|
|
|
Your donations help keep this valuable resource free and growing. Thank you.
|
early American -- engine thrust bushing! |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1234> |
| Author | ||
tomj 
AMC Addicted 
Joined: Jan/27/2010 Location: earth Status: Offline Points: 7544 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: Jul/24/2018 at 11:12am |
|
|
[QUOTE=pacerman]The left front corner of the engine block should have the day/date engine build code stamped in (just below the head)./QUOTE]
i'd forgotten that, once again. i forgot also that i'd gone through this before (! how many times?! aargh memory): * my "65 motor" is 70C211, or 195.6 OHV, 11 february 1965. a late motor indeed. block casting 3176050, 65 OHV. * my "63" motor, the serial number area was ground off and a small tag riveted in place by the commercial rebuilder, in the long ago past: http://195.6ohv.com/BLOCK/images/IMG_0027.jpg. i saved the tag, can't find it right now, but it said "POWERPAK" and some digits that were not AMC. block casting 3166465, 63..64 OHV. * my "58" motor, same deal; ground off, but no tag. block casting 3160133, not in the RWB book. if it's no bother, i'd be curious to know when the block provision for thrust was introduced; it's no practical use i suppose but good for visually identifying motors since it's easily visible. but i guess so is the timed oil thing. Edited by tomj - Jul/24/2018 at 11:29am |
||
|
1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto
1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
||
 |
||
|
tomj
AMC Addicted
Joined: Jan/27/2010 Location: earth Status: Offline Points: 7544 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jul/24/2018 at 11:25am |
|
of course when i came to my senses (after joe's post) i consulted the RED WHITE BLUE book for my sole numbered block!
of course -- the bracket shown in my first post won't bolt to an iron block, the pump is between the studs. so it could be just coincidence that it appears similar, for a completely different function (iron 63..64 motor mount vs aluminum thrust, etc). having owned and wrenched both chassis, it sure looks like AMC gave more engineering attention to the 10/80 series than the pre-64 01 series. the latter was a full stop dead end. the "new" 01 chassis ended up lasting through 1988 almost uninterrupted, and there's a lot of 10 series "DNA" in the 70-up 01 chassis. in my opinion, the thrust stuff was done in the flagship chassis because that was the car that AMC banked on, from 62 through late 60's. for smoothness and reliability. the torque tube cars have rear wheel/axle push and braking force absorbed by the engine and transmission. not so on leaf-spring cars; the front eyes get that force. a "fleet" of a couple hundred thousand cars, 100 or 1000 of them with motor-mount related troubles or noise brought back to the dealership would hurt them in a way us hardcore fans having to replace motor mounts a couple years early wouldn't even notice. cuz we know they were cheapskates and unlikely they did this for no reason. |
||
|
1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto
1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
||
|
||
|
farna
Supporter of TheAMCForum 
Moderator Lost Dealership Project Joined: Jul/08/2007 Location: South Carolina Status: Offline Points: 19676 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jul/25/2018 at 6:56am |
|
|
The thrust rod might have been for a better ride, but again, it was only used on the aluminum engine models, not the iron block models. The AL engine is over 100 pounds lighter, IIRC (but not as much as 200# lighter), as I do recall reading that one advantage was the car steered a lot easier with manual steering, so one could save some money by not ordering power steering in many cases. Could be that they were concerned the reduction in mass would affect the motor mounts/ride due to the push and pull of the torque tube? As good a theory as any I suppose! The torque arms of the 63-66 were there due to the rubber mounts on the trans crossmember, along with the torque tube. The 70s 10/80 is practically the same unit body as the 63-66. It was widened and lengthened, and a few other changes over the years, but the floor structure is nearly identical. You can put a 67+ rear suspension in a 63-66. You just need to weld in brackets for the upper crossmember and lower control arms (pretty easy!), and shorten the bracket by around and inch on each end so it will fit between the sills ("frame" rails). I measured everything before I put the Jag IRS in mine and had it all figured out. Axle would still be a couple inches wider, but deep offset wheels would solve the issue. Easy to get even steel deep wheels now, in 16-17". 14-15" (if you wanted to keep stock hubcaps for a stock look) would be hard though. Might just be 3/4" shorter on each end... you'd have to measure! The 64 American is actually a shortened/narrowed 63 Classic body, so naturally a lot of the big car design is reflected in the American/Hornet/et al small cars. |
||
|
Frank Swygert
|
||
|
||
|
tomj
AMC Addicted
Joined: Jan/27/2010 Location: earth Status: Offline Points: 7544 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Aug/02/2018 at 4:15pm |
|
|
i started looking into thrust issues because my motor mount have been looking unhappy this year, and after return from the power tour, they were clearly failed. i pulled them out today. they're crappy Anchor 2150's, about all that seems available. in the rear (manual trans) those arent' available at all, so i'd made a steel adapter to accept 2150's on the rear crossmember.
the engine and trans had shifted 5/8" rearward. this was visible from above, hence my interest in thrust solutions. the tops tore out of the mounts. the OEM rear ones might have been better at thrust-as-shear but that's immaterial since they're unavailable. i bet there were factory fleet issues with engines shifting around; noises, or whatever. no matter, these are all i have, my proposed urethane solution is a PITA so i'm putting crap anchors back in, but i made a thrust system, and i think i have to tie the engine down, engine-torque-wise. not that it makes enough to worry about, just htat these motor mounts are terrible. i'll make some nylon tiedown or something. in the mean time fore/aft thrust will be dealt with.  lower left corner is drivers side front, right rear is passenger side rear. PS: the reason you can still buy these Anchor 2150 isolators is that they are some generic equipment vibration mount. i found them otherwise some time ago. i dont' think they are meant for any side thrust at all, just weight straight down. Edited by tomj - Aug/02/2018 at 6:03pm |
||
|
1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto
1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
||
|
||
|
nickleone
AMC Addicted
Joined: Oct/04/2008 Location: westminster co Status: Offline Points: 1441 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Aug/02/2018 at 5:33pm |
|
|
My 62 Classic SW has a thrust rod, on carb side, bottom of the block that attaches to the front motor mount cross member.
Rubber bushings on both ends about 1/2 inch dia. Nick
|
||
|
nick
401 71 Gremlin pro rally car sold 390 V8 SX/4 pro rally car sold 1962 Classic SW T5 4 wheel disc brakes |
||
|
||
|
farna
Supporter of TheAMCForum
Moderator Lost Dealership Project Joined: Jul/08/2007 Location: South Carolina Status: Offline Points: 19676 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Aug/03/2018 at 6:52am |
|
|
Only the aluminum engine cars got the thrust rod. Don't know why. Tom, the auto trans cars used the same mounts on all four corners, so the theory that the manual trans rear mounts handle thrust better is out the door. I'm with you -- those vibration mounts look similar to the originals but are obviously not made for side loads. I'd consider a bolt straight through a rubber mount, with rubber on the back side also. That would solve the problem! Like these: Speedway also has these, but they may be too tall. Don't know how they would take the thrust load, but they were designed as engine mounts.
|
||
|
Frank Swygert
|
||
|
||
|
nickleone
AMC Addicted
Joined: Oct/04/2008 Location: westminster co Status: Offline Points: 1441 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Aug/03/2018 at 11:08am |
|
|
Frank said "Only the aluminum engine cars got the thrust rod"
My engine is IRON. It has a thrust rod. Might it have had an aluminum engine? Nick |
||
|
nick
401 71 Gremlin pro rally car sold 390 V8 SX/4 pro rally car sold 1962 Classic SW T5 4 wheel disc brakes |
||
|
||
|
tomj
AMC Addicted
Joined: Jan/27/2010 Location: earth Status: Offline Points: 7544 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Aug/03/2018 at 10:36pm |
|
|
Nick, i was gonna ask about that... that's interesting. does your setup match the one from the photo in the first post here? |
||
|
1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto
1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
||
|
||
|
tomj
AMC Addicted
Joined: Jan/27/2010 Location: earth Status: Offline Points: 7544 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Aug/03/2018 at 10:51pm |
|
|
ha! the joke's on me. thrust issues aside, in my case my damage was partly caused/made worse by the mount adapter i made. i didn't reinforce it enough, it twisted under load, and tore the tops off the rear ones. worse, i made it non-removable. (it's bolted on; but to get it out i have to remove the bellhousing. NOT SMART.) i cobbled up some unattractive struts to "fix up" the bad mount system until the next time (hopefully far, far away) the trans comes out. this is the mount. it's obvious now, in hindsight. that open "V" should have been closed. anyway mounts replaced, plus i made a thrust rod, a bracket on the two studs beside the oil pump to a welded on bracket to the rear crossmember. 3/4" tube and heims. yes, noisy, but in this car, it won't be noticed. also i don't care. pics later.
|
||
|
1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto
1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
||
|
||
|
nickleone
AMC Addicted
Joined: Oct/04/2008 Location: westminster co Status: Offline Points: 1441 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Aug/04/2018 at 12:14am |
|
|
Tom,
The thrust rod is very similar. Nick
|
||
|
nick
401 71 Gremlin pro rally car sold 390 V8 SX/4 pro rally car sold 1962 Classic SW T5 4 wheel disc brakes |
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1234> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Click for TheAMCForum Rules
Topic Options
farna wrote: