually got those cars in the end was the bodies rusting away around the engines. (Same as most Japanese cars of the period.) SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> I am not so sure the Subaru was "successful." > > I'm not aware of any severe problems that Subaru aluminum engines > had, at least starting in the 1970s. Anecdotally I have family and > friends who purchased Subarus during that time period (2nd gas crisis!) > and those little motors were darned near impossible to wear out. I never followed the Subaru there were so few of them around. > I never followed the Subaru there were so few of them around. Subarus were very popular in the snow belt early on, since (excepting ill-fated 360 model) they had front drive from the beginning. When Subaru came out with their 4-wheel-drive wagons in the 1970s those were like gold in snow areas. Until AMC came out with the 4WD Eagle there was nothing else available quite like them. In any event, Subaru seemed to be able to tame aluminum engine technology. Making the cylinder heads out of aluminum probably helped minimize the effects of differing expansion rates. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> I never followed the Subaru there were so few of them around. > Subarus were very popular in the snow belt early on, since > (excepting ill-fated 360 model) they had front drive from the > beginning. When Subaru came out with their 4-wheel-drive wagons in > the 1970s those were like gold in snow areas. Until AMC came out > with the 4WD Eagle there was nothing else available quite like > them. Not in Wisconsin. > Not in Wisconsin. I'd expect more AMC Eagles in that area, particulary around Kenosha. :-) The Subies were very popular in New England. Still are, since they have all been 4WD for years now. (I don't own one though, we have an Eagle wagon for snow duty.) SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> Not in Wisconsin. > > I'd expect more AMC Eagles in that area, particulary around Kenosha. :-) AMC's yes. Subaru's no. > The Subies were very popular in New England. Still are, since they > have all been 4WD for years now. (I don't own one though, we have an > Eagle wagon for snow duty.) But then the Volvo is popular there too. > But then the Volvo is popular there too. Saabs as well. Scandinavian cars built for winter conditions. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> But then the Volvo is popular there too. > Saabs as well. Scandinavian cars built for winter conditions. Winter conditions in Scandinavia. The salt in the US makes quick work of them. > Winter conditions in Scandinavia. The salt in the US makes quick work of > them. Not many cars hold up well under those conditions. Eagles do fairly well as they came from the factory with galvanized body panels and Ziebart rustproofing. Of course they still fall prey to the tinworm if not kept up, but ours is doing pretty well after more than 2 decades. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> Winter conditions in Scandinavia. The salt in the US makes quick work >> of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > rustproofing. Of course they still fall prey to the tinworm if not > kept up, but ours is doing pretty well after more than 2 decades. Oddly - Texaco had a product many years ago to undercoat cars with. It never hardened, and cars with it didn't rust. It was a compound Texaco developed for WW-2 and shipping jeeps and trucks. > Oddly - Texaco had a product many years ago to undercoat cars with. > It never hardened, and cars with it didn't rust. It was a compound > Texaco developed for WW-2 and shipping jeeps and trucks. Are you talking about Cosmoline? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmoline ? It is not permanent in any meaningful way. If exposed to the environment it has to be constantly renewed. Ed >> Oddly - Texaco had a product many years ago to undercoat cars with. It >> never hardened, and cars with it didn't rust. It was a compound Texaco >> developed for WW-2 and shipping jeeps and trucks. > > Are you talking about Cosmoline? Nope something proprietary to Texaco. Hello: I've been following this thread closely. My father worked for a Bronx, N.Y. Kaiser/PAckard dealer, when he first came from Italy in 1949. Then was at a few different places until 1961. He went to work for a Chrysler-Dodge dealer from 1961 to 1963, then was solicited by a Rambler/AMC dealer in 1963 and accepted the job. He worked there till 1977, and was offered a job at another AMC dealer, by the factory Service Advisor, and stayed there, until his retirement in 1982. Till his death, he said that Packard and Kaiser had the best engines, and AMC's blocks were like battleship engines. He said that Packard tried to use auto level, and the most advanced automatic transmission in the industry. That lasted for their last two years in business. He said the all the advances killed Packard, because they added them all the same year, and they had reserved service bays, for warranty service. Because the cars were there for months at a time, waiting for parts. My father was going to buy a brand new AMX in 1970, for a return home present, and my brother called it: "A POS" Wally Booth was kicking a.s in Pro Stock for a couple of years back then with his AMX, but then NHRA outlawed welded heads. So that ended AMC's lead role in early NHRA Pro Stock racing. Thanks for bringing back memories of my father's favorite subjects, Kaisers, Packards and AMC. RK >> That was essentially the same engine updated. It was one of the most > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > due to the high cost of the Packard components and partly because Packard > reneged on an arrangement to buy parts from AMC. > Hello: > > I've been following this thread closely. My father worked for a Bronx, > N.Y. Kaiser/PAckard dealer, when he first came from Italy in 1949. > > Then was at a few different places until 1961. What a combo. Packard AND Kaiser. > He went to work for a Chrysler-Dodge dealer from 1961 to 1963, then was > solicited by a Rambler/AMC dealer in 1963 and accepted the job. He worked > there till 1977, and was offered a job at another AMC dealer, by the > factory Service Advisor, and stayed there, until his retirement in 1982. > Till his death, he said that Packard and Kaiser had the best engines, and > AMC's blocks were like battleship engines. He said that Packard tried to > use auto level, and the most advanced automatic transmission in the > industry. That lasted for their last two years in business. Yep. And cost them plenty. > He said the all the advances killed Packard, because they added them all > the same year, and they had reserved service bays, for warranty service. > Because the cars were there for months at a time, waiting for parts. > My father was going to buy a brand new AMX in 1970, for a return home > present, and my brother called it: "A POS" I bought one of the first 100 cars, They were GREAT, > Wally Booth was kicking a.s in Pro Stock for a couple of years back then > with his AMX, but then NHRA outlawed welded heads. So that ended AMC's > lead role in early NHRA Pro Stock racing. Lots of speed records were set with the AMX. > Thanks for bringing back memories of my father's favorite subjects, > Kaisers, Packards and AMC. Packard was a good company that was poorly managed. With the 55 model year they got desperate and screwed the pooch. Neither the new transmission nor the torsion bar suspension were debugged well enough to be put into production. Kaisers were slow as hell but ran forever. Indestructible. The AMC engines WERE like battleship engines. In Trans Am the Fords and chevys kept blowing their bottom ends out. The AMC engines almost never did till Penske TRIED to build up the engines using Chevy parts and techniques. That first season the engines kept going bang. I and some others kept telling Penske that the AMC engine was not a Chevy, that it would run the pants off the Ford and Chevy at half their RPMs. When he finally built the engines that way, neither Ford or Chevy could stay on the same track with the Javelins. Through the turns and out the Javs would just RUN AWAY from the Fords and Chevys. They were getting beat so bad that both Ford and Chevy QUIT Trans Am that year mid season. > What a combo. Packard AND Kaiser. Indeed! > production. Kaisers were slow as hell but ran forever. Indestructible. The > AMC engines WERE like battleship engines. In Trans Am the Fords and chevys > kept blowing their bottom ends out. The AMC engines almost never did till > Penske TRIED to build up the engines using Chevy parts and techniques. One of the problems the 2nd-generation AMC V8s have in high power or racing applications is that the valve train is fed from the oil pump first, BEFORE the main bearings. (I have no idea why. Maybe because the new sixes that AMC had just come out with had top end oiling problems early on.) The rear main bearing therefore tends to run a little dry. It's not a problem in stock form, but racers would generally have to come up with ways to reroute more oil to the mains. The first-generation AMC V8s, based at least somewhat on the Kaiser prototype, were very stout engines. Heavy, stable blocks (originally intended for aluminum?), with forged crank and rods. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> What a combo. Packard AND Kaiser. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> till >> Penske TRIED to build up the engines using Chevy parts and techniques. > One of the problems the 2nd-generation AMC V8s have in high power > or racing applications is that the valve train is fed from the oil [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a little dry. It's not a problem in stock form, but racers would > generally have to come up with ways to reroute more oil to the mains. Melling oil pump. > The first-generation AMC V8s, based at least somewhat on the Kaiser > prototype, were very stout engines. Heavy, stable blocks (originally > intended for aluminum?), with forged crank and rods. That they had to use cast iron blocks was why Kaiser never got a V-8. The "orange juicers" (the Kaisers) were tantrum insisting on an aluminum engine and would not consider anything else. (See Last Onslaught on Detroit) It was a fanaticism of the Kaisers. (Henry and Edgar) they had tons in Kaiser Aluminum. They wanted to make it work in engines. The technology just wasn't there. Even GM in the aluminum engines had to sleeve the cylinders with cast iron. That engine that was being engineered at Kaiser from 1947 on never saw the light of day at Kaiser although as a cast iron engine it could have been in the Kaisers as early as 1950. It was stubbornness in the Kaisers. The car people at the factory (Old Graham Paige folks) had NO respect for the Kaisers because the California were pretty stupid when it came to cars. There was a war between the California folks and the Michigan folks from the start. I remember the name of the owner was: Barney Leckner, on Southern Boulevard in The Bronx. I was a kid, but I remember Barney till he died, when I was 12, and everytime my father was looking for a new job. He'd speak on my father's behalf, because my father spoke broken English. Thank you, RK >> Hello: >> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > just RUN AWAY from the Fords and Chevys. They were getting beat so bad > that both Ford and Chevy QUIT Trans Am that year mid season. > The Gremlin had its good points. It did not suffer from the > self-destructing engines of the Vega or the exploding gas tanks of > the Pinto. I wish people would quit perpetuating the myth of Pinto's having exploding gas tanks. Pinto's were no more likely than other small cars from the 70's to catch fire. Ford's mistake was that they fought against a ridiculous lawsuit and lost a mega settlement (that was eventually reduced greatly on appeal). If Ford had followed the GM practice of buying off the people suing with a fat settlement, then this myth would most likely never have been born. Check into it sometime. The original big case that got the myth started involved a Pinto that was backing down an expressway that was struck by a dump truck at highway speed. The gas cap was not found at the scene. The theory (at least the Ford theory) was that it was left off and the driver was trying to go back and get it. The entire rear of the car was pushed past the rear axle (trying hitting your car in the rear with dump truck a closing rate in excess of 60 mph). It was claimed that the driver and passengers died in the collision, not the fire that followed. The attorneys for the plaintiff dredged up some old Ford memos (that were not actually related to the Pinto) and painted Ford as skimping on safety to save a couple of bucks per car. Ford provided engineering data that proved the Pinto's gas tank exceeded all Federal Standards and that it was at least as safe as gas tanks positioned similarly in other cars similar in size. The facts did not matter and Ford lost the case in spectacular fashion (a super large award, that was later greatly reduced on appeal). The results of the favorable appeal were never publicized. And to make matters worse, a lazy, incompetent journalist for Mother Jones News did a hatchet job article on the Pinto that was widely cited as accurate. The fact that it was wildly inaccurate and clearly designed as an attack article was ignored. So the myth of the exploding Pinto was born. Ford had to spend millions recalling Pintos to modify the gas tank mounting (a polyethylene shield under the tank, a longer filler neck, and a reinforced mounting for the filler neck). Safety statistics show that Pintos were no more likely to catch fire than other 70's era small cars, yet people keep calling the Pinto a fire bomb. Sometime look at the original US Chevy Chevette. The first model year Chevette actually had a much higher incident rate of fires than Pintos, yet no one ever calls it a fire bomb. GM settled all Chevette lawsuits quietly and recalled them to correct the problem with little publicity. The lesson learned was - even if you are right, don't go against trial lawyers - pay them off to go away. Ed |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.