TheAMCForum.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > The Garage > AMC 6 Cylinder Engine Repair and Modifications
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Mexican Engine Heads
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Click for TheAMCForum Rules / Click for PDF version of Forum Rules
Your donations help keep this valuable resource free and growing. Thank you.

Mexican Engine Heads

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 7>
Author
Message
Aljav View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar

Joined: Jul/18/2007
Location: Wisconsin
Status: Offline
Points: 1037
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aljav Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
farna View Drop Down
Supporter of TheAMCForum
Supporter of TheAMCForum
Avatar
Moderator Lost Dealership Project

Joined: Jul/08/2007
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 19676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote farna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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 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
Back to Top
amcenthusiast View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar

Joined: Jul/02/2012
Location: SW Atlanta GA
Status: Offline
Points: 1778
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote amcenthusiast Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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?
443 XRV8 Gremlin YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=2DmFOKRuzUc
XRV8 Race Parts website: http://amcramblermarlin.1colony.com/
Back to Top
mitchito View Drop Down
AMC Apprentice
AMC Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: Oct/02/2016
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Status: Offline
Points: 210
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mitchito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Rambler Mexicano View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar

Joined: Mar/05/2011
Location: Guadalajara
Status: Offline
Points: 976
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rambler Mexicano Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Rambler Mexicano View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar

Joined: Mar/05/2011
Location: Guadalajara
Status: Offline
Points: 976
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rambler Mexicano Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Rambler Mexicano View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar

Joined: Mar/05/2011
Location: Guadalajara
Status: Offline
Points: 976
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rambler Mexicano Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
1982AMCConcord View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted


Joined: Jul/13/2012
Location: Kenosha, WI
Status: Offline
Points: 1287
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 1982AMCConcord Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
farna View Drop Down
Supporter of TheAMCForum
Supporter of TheAMCForum
Avatar
Moderator Lost Dealership Project

Joined: Jul/08/2007
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 19676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote farna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
1982AMCConcord View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted


Joined: Jul/13/2012
Location: Kenosha, WI
Status: Offline
Points: 1287
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 1982AMCConcord Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.  
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.160 seconds.
All content of this site Copyright © 2018 TheAMCForum unless otherwise noted, all rights reserved.
PROBLEMS LOGGING IN or REGISTERING:
If you have problems logging in or registering, then please contact a Moderator or