Print Page | Close Window

[MASSIVE UPDATE] Mexican Engine Heads

Printed From: TheAMCForum.com
Category: The Garage
Forum Name: AMC 6 Cylinder Engine Repair and Modifications
Forum Description: AMC-made I-6 engine mechanical, ignition and fuel from basic repair to high-perf modifications
URL: http://theamcforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=82938
Printed Date: Aug/24/2019 at 8:36am


Topic: [MASSIVE UPDATE] Mexican Engine Heads
Posted By: Rambler Mexicano
Subject: [MASSIVE UPDATE] Mexican Engine Heads
Date Posted: Sep/30/2016 at 6:01pm
May 15th Update, Change to on Page 7. New Pictures. http://theamcforum.com/forum/massive-update-mexican-engine-heads_topic82938_page7.html" rel="nofollow - Click Here

I hope everyone finds this interesting.

Here are some of VAM's engine head designs based on AMC's original 232 head design. The following heads are units exclusively used on the 4.6 Liters / 282 cubic inches inline six.

VAM inaugurated its own engine plant in 1964 at the municipality of Lerma, Estado de México. Due to the limited resources available for the investment, the company could only produce one of the two series of American Motors engines. Opting for high volume sales and market size, VAM opted to produce the six cylinder line of AMC, priorizing economy over power.

When it first started operations it mainly focused on assembling engines from complete kits imported from AMC (199 and 232 series only). From the start the company sought to have all importation replaced by local production. So progressively Mexican engines started to grow in percentage of locally-made parts, and thus lowering the percentage of components imported from the US. It was until 1969 that VAM started producing engines fully made in Mexico with all components made inhouse, even though that only covered part of the full engine production. It was until 1970 that the importation of internal engine components was discontinued.

In 1965 VAM launched its company engineering department. One of its first achievements was the full compatibilization of engines in the whole product line, this meant the successful adaption of the AMC inline sixes (199 and 232) in the Mexican Jeep line in 1966, a full five years before AMC. In 1967 and 1968 the engineering department mainly worked on adapting the car line to Mexico's varying altitude, such as testeing the best jet size for the Carter RBS and WCD carburetors, as well as the best rear differential gear ratios. Other results were the upgrade of the three speed manual transmission into the 150-T full synchomesh model since the 1967 models.

From these small achievements we move on to VAM's first self-designed engine in late 1968. The engine in question being the 4.1 Liter / 252 cubic inches six cylinder, focused on making the VAM Javelin more competitive against it's V8 rivals of the Mexican market while also improving the performance of the heavy Jeep line. The new engine as was based on the 232. It's main features were a larger bore of 3.91 inches, an inhouse 266 duration degree camshaft in place of the original 244 degree unit, a new flat piston design raising compression ratio to 9.5:1, a 280 CFM Carter WCD carburetor.

The second self-enginering engine came in 1971 in the form of the 4.6 Liter / 282 cubic inches cylinder. AMC planned to have a six cylinder above the 232 while VAM needed a more powerful engine than the 252. Both companies' main limitation was the crankshaft design and VAM did not have the means to create one. Both companies worked together and... voila! In 1971, AMC introduced the 258 six (alongside the 401 V8) while VAM introduced the 282. The new VAM engine was more than just different piston/cylinder specifications. Like the 252, the engine had a bore of 3.91 inches, but it got a new stroke of 3.895 inches. The other improvements were a larger all-new steel intake manifold coupled to a 360 CFM Carter ABD two-barrel carburetor. Compression ratio and camshaft remained the same as in the 252 six at 9.5:1 and 266 degrees.

The next improvement goes to the 282 six in 1973.

As far as my knowledge goes, this would be the FIRST ENGINE HEAD designed by VAM.


This engine head is characterized by larger valve diameter, 2.02 inches for the intake one and 1.68 for the exhaust one, as well as the lack of the flute-type shaft (independent rockers). As far as I know this engine head was designed in 1967 and used for the VAM Go Pack, which was optional equipment. The VAM Go Pack was the company's offer that would make the VAM Javelin with its six cylinder engines give the other V8 muscle cars made in Mexico a run for their money. It consisted of a four-barrel intake manifold, a four-barrel 650/800 CFM Carter AVS/AFB carburetor, a 302 duration degree camshaft, 5000 RPM range headers and dual exhausts, reinforced rebalanced crankshaft, heavy duty cooling system, and the aforementioned ported head with larger valves. These accessories represented a 35%-40% overall power increase of the engine.

The large-vale head appeared for the first time in regular production models in 1973 as factory issue. On difference in regards to the Go Pack unit was that the 1973 unit did not have the performance-oriented intake porting. As far as my knowledge goes, this engine head was used from 1973 through 1976.

A new head design would appear in 1977.

Exhibit Number One:

Red Series




Quench-type combustion chambers, new for the year. This allowed a compression ratio increase of 8.0:1 against the 7.7:1 one of the 1975-1976 282s, which had an estimated 120 net horse power. This new head design the Holley 2300 (350 CFM) carburetor meant a output of 132 net horsepower or 129 net horses with the Motorcraft 2150 (325 CFM) carburetor.



Stock intake/exhaust porting design.



Rockers



Champion N-12-Y, factory spark plug specification.



VAM 1977-1986 two-barrel aluminum intake manifold. AMC would introduce a low weight aluminum intake manifold in 1980. This unit incorporated Holley 2300 and Motorcraft 2150 carburetors. It had improved flow and was lighter than the previous 1971-1976 steel intake manifold. It also had built-in portions to bolt in the power steering pump. This intake manifold, as also was the previous steel unit, was exclusive to the 282 six, not used in 258 and 232 engines.

Moving On

Exhibit Number Two:

Jeep Head - 1982-1986














VAM Jeep engines had different specifications than the VAM car line engines. The main differences of the Jeep engines were a lower compression ratio and a smaller valve diameter. There a few exceptions like the 1980-1981 Jeep Wagoneer with automatic transmission, which had car line specs in its 282.

The valve diameter for this engine head is 1.77 inches for intake and 1.38 inches for exhaust.

For example, the 1971-1973 VAM Javelin with the 282 had 9.5:1 compression ratio while the 1972-1973 Jeep Wagoneer had 7.75:1 compression ratio. While the Javelin was rated at 200 gross horsepower, the Wagoneer was advertised at 185 gross horsepower.

Using the 252 as another example, the 1970 Javelin had 170 gross HP and 9.5:1 compression ratio while the Wagoneer and Pick Up truck had 160 gross HP and 7.46:1 compression ratio.

MORE TO COME

After VAM released the Red Series head came another new design for the Car Line, a head design with smaller spark plug outlets, larger round intake ports, the spark plug side of of it was also changed to a straight line instead of being undulated. This last aspect was based on AMC's new plastic valve cover design.

This head was introduced in early 1982 and used through the 1983 model year. This is the head I have installed in my car's engine. Unfortunately I don't have pictures of it. The next time I disassemble my engine (I'm planning changing the stock 266 degree came for Crane's 304 degree unit) I will take pictures of the head for everyone to see.


-------------
Mauricio Jordán

Cuando no se es una empresa famosa se deben hacer mejores automóviles.
- Vehículos Automotores Mexicanos S. A. de C. V.



Replies:
Posted By: uncljohn
Date Posted: Oct/01/2016 at 6:30am
Thank you for supplying this information. I am enjoying reading it and making comparisons, many of which I neither had thought of nor knew. I've built a few I-6 engines and it almost makes me want to come across a 282 Cu in engine to build. A really big six would be interesting.

-------------
70 390 5spd Donohue
74 Hornet In restoration
76 Hornet, 5.7L Mercury Marine Power
80 Fuel Injected I6 Spirit
74 232 I-6, 4bbl, 270HL Isky Cam


Posted By: one bad rambler
Date Posted: Oct/01/2016 at 9:30am
Pretty interesting for sure...Thanks for the information...

-------------
68 AMX 390 4 Speed,68 American,64 American 2 Door Wagon Altered Wheelbase,78 Concord Build 360,727,8.8


Posted By: Rambler Mexicano
Date Posted: Oct/01/2016 at 11:41am
Thanks everyone for your comments. Here's more.

1971-1976 Steel Intake Manifold



Applications:

1971-1973 VAM Javelin
1972-1976 VAM Classic (Matador)
1976 Pacer
1976 American Rally (Hornet X)
1976 American ECD two-door
1972-1976 Jeep Pick Ups and Wagoneer

These were coupled to Carter ABD (1971-1974) and Holley 2300 (1975-1976) carburetors.


-------------
Mauricio Jordán

Cuando no se es una empresa famosa se deben hacer mejores automóviles.
- Vehículos Automotores Mexicanos S. A. de C. V.


Posted By: mramc
Date Posted: Oct/01/2016 at 4:52pm
Interesting information. I've heard the VAM plant was responsible for first putting the AMC six in the Jeep Comanche, as it originally had that weak keened GM V-6 and in Mexico  they only build the the sixes. LRDaum


-------------
LRDaum


Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Oct/01/2016 at 11:13pm
one can imagine a small business exporting Mexican AMC six cylinder heads, manifolds, valves, etc...  that stuff is shippable via UPS or USPS. 

have you done any side-by-side, Mexican heads vs U.S. heads? how good is the porting? runner dimensions? is that early aluminum manifold unique? blocks are blocks, big or not, but the combustion chamber is controlled by the head (and pistons of course). a good flowing head is path to power.


-------------
1961 roadster american, 195.6 OHV, T5
1968 american, 199ci, T96
sr-ix.com



Posted By: tyrodtom
Date Posted: Oct/02/2016 at 10:32am
 According to a Oct.69 issue of Rod &Custom you have to notch the block for both exhaust and intake valve clearance when you install the VAM head on the smaller bore US blocks.
 
They installed the 252 VAM head, which used the same valve sizes as the later 282 VAM engine, on a US made 232 block.
 
  They also say the exhaust valve was moved over to make room for the bigger intake valve on the VAM head.


-------------
66 American SW, 66 American 2dr, 82 J10, 70 Hornet, Pound, Va.


Posted By: 232jav3sp
Date Posted: Oct/02/2016 at 11:06am
This is some cool stuff.  I'd really like to get a 282.  


Posted By: Rambler Mexicano
Date Posted: Oct/05/2016 at 3:20pm
Renault had determined from the start that the AMC 258 would not fit in the then-project Jeep Cherokee XJ models. As we all know it was intended to carry AMC's brand new four cylinder and GM's new line of V6s.

VAM wanted to to introduce the Cherokee to the Mexican market, but for to happen it would have to carry the I6 inevitably, since the company did not produce any other type of engine, and buying any from the other manufacturers of the Mexican market would not be a cost-effective procedure. Also, importation of engines was legally banned at the time.

The only way to go would be by installing the I6. VAM had gotten a semifinished prototype from AMC in 1982 and the company's engineering department got to the task, eventually succeeding in installing the I6 in the Cherokee's engine compartment. AMC was informed about the project and developed considerable interest and recalled the prototype.

That was cornerstone of the 4.0 six.

Unfortunately, while I've found some American-made AMCs around here I've never had the chance of making head to head comparisons. I do have seen VAM's aluminum two-barrel intake manilds on AMC-made sixes, and as far as I know there is no need to modify anything, remove and bolt-on accessory change only. VAM engine blocks and AMC blocks were indeed cast differently. The most you can bore out an AMC 258 block is up to 274 cubic inches. The VAM Go Pack was available at Randall American dealership in Meza, Arizona.

If anyone wants to test a VAM 282, I have a friend who took a 1981 VAM Rally AMX (Spirit GT) to Houston and he plans to install an AMC 360 V8 in the future on it. He'll let me know when that happens.

I'll let anyone here know when this 282 engine is available for sale.


-------------
Mauricio Jordán

Cuando no se es una empresa famosa se deben hacer mejores automóviles.
- Vehículos Automotores Mexicanos S. A. de C. V.


Posted By: 73Gremlin401
Date Posted: Oct/05/2016 at 4:03pm
I had the good fortune of coming across a VAM aluminum 2bbl intake, and ran it on my 258 motor in a Gremlin for several years, using a Holley 2300 carb.  I wish I knew what ever happened to that intake!  To say it woke up the 258 would be an understatement.  Very very good flow, well in excess of the RPM potential of a stock 258, yet had really good low-end grunt as well.  Was truly excellent around town, on the highway, as well as for autocross and road-racing duty, which it saw plenty of in that car.

-------------
73 Gremlin 401/5-spd.
77 Matador 360/727.



Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Oct/06/2016 at 12:27am
wow! worlds of info hidden in plain sight!

sounds like you would sell every aluminum intake you could find and ship here.



-------------
1961 roadster american, 195.6 OHV, T5
1968 american, 199ci, T96
sr-ix.com



Posted By: beepbeep
Date Posted: Dec/17/2016 at 12:40am
Thanks, Very interesting. my friend was an AMC engineer, worked for years at the Burlington Proving Grounds. AMC was very connected to what was happening at VAM. VAM engine'd cars were tested at Burlington and he claims there were fast and powerful. When questioned about using the VAM spec engine in the US, the answer was no, it won't pass our air standards. Talking to other AMC retirees, they tell of dealing with VAM, loading boxcars with knocked down assemblies and "Mexico only parts". AMC was known for making much from nothing but was amazed at VAM's ability to use anything AMC wanted to send south.. BB       


Posted By: uncljohn
Date Posted: Dec/17/2016 at 2:28am
AMC had a wide range of off shore marketing with associations with Renault in many places. Some successful very fast vehicles were manufactured around AMC pieces in other places sales were made. But the were not marketed as AMC but as RAMBLERS's a factoid probably little known. One of the interesting locations was South Africa where they were assembled by Toyota but due to local content regulations, they were assembled with Chevrolet 6 cylinder engines. It is and has been very hard to trace down and verify how AMC marketed their vehicles out side of the continental U.S. and Canada.

As to additional carburetor applications to the AMC engine at pretty much any size the basic formula used to determine CFM capability says a 400 CFM carburetor is and easy alternative. A carburetor I have installed on I-6 engine successfully and have now on a 232 with an Iskenderian 270HL Cam. It is at the present on an engine stand looking for a place to put it.


-------------
70 390 5spd Donohue
74 Hornet In restoration
76 Hornet, 5.7L Mercury Marine Power
80 Fuel Injected I6 Spirit
74 232 I-6, 4bbl, 270HL Isky Cam


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Dec/18/2016 at 11:04am
Well, the 4.0L head is better than the VAM head. So there really is no reason to spend the money to ship one across the border, except for curiosity. The intake, however, may be worth it. While there are adapters for the 2300 to the AMC 2Vintake an intake made for the 2300 should be better.

The 4.0L block has about the same bore as the 282. You should be able to use the 282 head on it without notching. Again, with the excellent 4.0L head there really is no point in swapping. The only gain by using a 282 block is that you can drive a mechanical fuel pump, but you get a lot of weight in return.

I'm not putting down the VAM effort at all. At the time it was bigger and a bit better in some respects than the US sixes. The 4.0L just took those developments one step further.

Great info on the VAM sixes, do keep it coming!!


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: 1982AMCConcord
Date Posted: Jan/27/2017 at 12:39pm
Fantastic information. I'm personally really jealous of all the options VAM had for their cars! Very very unique cars!


Posted By: Rambler Mexicano
Date Posted: May/17/2017 at 3:58pm
UPDATE. DEC. 2017

Restored the pictures and corrected some errors in the information.


I had the chance to see a disassembled VAM engine at a friend's shop.

It is a 282 that came from a 1978 VAM Jeep J-200 Pick Up truck.

However, I stumbled accross something unexpected. The original 1978 Jeep head was gone. The one in place is actually the modern Jeep spec 282 unit used only in 1984-1986.

This head took advantage of AMC's new plastic valve cover design, made with the purpose of shedding general engine weight.

This meant a flat distributor's side of the head and smaller spark plugs (N-12Y and B-N12Y specificed spark plug types). And, as we know, that also meant a real pain in the rear in the form of never-ending oil leaks.

Like the 1977 design, it kept the new Quench-type combustion chambers and aluminum intake manifold for the Motorcraft 2150 and Holley 2300 two barrel carburetors.

Like the early 1982 design, the main feature of this head lied in its improved intake ports design. Something I will try to investigate is how the port design in this head fares against that of the 4.0 heads.

One difference I have noticed on this head is that the combustion chambers are slightly deeper than the ones in the 1977-1982 heads, thus making compression ratio lower.

Although I haven't had the need or chance of taking down my car's engine head and thus never directly checked the ports, combustion chambers and valve diameters, I do know this is the one I have in my 1981 Rally GT. I was still a rookie back then, the mechanic who installed the head is a very reliable friend of mine who suggested the change and thus carried it out.

I still have my original 1977-1982 head as a spare in case it is ever needed.



Nice VAM etching.



Top view, rocker mounts, valve tops and springs.



Rockers removed, Valves and Springs still in place.



Close up of valves and combustion chambers.



All six combustion chambers in view.



Intake/Exhaust Ports.



Spark plug outlets, front quarter view.



Spark plug outlets, rear quarter view.



Engine block.


-------------
Mauricio Jordán

Cuando no se es una empresa famosa se deben hacer mejores automóviles.
- Vehículos Automotores Mexicanos S. A. de C. V.


Posted By: 1982AMCConcord
Date Posted: May/18/2017 at 6:59am
That is so cool! It must have been a good running engine because the burn patterns in the chambers and on the valves are all pretty even. Good information! Thanks for doing the research! 


Posted By: amcenthusiast
Date Posted: May/18/2017 at 9:01am
Alright! Thank you Rambler Mexicano for the info with pictures: this has been a long time comin'!

My first thought was 'where's my die grinder & let me get started porting!'

This definitely has value for max-built AM inline six.

The larger Mexican 282 valves offer low cost hop up potential for converting '56-'67 Rambler V8 heads?

The open plenum 2bbl intake silently shows how to mod a stock closed plenum I6 intake for increased breathing capacity.

While we are compiling info/data base here, Sealed Power VS 527 fit neatly inside AM I6/AM RV8 VS500 valve springs to make a dual valve spring set up with custom cut retainers.

I agree with TJ; this has potential for import business (I've thought about it myself)

(importing Mexican 'Rally AMX' fender flares etc)

-talked to one guy in Mexico about 10 years ago and he seemed to say the junkyards are full of VAM cars in Mexico... is this true?



-------------
Link to XRV8 Race Parts website: www.amcramblermarlin.1colony.com


Posted By: mitchito
Date Posted: May/22/2017 at 1:29am
The junkyards in Mexico were full of them ten years ago, but not so much now.

Mauricio, are you sure the '82 head had the plastic valve covers? Mine has a metal one. i'm hoping my engine wasn't swapped out for an older one.  


-------------
1982 Rambler Lerma
1981 Rambler Lerma coupe
1978 American (Concord base)
1977 Gremlin
1976 Pacer X


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: May/22/2017 at 7:28am
Could be an aftermarket metal cover, as many plastic ones were replaced. You could look up the metal replacement for the 82 models and see where the bolt holes are and sizes of bolts. IIRC you have to tap the guide holes around the head (plastic cover had a few little studs in lower edge to line up with those holes) to use the metal replacement cover. 

-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: mitchito
Date Posted: May/22/2017 at 8:25am
cover looks  in same condition and color of intake, red, with most of the paint missing.  Worried that someone swapped a 232 and took the 282 and sold the car. 

-------------
1982 Rambler Lerma
1981 Rambler Lerma coupe
1978 American (Concord base)
1977 Gremlin
1976 Pacer X


Posted By: 1982AMCConcord
Date Posted: May/22/2017 at 8:38am
Originally posted by farna farna wrote:

Could be an aftermarket metal cover, as many plastic ones were replaced. You could look up the metal replacement for the 82 models and see where the bolt holes are and sizes of bolts. IIRC you have to tap the guide holes around the head (plastic cover had a few little studs in lower edge to line up with those holes) to use the metal replacement cover. 

Farna... what metal cover for the 1982 model engine are you talking about? Do you have a link? 

Thanks!


Posted By: mitchito
Date Posted: May/22/2017 at 1:36pm
This is the one on my engine now

-------------
1982 Rambler Lerma
1981 Rambler Lerma coupe
1978 American (Concord base)
1977 Gremlin
1976 Pacer X


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: May/23/2017 at 5:51am
mitchito -- look for the engine date code. I'm assuming VAM marked the engines the same as AMC did. There should be a six character code stamped on a flat just in front of the distributor, on the head/block parting line (flat is on the block). Can't be certain VAM used the same code, but see what you find and post it.


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: May/23/2017 at 6:05am
1982AMCConcord -- Jeep suppliers sell replacement metal valve covers for 80s AMC engines. You just need to get one for the year head you have, as there are 2-3 different ones. Just looked at 4WD Hardware... they don't offer the stamped steel any more, just the cast aluminum and a plastic replacement. No one seems to have luck with the plastic for long, I'd replace it with the aluminum. Doesn't look stock, but doesn't leak!

-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: 1982AMCConcord
Date Posted: May/23/2017 at 8:52am
Originally posted by farna farna wrote:

1982AMCConcord -- Jeep suppliers sell replacement metal valve covers for 80s AMC engines. You just need to get one for the year head you have, as there are 2-3 different ones. Just looked at 4WD Hardware... they don't offer the stamped steel any more, just the cast aluminum and a plastic replacement. No one seems to have luck with the plastic for long, I'd replace it with the aluminum. Doesn't look stock, but doesn't leak!


Sorry if I am thread jacking... 

Thanks Farna... that is what I thought.... I have been looking for one. I actually had a Plastic one installed by a Chrysler dealership back in 1995 and believe it or not it held until a few years ago when I had to put new intake and exhaust gaskets on. After undoing the bolts.. it started leaking right away but if I didn't have to do that.. I think it would still be good today! The guy that did it was an old timer former AMC plant guy... he waited for me to come pick it up. He told me about how hard it was to do that valve cover. Honestly... I sure thought I was only going to get a year or two out of it because I drove it daily for years after that! But it sure did hold well. That being said.. I am not wanting to go back to the plastic one anymore. I was hoping to find one that didn't require tapping the threads in the head but I don't think that's possible for me!

I found this one.... but I think its for the earlier model I-6 that require a lower valve cover design.

http://www.oreillyauto.com/site/c/detail/TDP0/8619/N0575.oap?ck=Search_N0575_-1_-1&pt=N0575&ppt=C0390

I think this is the one I'll be getting.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/172644502450?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT


Posted By: Rambler Mexicano
Date Posted: May/23/2017 at 6:13pm
Sorry for the late reply. I'm back now.

I don't know if the VAM valves could be used for the GEN 1 V8 engines.

Unfortunately, the situation of junkyards in Mexico is not too different from the one in the US. AS of 2010, VAM cars could still be found relatively easy in Mexican junkyards. Now, they're pretty rare.

That makes the head/intake/valve import business no longer possible.

Mitchito, for what I see in your picture, your head seems to be original. Yes, it belongs to the previous generation.

The modern VAM head with the plastic valve cover was introduced not at the beginning of the model year (late 1981) but a few months later.

Your car seems to be an early production 1982 Lerma.


-------------
Mauricio Jordán

Cuando no se es una empresa famosa se deben hacer mejores automóviles.
- Vehículos Automotores Mexicanos S. A. de C. V.


Posted By: 1982AMCConcord
Date Posted: Jun/13/2017 at 9:27am
Did VAM make a specific 258 version or just the 282 version? I found a VAM block for sale and they are saying its a 258. If it is a 258... is the VAM 258 version better in any way than the regular AMC 258 we normally see


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Jun/13/2017 at 6:41pm
VAM used the 258 from 1973 to the end (1983), 232 from 64-79, 252 69-72, and 282 71-90.
The 252 is a 232 block cast with a larger 3.91" bore, 282 a 258 block cast with a 3.91" bore. You can't bore a Mexican 232/258 (3.75" bore) out to 252/282 size (3.91" -- that would be 0.16", over 1/8"!), would make the 232/258 block really heavy to be that thick.

The 252/282 was used in lieu of a V-8 and because the high elevation in the Mexico City area (where the VAM plant was, actually in Lerma) robbed power from the smaller engines. With the big sixes VAM didn't have to build another line of engines (V-8s), saving a lot of money. Don't know how Mexico taxes cars, but in Europe there would be a bigger tax on bigger engined vehicles. That's why AMCs didn't sell well there. I know they sold some, just not that many. That's also why the Belgian operation run by Renault shut down -- by the late 60s most European countries had started taxing by engine size or power. There was a special formula for "taxable horsepower" that was much less than the engines actually put out.. at least later in years. It came about in the early 1900s and was close then. The formula never changed though. It's actually based on engine size, not power output.


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: amcfool1
Date Posted: Jun/13/2017 at 10:42pm
thanks farna, for years i was wondering what that "taxable hp" in the TSMs was about!

82 Concord, if you want a valve cover for your 1982 258, and don't want to drill/tap holes, check out www.yourcovers.com. expensive, but pretty. Part #8656, has a cool screw in O ring sealed oil fill cap as well. Only one out there that does NOT require drill/tap on DRIVERS side, which is the problem side, as you may hit water if you drill too deep. PML, and made in the USA! good luck, gz


-------------
george z


Posted By: Aljav
Date Posted: Jun/13/2017 at 10:43pm
I have always wondered. What is the most powerful 282 powered VAM Car. Which is the most desirable year. I wonder what kind of issues it would be to bring one into the US. 

Allan


-------------
69 AMX 9.86 132 mph 71 JAV/AMX and 69 Javelin, .. NAMDRA member #1106


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Jun/14/2017 at 7:17am
That cover might be a bit expensive @ $190-245, but it's the best I've seen for the 81-86 plastic valve cover engines.

You can find more info on the VAM motors at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_straight-6_engine" rel="nofollow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_straight-6_engine
The VAM info on Wikipedia was posted by our Mexican member Mauricio (OP) , I believe.
States 200 hp is tops, but that has to be an error -- all the 282s are listed at 200 hp @ 4400 rpm, and there are varying compression ratios. Probably a typo, but I don't have the info to correct. I think the 75-76 models 7.7 compression should be 8.7, but again, no info to justify posting a correction.

Mauricio, you might want to look at it again!


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: amcenthusiast
Date Posted: Jun/14/2017 at 7:49am
Rambler Mexicano, thanks for answering some of these questions.

USA had a 'cash for clunkers' program which sent many non operable older cars to the scrapyard (to get crushed and sold for scrap metal)

Would you say metal recycling in Mexico is having the same effect? (made VAM cars hard to find?)

As for adapting VAM valves (assuming they were sourced from a Mexican manufacturer) to any other US AM engine, one of the main benefits could be reduced 'keeper groove' distance to the tip of the valve stem (which affects valve spring install height, which affects net valve lift potential with re-ground or aftermarket cam) (apparently US engines had two 'keeper groove' distances; some engines having 1/8" distance, others having 1/4" distance ...how to say it right)

*AMC USA did not buy Jeep Corporation from Kaiser until '70, so Jeeps in Mexico must have had another agreement with Kaiser instead (compare VAM to IKA in Argentina?)

Rambler Mexicano, do you know of any 'famous' Mexican VAM inline six race cars, including Baja?


-------------
Link to XRV8 Race Parts website: www.amcramblermarlin.1colony.com


Posted By: mitchito
Date Posted: Jun/14/2017 at 4:38pm
Do the VAMs use the same valve cover? My 282 is leaky and I can't find an oil filler cover that fits the smaller hole. I was thinking one of the aluminum ones for a 258.

-------------
1982 Rambler Lerma
1981 Rambler Lerma coupe
1978 American (Concord base)
1977 Gremlin
1976 Pacer X


Posted By: Rambler Mexicano
Date Posted: Jun/14/2017 at 6:34pm

Whoa, a lot of messages in a short period of time. I’ll try to respond all of them one at a time.

 

The most powerful VAM 282?

 

That depends on what you base your judgment on.

 

The most powerful factory VAM 282 engine was the 1979-1981 4.6 / X unit. It had an output of 172 net horsepower at 4,200 RPM and a net torque of 222 lbs foot at 2,200 RPM. Compression ratio was 8.5:1. This means a 40 net horsepower increase over the standard version.

 

This engine was installed in the 1979 American 06/S and 1980-1981 Rally GT models, both as limited editions.

 

The American 06/S in a few words was a base model two-door Concord sedan with the accessories and treatment of the 1978 Concord AMX. It is in fact the closest Mexican equivalent to the AMC Hornet SC/360 model. Only 499 units were produced.

 

The Rally GT can be described as a top-end performance version of the AMC Spirit GT coupe. 500 units of this model were produced per year. I own a 1981 unit. Unfortunately, the original engine was long-gone but slowly I have been able to get it back to its former glory.

 

Despite these two models being the only products of the company with this engine installed from the factory, some VAM dealerships did offer it as an optional package. A friend of mine from Veracruz has a four-speed 1981 Rally AMX (Spirit GT, regular version) with the 4.6 / X installed from the dealership that originally sold it.

 

Still in regards to factory-installed engines, the second most powerful VAM 282 was the 4.6 / SX unit. This engine was installed in the 1979 VAM Pacer X. This model was not a cosmetic optional package but a limited edition with a serious performance focus. Only 250 units were produced. Unfortunately, VAM did not make any engine output tests of this version, either due to the low volume of only 250 engines (no other VAM car ever incorporated it) and also due to shortage of time since the company had to focus on tests of regular production high volume models.

 

VAM engineers reported this engine had an estimated 150 net horsepower at 4,000 RPM. It can be described as a lesser version of the 4.6 / X. The only real difference between both engines was the camshaft. The 4.6 / X version had the performance 302 degree camshaft while the 4.6 / SX version had the regular production 266 degree unit.

 

The third most powerful version of the 282 would be the regular-production first-generation of the line. It was produced from 1971 through 1973, installed in the 1971-1973 Javelin and 1972-1973 Classic (Matador) models. Its main feature was a high compression ratio of 9.5:1. The advertised horsepower was a gross rating figure (200 hp). VAM engineers have reported the engine output in net rating in an estimated 145 net horsepower at 4,400 RPM. The only drawback of this engine was that the 1971 and 1972 units still had the 232/252 engine head with small valves.

 

However, there might be another 282 engine version that could be more powerful than the 1979-1981 4.6 / X units.

 

That would be the 1971-1973 Go Pack 282. In a few words this was the ORIGINAL 4.6 / X version, which was later updated and adapted to the environmental and legal conditions of the la 70s and early 80s.

 

The core of both Go Pack and 4.6 / X engines was the 302 degree camshaft. Their differences were four: 9.5:1 compression ratio for the Go Pack 282 against 8.5:1 of the 4.6 / X, ported head on the Go Pack 282 instead of the semi-ported unit of the 4.6 / X (both having large diameter valves), four-barrel carburetor in the Go Pack 282 versus the two-barrel of the 4.6 / X and finally top-end power headers (5,000 RPM) on the Go Pack 282 while mid-range power headers (3,500 RPM) were used in the 4.6 / X.

 

The Go Pack 282 was never installed from the factory in any VAM car, which is the main reason why no official performance or output tests were ever conducted. At all times it was available as a dealership option. However, VAM engineers did report numbers. The estimated output of the Go Pack 282 was 185 net horsepower against the 145 units of the stock 1971-1973 9.5:1 compression ratio 282. The estimated gross horsepower figure for the Go Pack 282 is 260 horses.

 

I am not entirely sure if this would be the most powerful VAM 282 engine ever, since a VAM mechanic I know who has prepared several VAM engines for performance insisted that the 4.6 / X would be the most powerful unit ever, mainly due to the improved machining and construction of VAM engines in the late 70s. The 4.6 / X did have some advantages in the form of a high-acceleration modified electronic ignition instead of the points and fan clutch (which means a better cooling system).

 

If the 185 net hp figure is correct, it means 13 horses of the Go Pack 282 over the 4.6 / X.

 

I will respond the remaining messages as soon as I have the time.

 

In the meantime, stay tuned.



-------------
Mauricio Jordán

Cuando no se es una empresa famosa se deben hacer mejores automóviles.
- Vehículos Automotores Mexicanos S. A. de C. V.


Posted By: Rambler Mexicano
Date Posted: Jun/17/2017 at 2:15am
Frank,

The 232 was introduced in Mexico until 1965 and was dropped in 1976. However, it was originally dropped in 1972 alongside the VAM 252. VAM managed to cut costs in engine production by keeping only the 258 and 282 since 1973 due to the fact that both engines shared the same crankshaft.

Yet, plans changed with the introduction of the Gremlin line in 1974 and VAM ended up ressurecting the engine. Starting in 1977, the base Gremlin switched to the 258 as its base engine and the 232 was finally laid to rest.

The 199 was also produced in Mexico, launched in mid 1965 through 1969 (it lasted until 1970 in the US).

Actually, converting Mexican-made 232 engines into 252s and 258 units into 282s is something fairly common in Mexico. Just bore out any of the two blocks to 3.91 inches and you pretty much have yourself a homemade 252/282. In the larger engine's case it is recommended to obtain an original 282 head due to the larger valves, as th original 258 smaller valves would become a limitation performance-wise.

VAM 258/282 blocks can have a maximum bore of up to 4 inches which means a displacement of 293 cubic inchs (4.8 Liters). However, cylinder walls become too thin and once these blocks wear out they can no longer be reconstructed and end up being nothing more than scrap metal.

I have been told anecdotes of VAM execs having some of these 293 engine units for recreational purposes in some of their vehicles. They wre allegedly very powerful engines although no numbers exist on them. Durability issues made them impossible to be commercialized.

The reason why VAM didn't produce V8 engines was precisely due to investment and available capital. The company, which was majoritarily government-owned, could have produced both lines of engines, but the investment would have taken over three decades to recover. So VAM had to priorize volume over power and thus economy was chosen and six cylinders was the way to go for that.

As for the Wikipedia article on the six cylinder engines, I didn't originally write the 252/282 sections, but I did post on the internet most of those specs in a now-defunct site. The specs were taken from that site and posted in the Wikipedia article. I did make some editings to the article in the VAM section, mainly the correct model application per engine.

As for why all VAM 282 engines are rated at 200 hps despite compression ratio variations, that is because those were advertised figures (in brochures and owner manuals) AND VAM kept on using the gross horsepower rating system through 1978 instead of changing to net in 1972 like AMC did.

As far as I know the 200 gross hp figure IS accurate in the case of 9.5:1 compression ratio 1971-1973 282 engines.

It was kept the same (advertised 200 hp) for the 1974-1978 model years due to marketing reasons.

I do have some estimated NET rating horspower figures for the 1971-1978 282s from VAM engineers.

The 9.5:1 compression ratio 1971-1973 282s had an estimated 145 net horsepower.

I don't have figures on the 1974 282 with 8.5:1 compression ratio, I would like to think an estimated 130 net hp

The 7.7:1 compression ratio 1975-1976 282s had an estimated 120-125 net horsepower.

The 8.0:1 compression ratio 1977-1978 282s had an actual 132 net hp in 1977 and and an actual 129 hp in 1978. The difference between both years was the carburetor model. The 1977 model had a 350 CFM Holley two-barrel carburetor while the 1978 model had a 325 CFM Motorcraft 2150 unit.

VAM owners' manuals from 1979 through 1981 advertise the standard 282 still as having an output of 132 net horses while they actually had the aforementioned 129 figure due to the carburetor. This was also due to markting reasons.

It was until 1982 that VAM finally decided to show the correct output of the engine at 129 net horspower at 4,000 RPMs. However, in the end this also turned out to be obsolete due to the new head design with round internal flow ports and smaller spark plugs. Up to this day, we still don't know if this head was ever measured output-wise, since it was introduced at the time when the situation went volatile at VAM and the rest of the auto industry in Mexico due to the collapse of the economy and VAM suspended several operations.

VAM engineers have told me the 1982-1983 282 with the new head and Motorcraft carburetor  would have an output of at least 135 net horse power. So far, we are still digging up information on this head.


-------------
Mauricio Jordán

Cuando no se es una empresa famosa se deben hacer mejores automóviles.
- Vehículos Automotores Mexicanos S. A. de C. V.


Posted By: Rambler Mexicano
Date Posted: Jun/17/2017 at 2:39pm
Mitchito,

The valve cover on the VAM sixes are the same as in the US sixes, so an American-made cover can be used in the Mexican-made heads flawlessly.

amcenthusiast,

That is correct, there are similar situation in Mexico. There are government-sponsored programs to replace the existing vehicles in circulation, with the intention of removing older cars in favor of newer ones.

Unfortunately, this has taken toll on VAM cars as well as old cars of all makes.

The Mexican valves were produced locally, that was mandated by law since the 1962 auto industry integration decree. All internal engine components had to be produced locally.

In regards to the Jeeps, there is a very interesting history in Mexico. VAM was not created through Nash and/or Hudson but Willys instead. Thus, what would become VAM sold Jeeps since 1946. When Willys Mexicana morphed into VAM in 1963 and to comply with the requirements of the 1962 decree, the company created its own engine plant in 1964. Engine importation would eventually be legally banned, and VAM took the task of adapting the inline six cylinder line of AMC engines on the still Kaiser Willys Jeeps. This was achieved in 1966, thus the first-ever "AMC Jeeps" saw the light in Mexico, a full five years before AMC.

As for the VAM race cars, yes there are several with pretty glorious results, but that's another story. I'll share some of that history in other topics.

1982AMCConcord,

VAM did produce the 258.

As for the engine block you mention, to confirm it is a Mexican-made unit see the front of the distributors side of the block. There has to be a casting saying "VAM HECHO EN MÉXICO".

Measure the bore, if it has a 3.75 inches diameter, it is a 258. If it is 3.91 inches it is a 282.

The VAM 258 had its share of both advatnages and disadvantages in regards to the AMC 258.

The American-made engine was better in regards to fuel economy while the Mexican-made was more powerful.

The AMC 258 had the advantage of higher compression for several years, such as 9.3:1 from 1982 through 1988 and 8.3:1 through 1981.

Compression ratio for the VAM 258 was:

8.5:1 in 1973

8.3:1 in the first half of 1974.

7.6:1 from the second half of 1974 through 1975.

8.0:1 from 1976 through 1981.

8.5:1 from 1982 to 1983.

The VAM 258 had the advantage of a better camshaft powerwise, 266 degrees against 244.

Like I said in another post, a real advantage of the VAM 258 block is that it can safely be bored out to 3.91:1 to create a 282. Throw in a 4.0 engine head and you have yourself a higher performing six cylinder.


-------------
Mauricio Jordán

Cuando no se es una empresa famosa se deben hacer mejores automóviles.
- Vehículos Automotores Mexicanos S. A. de C. V.


Posted By: 1982AMCConcord
Date Posted: Jun/26/2017 at 7:00am
Originally posted by Rambler Mexicano Rambler Mexicano wrote:



1982AMCConcord,

VAM did produce the 258.

As for the engine block you mention, to confirm it is a Mexican-made unit see the front of the distributors side of the block. There has to be a casting saying "VAM HECHO EN MÉXICO".

Measure the bore, if it has a 3.75 inches diameter, it is a 258. If it is 3.91 inches it is a 282.

The VAM 258 had its share of both advatnages and disadvantages in regards to the AMC 258.

The American-made engine was better in regards to fuel economy while the Mexican-made was more powerful.

The AMC 258 had the advantage of higher compression for several years, such as 9.3:1 from 1982 through 1988 and 8.3:1 through 1981.

Compression ratio for the VAM 258 was:

8.5:1 in 1973

8.3:1 in the first half of 1974.

7.6:1 from the second half of 1974 through 1975.

8.0:1 from 1976 through 1981.

8.5:1 from 1982 to 1983.

The VAM 258 had the advantage of a better camshaft powerwise, 266 degrees against 244.

Like I said in another post, a real advantage of the VAM 258 block is that it can safely be bored out to 3.91:1 to create a 282. Throw in a 4.0 engine head and you have yourself a higher performing six cylinder.


OK so the VAM 258 engine CAN BE bored over to 282?

I am torn. I already have a good running 258 that has been bored .030 over and it has an RV cam. So... while I like the 6 it doesn't seem like the VAM engine I am looking at would be a huge upgrade over what I already have... UNLESS I totally build it up. 

The guy has a un-assembled long block... head, rods, pistons... balancer... no oil pan... but he wants just under $600.


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Jun/27/2017 at 5:53am
He just thinks he has something special because it's "rare" in the US. A 4.0L block has nearly the same bore, just slightly smaller than the VAM 252/282. Stick a 258 crank in the 4.0L and you have right at 280 inches.

I'm not certain all the VAM 258 sixes can be bored to 282 size -- that's a lot. VAM may have done things differently and maybe weren't concerned so much about weight, but most manufacturers wouldn't have cast the 258 block that thick. Maybe VAM was thinking a heavy block 258 for trucks use though? I've heard of VAM sixes in big two ton trucks. Only a few cents in extra cast iron, but a good bit more weight. I'd sonic check the walls before boring that much. Doesn't cost much to check it, and well worth it as thin wall engines won't last long and will easily over heat.


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: 1982AMCConcord
Date Posted: Jun/27/2017 at 7:42am
Ah.. that is a good point Farna. I didn't even consider that. Plus a newer 4.0 would end up with a better head too. 

The thing is that I am not sure I want to go down the I6 stroker road anymore. I have been talking to a lot of Jeep guys I know about them and they have been seeing a lot of failures. The side load on the longer rods has been leading to a lot of premature failures and while I am certain I could get one built right... I am kind of feeling scared away from them now.  


Posted By: abdywgn
Date Posted: Jun/28/2017 at 6:04am
This is all very interesting, and in the time frame of reading this, I came across this ad:https://chicago.craigslist.org/nwc/pts/6194912299.html
I went to look at it but it seemed like a standard 258 unless I was missing something. The owner measured the bore and if memory serves me correctly, it was 3.753 and the intake valve size was 1.7?. The ports looked large in the picture but again seem regular size. What is this? Bob


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Jun/28/2017 at 6:04am
Mine only lasted 70K miles, but it was bored too loose... too much piston to cylinder wall clearance. That allows the piston to rock a bit. I went the budget route with 258 crank and rods, 4.0L pistons. Cheaper because no custom parts, but the piston goes down further in the bore at the bottom. The bottom of the wrist pin was at the bottom of the bore. Causes a little piston rock when coupled with a too loose bore. IIRC the AMC spec is like 0.003" piston to bore clearance. I built a stroker in early 2000, before we knew as much as now. The guy who bored my block cleaned it up so that only one sleeve was needed (might have been two... 4.0L blocks were harder to come by in junkyards and still rather costly in 2000). The only catch was it had like 0.006" clearance. May have been okay with standard stroke, at least a bit longer, but the extra side load and piston rock wore it faster.

Use 4.0L rods and custom stroker pistons and you're a bit further up the bore, reducing rock. Keep the piston to cylinder wall clearance near stock on top of the longer rods and you will have a 100K+ engine. Might not last 200K like 4.0Ls are commonly found still running good, but will still last a long time. Mine was still running very well at 70K, but had started consuming oil at about a quart every 600 miles or so and had started smoking on hard acceleration/pulling hills. Enough I could just see it in the rear view mirror, but not smoking people out. Would have soldiered on a while longer had I not liked the smoking.


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Jun/28/2017 at 6:26am
abdywgn -- looks like a VAM 258. I wouldn't go by the valve cover date, but looks to be close. I don't recall the size of stock AMC valves, but I think 1.7 is standard intake size. The end exhaust ports are definitely bigger...


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: abdywgn
Date Posted: Jun/28/2017 at 6:33pm
there is one block that is a 258, that one has the VAM casting letters. another block is a 232 and I think that was also had the letters. the pictures are deceiving, the ports look huge but it's been awhile since I've had a manifold off to see the port size. I looked at the parts and even though it was properly represented, I was hoping the head had bigger ports or valves. Sadly, I did not get casting numbers. Bob


Posted By: mitchito
Date Posted: Jun/29/2017 at 4:45pm
Mauricio,  do you know if the 282 uses the same head gasket and manifold gaskets as the 258?  I checked with DC gaskets in Mexico and they have only one listing for 258. In their online catalogue is shows the Rally as being a 258 and only lists the Gremlin, American and Rally so I don't know what to do. I blew the head gasket on my Lerma and the head is in the machine shop. 


http://www.dcp.com.mx:8080/DC13/varios/CatalogoElectronico.jsp



-------------
1982 Rambler Lerma
1981 Rambler Lerma coupe
1978 American (Concord base)
1977 Gremlin
1976 Pacer X


Posted By: Rambler Mexicano
Date Posted: Oct/12/2017 at 5:59pm
DEC. 2017 UPDATE.

Pictures Are Now Visible

[12th OCTOBER 2016]


Hello again everyone,

Although I have been obtaining some new material on VAM's engine heads I haven't posted it here for a reason.

Unfortunately, as we all know, these ojetes at Photobucket decided to remove the posibility of linking pictures to remote sites like this one. So far, I haven't located any other site where we can upload pictures that we can remotely link to the board.

I am going to have to keep on using my Photobucket account to share the pictures with the board although I am going to have to leave them here only as link that will have to be clicked individually along with their respective description.

Updates:

I have made some research on the second head design I posted in this topic, the VAM Jeep head design.

I was wrong in some things that I will correct here.

The plastic valve cover was not used in the VAM Jeep/VAM 282 in 1982, it was until 1984 that it was implemented. However, the plastic valve cover was implemented in the VAM 258 since 1983.

The 1982-1983 VAM 282s and VAM Jeep 282s with the updated head design with small 5/8 of an inch spark plugs and rounded out intake ports in their internal portions still had the regular metal valve cover.

The remaining novelties on this head are these:

I tried my best to take pictures of the early 1982-1986 intake port design, which was VAM's last and best.

At least so far, what we know is that the 1982-1986 intake port design was the same, there was no difference between the early 1982-1983 heads with metal valve cover and the 1984-1986 heads with the plastic valve cover.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to locate an available early 1982-1983 head (off the engine and with the valves removed) to confirm this as a hard fact.

If such a case happens I'll document it and share it here.

Here are the pictures:

Intakes' Side, two intake ports, dark:


Intakes' Side, one intake port, dark:


Intakes' Side, one intake port, lighted with camera flash:


Intakes' Side, one intake port, lighted from the valve's side:


Full Combustion Chamber, lighted externally from the intakes' side:


Closeup Combustion Chamber, lighted externally from the intakes' side:


Closeup Intake Valve Port, lighted externally from the intakes' side:


Closeup Combustion Chamber, lighted with camera flash:


Closeup Intake Valve Port, lighted with camera flash:


Closeup Intake Valve Port, dark:


Closeup Intake Valve Port, dark:



-------------
Mauricio Jordán

Cuando no se es una empresa famosa se deben hacer mejores automóviles.
- Vehículos Automotores Mexicanos S. A. de C. V.


Posted By: Rambler Mexicano
Date Posted: Oct/12/2017 at 6:45pm
DEC: 2017 UPDATE

Pictures Are Now Visible.

Second Update:


I managed to find a 1971-1972 VAM 282 head.

A person I met not long ago owns a 1971 VAM Javelin that is undergoing revival as it sat in its spot for several years. This is the first model ever to incorporate the 282 six and 1971 is the ONLY year in which the engine incorporated the starter on the intakes' side of the block. For 1972 the starter would be relocated to the distributor's side of the block and the engine would also be installed from the factory in the Classic (Matador) model as well as the large-size Jeeps (Wagoneer and Pick Up).

The engine was taken down and rebuilt, unfortunately I got to know about it AFTER the head was already installed back in the engine. Thus, I was unable to take pictures of the combustion chambers as well as the valves.

Fortunately, the intakes were still not put back in place and I was able to take pictures of all 12 ports.

Also, while the valve cover was in place it still wasn't screwed. This allowed me to take pictures of the head from the top, showcasing the valve tops and springs.

Fortunately, the valve rockers were also still not in place and the head still not being tested, there was no oil covering the internals.

The 1971-1972 VAM 282 head was the only VAM 282 head with small valve diameter (1.7 inch intake and 1.4 inches exhaust if I'm not wrong). It was also the only 282 head to have the flute-type shaft to hold all the rockers.

For 1973, it would be replaced with the Go Pack head with independent rockers and large valve diameter. However, the intake porting of this head would be the standard design instead of the performance-oriented one of the sports package.

The 1971-1972 282 engine head is the same unit used in the 1969-1972 VAM 252 six cylinder engines (standard in the Javelin in 1969 and the Rambler Classic in 1970). Both engines have the same compression ratio and the same bore.

Pictures Here:

Full Head View, Water Pump's Side:


Full Head View, Intakes' Side:


Valves for Cylinders 1, 2 and 3:


Valve Close Up for Cylinders 1 and 2:


Cylinder 1 Valves:


Full Intake/Exhaust Ports View:


Cylinder 1 Intake and Exhaust Ports plus Cylinder 2 Intake Port:


Cylinders 3 and 4 Intake and Exhaust Ports:


Central Exhaust Ports, Cylinders 3 and 4:


Cylinders 1 and 2 Intake Ports:



-------------
Mauricio Jordán

Cuando no se es una empresa famosa se deben hacer mejores automóviles.
- Vehículos Automotores Mexicanos S. A. de C. V.


Posted By: 1982AMCConcord
Date Posted: Oct/13/2017 at 6:52am
Thank you for researching this. The VAM engines are of great interest to me.


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Oct/13/2017 at 10:40am
You can upload pics directly to the AMC Forum. Use the full editor and it will allow you to upload. You have to have at least 20 posts before you can upload directly, but that's not an issue for you. Of course you can't link to other sites, if you need/want to do that.

Here are some alternatives:
http://www.ghacks.net/2017/07/02/photobucket-alternatives-for-third-party/" rel="nofollow - https://www.ghacks.net/2017/07/02/photobucket-alternatives-for-third-party/



-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: mitchito
Date Posted: Oct/14/2017 at 8:50am
Someone asked if the 282 uses a 258 head gasket. I can tell you it absolutely does not. You must use a 4.0 head gasket to match the bigger bore. The 282 Engine uses the older valve cover design at least to '82. so you would buy a gasket or valve cover from a '70s 258. Here is my 282 after head gasket job. Thanks frank and everyone who helped 

http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.ross.7334/videos/10155000228373170/" rel="nofollow - http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.ross.7334/videos/10155000228373170/




-------------
1982 Rambler Lerma
1981 Rambler Lerma coupe
1978 American (Concord base)
1977 Gremlin
1976 Pacer X


Posted By: Rambler Mexicano
Date Posted: Oct/20/2017 at 2:54pm
Mitchito, I'm sorry I couldn't help you with the gasket issue, I didn't know the information you asked about.

Question for everyone.

Can you see the pictures I posted links of in my last posts?

I just clicked some of them and there is a message from Photobucket with nothing to show. If you can't see pictures out the links those guys at Photobucket are out of their minds. I'll definitely be closing that account, since now it is practically worthless.

Thanks Frank for suggesting the alternatives for uploading pictures with remote linking.


-------------
Mauricio Jordán

Cuando no se es una empresa famosa se deben hacer mejores automóviles.
- Vehículos Automotores Mexicanos S. A. de C. V.


Posted By: 6768rogues
Date Posted: Oct/20/2017 at 3:38pm
http://pic.photobucket.com/incorrect_link.gif
I cannot see them. Got the above message when I clicked on the links.


-------------
Why Ramblers? Chicks dig 'em. Whatever it is, I can take it apart.
Located near Rochester, NY


Posted By: Rambler Mexicano
Date Posted: Dec/23/2017 at 9:43pm
See pages 1, 2, and 5 for old and new pictures as well as updated descriptions.

More 1977-1982 head design pictures:

















1973-1986 Intake Valve:


1973-1986 exhaust valve:



-------------
Mauricio Jordán

Cuando no se es una empresa famosa se deben hacer mejores automóviles.
- Vehículos Automotores Mexicanos S. A. de C. V.


Posted By: FSJunkie
Date Posted: Dec/24/2017 at 1:10am
This is awesome.

I am glad Mexico had the right conditions to build performance sixes. They were getting the same power out of these sixes that the Americans were with the 304 and 360 V8s! The American answer for performance has always been to add on more cylinders, and that means a V8. Sixes have always struggled to be seen as a performance engine in the United States.

Ultimately the 4.0L became the American performance AMC six. It basically accomplished in the United States what VAM had done for years in Mexico. Combine a 4.0L block and with a 258 crank and you basically end up with displacement and performance comparable to the VAM 282.  


-------------
'66 Marlin: 327/T10/3.54 Twin Grip
'72 Wagoneer: 360/TH400/3.31
'73 Ambassador: 360/TF727/3.15
'77 Hornet: 232/TF904/2.73
'84 Eagle: 258/TF998/2.35


Posted By: SIXPAK
Date Posted: Dec/24/2017 at 9:18am
I've read through this entire thread and could not find the info I was hoping to find. Im wondering if the length of the bore in a 282 VAM block extends deeper toward the crank than a regular 4.0 block.  Does anyone know this for fact or not? Thanks in advance and btw, awesome read!

-------------
Sand is for Racing Asphalt is for getting there!


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Dec/24/2017 at 9:29am
No, it doesn't. It's pretty much a standard AMC six casting except for the larger bore.

-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: Rambler Mexicano
Date Posted: Dec/26/2017 at 4:10pm
SIXPAK, all VAM engines had the same stroke as AMC sixes, the bore was the one that was different. The 252 has the 232 stroke while the 282 has the 258 one.

I have some news here, some of them related to the pictures of page 5 and this one.

I might have the chance of documenting four VAM heads in the following weeks.

1.-

I will be taking my 1977-1982 VAM regular production 282 head to a shop to have the valves removed so I can take pictures of the intake ports and compare them to ones the 1984-1986 Jeep head.

2.-

Also, a friend of mine needs to do routine maintenance to the head on his car, which is a 1982-1983 car line 282 head with the smaller 5/8 sparkplugs, internally-rounded out intake ports and the metal valve cover.

This is a chance to finally confirm if this head is the same as the 1984-1986 Jeep unit, to finally know for sure if the only difference is the plastic valve cover in newer version.

Unfortunately, he's in another city and I won't be able to be there when that happens. I just hope he doesn't let me down, which has happened more than once.

3.-

I will have a chance to take more pictures of the 252/1971-1972 282 head with rocker shaft and small valves.

The owner of the 1971 Javelin, in part due to my recommendations, ended up buying a 1977-early 1982 head with quench-type combustion chambers, large valves and independent rockers for his car.

He will keep his original head as a spare and is looking for an industrial chrome shop to rebuild the rocker shaft to keep it in working condition.

This means that the original head now assembled in the engine will inevitably go down, thus opening up a chance to document not just the combustion chambers but the internal part of the intake ports and make a comparison with the ones in the 1977-1986 heads.

4.-

A friend of mine owns a 1974 Classic DPL (Matador sedan) that has been sitting in a repair shop for some time, I was told they will restart work on the car in the following weeks/months. Part of the aspects to work on the car is the engine.

This is a very important opportunity, because this car has what I call the "third generation" 282.

The "first generation" is the 1971-1972 with 9.5:1 compression ratio, rocker shaft and small valves.
The only difference between one year and the other is that the 1971 version still has the starter on the intakes' side of the engine while the 1972 version's is on the distributor's side.

The "second generation" is the 1973 282, keeping the 9.5:1 compression ratio BUT changing to independent rockers and large valves.

The "third generation" is the 1974 282, changing to 8.5:1 compression ratio, keeping the indendent rocks and large valves. It also kept the same points distributor and Carter ABD carburetor as all 1971-1973 282s.

As far as my knowledge goes, the only difference between this engine and the 1973 version would be thecompression ratio, which happned due to the 1971-1973 flat pistons being replaced in favor of dished units. As far as I know the rest is the same: head, head gasket, head height, etc.

This time I will be able to document the 1974 head, which might be the same as the 1973 head. I'll try to fully take pictures of the whole head: combustion chambers, ports. I just hope they don't keep on delaying/postponing the repair of the car.

These are the updates that will be coming soon.


-------------
Mauricio Jordán

Cuando no se es una empresa famosa se deben hacer mejores automóviles.
- Vehículos Automotores Mexicanos S. A. de C. V.


Posted By: SIXPAK
Date Posted: Dec/26/2017 at 6:19pm
Originally posted by Rambler Mexicano Rambler Mexicano wrote:

SIXPAK, all VAM engines had the same stroke as AMC sixes, the bore was the one that was different. The 252 has the 232 stroke while the 282 has the 258 one.

Thanks. Im completely aware of the bores and strokes but it was rumored that the length of bore may be a little different than a 4.0 block. Thats why I was asking. ;) 


-------------
Sand is for Racing Asphalt is for getting there!


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Dec/27/2017 at 7:25am
If you get the "Ooops!"message from Photobucket you can install a work-around if you are using Firefox or Chrome. Microsoft browsers don't allow third party add-ons/plug-ins, so no fix for those. There is a fix for Safari and Anroid devices as well. Just search "photobucket fix".


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: Rambler Mexicano
Date Posted: May/17/2018 at 2:36pm
Everyone saw the pictures of my original 1981 282 head.

Now I was finally able to to take down the head in my car and take an extensive high quality photo session with my professional camera due to the faded out lens on my cell phone.

This head is a 1984-1986 design used in VAM Jeeps. It is virtually the same as the 1982-1983 heads, the only diference being the valve cover, metal in the 1982-1983 head and plastic in the 1984-1986 one.

Valve size and spark plug size are the same.

This one seems to be the same as the one I posted last year in this topic.



Full view of all ports, intake and exhaust.



Intake ports, cylinders 1 and 2.



Intake port, cylinder 3.



Intake port, cylinder 4.



Intake ports, cylinders 5 and 6.



Exhaust port, cylinder 1.



Exhaust port, cylinder 2.



Exhausts ports, cylinders 3 and 4.



Exhaust port, cylinder 5.



Exhaust port, cylinder 6.




Top of the head: valve ends and springs, rocker mounts, ports still visible.



Top of the head again, ports no longer visible. The seven internal bolt hollows and pushrod hollows more visible.



Water connection hollow.



Water connection hollow, with flash.



Bottom side, all six combustion chambers with the valves in place.



Combustion chambers, cylinders 1 and 2.



Combustion chambers, cylinders 3 and 4.



Combustion chambers, cylinders 5 and 6.



Combustion chambers, cylinders 1, 2, and 3.



Combustion chambers, cylinders 4, 5, and 6. 

-------------
Mauricio Jordán

Cuando no se es una empresa famosa se deben hacer mejores automóviles.
- Vehículos Automotores Mexicanos S. A. de C. V.


Posted By: Rambler Mexicano
Date Posted: May/15/2019 at 3:40pm
Head to Head, Side by Side.

VAM 282 Heads, 1982-1983 unit versus 1984-1986 unit.

Spark Plugs' Side - 9 Pictures in This One

1982-1983 282 Head on Top

1984-1986 282 Head on the Bottom



From Left to right, cylinders 6 to 1 on Top Head and from 1 to 6 on Bottom Head.

Both have the same height, the same spark plug size and the inclination of the spark plug is also the same. Portions for the AC/Alternator and ignition coil are the same. The main difference between both heads is evident, mainly reduced to the flat top for the plastic valve cover in the 1984-1986 unit.



From left to right, Cylinders 6-5-4-3 on top and 1-2-3-4 on the Bottom.



From left to right, Cylinders 4-3-2-1 on top and 3-4-5-6 on the Bottom.



Closer look, all spark plugs in place. From left to right, cylinders 6-5-4 on top and 1-2-3 on the bottom.



Closer look, no spark plugs, more visible outlets. From left to right cylinders 3-2-1 on top and 4-5-6 on the bottom.



Closer look, from left to right cylinders 6-5 on top and 1-2 on the bottom, sparks pugs on top.



Closer look, from left to right cylinders 4-3 on top and 3-4 on the bottom, sparks pugs on top.



Closer look, from left to right cylinders 2-1 on top and 5-6 on the bottom, sparks pugs on top.



Closest look, cylinders 6 on top and 1 on the bottom.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Both Engine Heads now both shown straight instead of one upside down. Once again, the 1982-1983 unit on top and the 1984-1986 unit on the bottom.



Notice the hollows for the Alternator/AC and the distributor coil, the gap for the distributor seems to be slightly larger in the 1984-1986 head. There is some thicker metal portions near cylinders 2 and 5 on the bottom head not present on the top one. Also one of these portions in missing on the cylinder 6 corner of the bottom head.



Cylinders 6 to 4 from left to right, spark plugs in place.



Cylinders 4 to 1 from left to right, visible spark plug outlets.



Cylinders 6 and 5 from left to right. Closer look.



Cylinders 4 and 3 from left to right. Closer look.



Cylinders 2 and 1 from left to right. Closer look.



Cylinders 6, closest look.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Vertical View of Both Heads

1984-1986 unit to the left and 1982-1983 to the right. Virtually exact spark plug inclination on both heads



From to to bottom, Cylinders 1 to 4 on the left head and 3 to 6 on the right head.



From to to bottom, Cylinders 1 to 3 on the left head and 4 to 6 on the right head, spark plugs in place.



From to to bottom, Cylinders 1 to 1 on the left head and 5 to 6 on the right head, spark plugs in place.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Valve Train

1982-1983 head on top and 1984-1986 head on the bottom



Valves and Springs are the same in both heads. The only true difference here is the flat spark plugs' side for the plastic valve cover on the bottom head (metal on the top head).



From left to right, cylinders 6 to 3 on both heads.

It is visible that the hollows for the pushrods in the 1982-1983 head (top) are totally round while those on the 1984-1986 head (bottom) are larger.



From left to right, cylinders 3 to 1 on both heads.

The numbers and internal etchings of the heads are different from one model to the other.



Cylinders 6 and 5 from left to right.

Notice the upside down VAM engraving on the bottom head.



Cylinder 6 valves, springs and rocker arm mounts.



Rear view of both heads.

Notice that both heads have the temperature sensor in the same spot near the farthest bolt hollow.



This picture showcases a MAJOR difference between both heads.

The internal bolt hollows fixing the head to the engine block are placed LOWER in the 1984-1986 head  than in the 1982-1983 one. Thus, the seven bolts on this side are SHORTER than the other seven external ones. The 1982-1983 head has all 14 bolts of the same length.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Combustion Chamber Sides

1982-1983 head on top and 1984-1986 head on the bottom.



In both heads, the combustion chamber size is the same. Both valve diameters are lso shared between them.

Thers is one major difference though. The 1984-1986 head (bottom) has ten round cooling ducts instead of just five like in the 1982-1983 head.

Also, the spark plug seats have an additional metal portion linking them to the distributor's edge. The hollows under the spark plug next to the combustion chamber are also smaller.



From left to right cylinders 1 to 4.



From left to right cylinders 3 to 6.



From left to right cylinders 1 to 2.



From left to right cylinders 3 to 4.



From left to right cylinders 5 to 6.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Ports' Side

NOTICE:

Unlike al previous pictures, in this section the head on top is actually the 1984-1986 one. The on in the bottom is the 1982-1983 one.



The intake ports on both heads are exactly the same.

However, the exhaut ports are another story.

The exhaust ports on the 1984-1986 head have the same width as on the 1982-1983 one, BUT they are TALLER, and thus larger. The 1984-1986 does have a nigher exhaust capacity.



Exhaust port 1 and Intake ports 1 and 2.



Intake ports 2 and 3 plus exhaust port 2.



Intake ports 4 and 5 plus exhaust port 5.



Intake ports 5 and 6 plus exhuast port 6.



Exhaust ports 3 and 4.



1982-1983 Intake ports for cylinders 1 and 2.



1984-1986 Intake ports for cylinders 1 and 2.


-------------
Mauricio Jordán

Cuando no se es una empresa famosa se deben hacer mejores automóviles.
- Vehículos Automotores Mexicanos S. A. de C. V.


Posted By: SC397
Date Posted: May/15/2019 at 3:57pm
Thank you for all of the work in writing this up Mauricio!


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: May/16/2019 at 6:05am
Those "cooling ports" you mention are likely ports to wash out casting sand. I don't think there are matching opening on the block so water can circulate through them. Basically just the lowest part of the head water jacket, sealed by the head gasket. If there are matching openings in the block they are indeed for cooling...


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: Rambler Mexicano
Date Posted: May/16/2019 at 8:48pm
Originally posted by farna farna wrote:

Those "cooling ports" you mention are likely ports to wash out casting sand. I don't think there are matching opening on the block so water can circulate through them. Basically just the lowest part of the head water jacket, sealed by the head gasket. If there are matching openings in the block they are indeed for cooling...


You're right Frank, those ports are nonexistent in the engine block. Thanks for pointing this out.


-------------
Mauricio Jordán

Cuando no se es una empresa famosa se deben hacer mejores automóviles.
- Vehículos Automotores Mexicanos S. A. de C. V.


Posted By: Thikstik
Date Posted: May/23/2019 at 12:10pm
Originally posted by farna farna wrote:

Well, the 4.0L head is better than the VAM head. So there really is no reason to spend the money to ship one across the border, except for curiosity. The intake, however, may be worth it. While there are adapters for the 2300 to the AMC 2Vintake an intake made for the 2300 should be better.

The 4.0L block has about the same bore as the 282. You should be able to use the 282 head on it without notching. Again, with the excellent 4.0L head there really is no point in swapping. The only gain by using a 282 block is that you can drive a mechanical fuel pump, but you get a lot of weight in return.

I'm not putting down the VAM effort at all. At the time it was bigger and a bit better in some respects than the US sixes. The 4.0L just took those developments one step further.

Great info on the VAM sixes, do keep it coming!!

Agreed.  Flow technology has come along way and bigger ports, valves arent always the best.  At full out maybe so but not under the curve where they can hurt low end by limiting air charge velocity.
Great info.  Would love to just switch intake.



-------------
75 gremlin x, jeep 4L headed 258,Clifford cam, intake,header. 390 holley. I want a 282 VAM motor!

AC/PS/PDB.

72 AMX , 304 2bbl, 3speed, now disks...probably will sell, want an automatic /AC.



Posted By: mitchito
Date Posted: Jun/01/2019 at 7:48am
On my last trip to Mexico I brought back a few intakes and 2100 carbs which I had rebuilt. I will have one or 2 for sale as I decided to keep the single barrel on my Gremlin and I had one extra before that. I will bring them to the AMO meet in St. Louis. I did have one polished and it came out really great. 

As for the 4.0 being better, yes, but a pain to mount the power steering pump. No such issue with the 4.6 head


-------------
1982 Rambler Lerma
1981 Rambler Lerma coupe
1978 American (Concord base)
1977 Gremlin
1976 Pacer X



Print Page | Close Window