43n wrote:Here's what I've come up with.
Rambler American 1959 1V head = 55cc (8.0:1)
Nash Statesman 1953 2V head = 63cc (7.45:1)
I checked valve clearance of '59 head with the old gasket and it was pretty much identical to the '53 head with no gasket, average at .1300".
Compressed gasket thickness of my new FelPro 7802B is listed as .0535>.0625
So I think I'm going to take .0650" off of the '53 head. Add the gasket thickness back in, and I still should have adequate valve clearance, ~.1175"+
Mapping the area of the funky head shape, I came up with 61.25cm2
So taking off .0650" should equate to about 10cc of volume
If the machined head finishes out at 53cc, that would bump me to 8.2:1
Time to get it down to the machine shop in Denver!
Flat head combustion chamber
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: https://theamcforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=109862
Printed Date: Apr/18/2024 at 9:19pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Flat head combustion chamber
Posted By: 43n
Subject: Flat head combustion chamber
Date Posted: Mar/17/2021 at 10:50pm
|
I would like to see the combustion chamber shape on the 196 flathead engine. Although I downloaded the 1965 TSM I did not find a bottom view of the cylinder head Showing the combustion chamber Maybe someone could post a photograph? Is there a desirable amount to mill the head for a little boost in compression? |
Replies:
Posted By: tyrodtom
Date Posted: Mar/18/2021 at 5:41am
|
Be aware that when you mill a flathead you restrict the ability for the intake and exhaust charges to get from the combustion chamber to the valves. In the mid 60's I had a Fenton aluminum head that was already supposed to have a 8.5 to 1 ratio, I had it milled .030, put it on, it was slower. Ended up taking the head back off and relieving the block between the valves and cylinder, which lost me some compression, but allowed the engine to breathe . ------------- 66 American SW, 66 American 2dr, 82 J10, 70 Hornet, Pound, Va. |
Posted By: 43n
Date Posted: Mar/18/2021 at 1:00pm
|
Thank you! I had been thinking about the extra restriction caused by milling the head...And unique to the Nash /AMC flathead design the intake channel now is also reduced in volume Some flathead sites caution that the amount of flow lost above the valve is significant and often overlooked Did you happen to Check the cranking compression pressure before and after the .030” cut? The manual says 130 psi is stock… Even though the OHV 196 gives 145 psi..That’s what I was hoping for |
Posted By: tyrodtom
Date Posted: Mar/18/2021 at 7:20pm
|
I don't remember, that was 55 years ago. But the stock compression ratio was 8 to 1, and the Fenton head was 8.5 , then I squeezed that. I had access to some old 50's speed mags that even gave advice on hot rod Nash 6 cylinders. They recommended the .030 head cut., but that was for a stock 53- 55 head, that might have been even lower compression than the 59 American my 196 was in. ------------- 66 American SW, 66 American 2dr, 82 J10, 70 Hornet, Pound, Va. |
Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Mar/18/2021 at 8:37pm
|
Still need photos? I have a block and head handy. The block is outside (yard ornament) because it has six cracks, so it will have to wait til morning. Flatheads are terrible designs. This does not stop me from wanting to build and drive one. I even have a supercharger ready to go; never mind breathing, use a belt-driven hammer to get air in there (and increase it's already awful cooling issues) (I have a plan for that too). If I could only find a non-ruined one. Hauling 600 lbs of sticky rust around and dissasembling and paying good money to clean and check is getting tedious. ------------- 1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto 1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
Posted By: 43n
Date Posted: Mar/18/2021 at 10:10pm
|
Of course… Sometimes I can’t remember things that I did 55 minutes ago! Flathead engine cylinder heads & transfer areas always fight the compromise between flow and compression. The flow will give you horsepower… The higher compression will give you efficiency.… Which do we want? ..All depends on how we intend to use the engine. Thought I should look at what’s been done in the past That is why I would like to see the AMC cylinder head combustion chamber first .. And then investigate some of the newer shapes such as the junior dragster/Briggs & Stratton & clone engines I did review your flathead supercharged plan… Certainly finding a suitable block would be a big step… like a NOS complete short block Incidentally I found a lot more AMC cars on “Offer Up” as compared to Craigslist Thanks |
Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Mar/19/2021 at 8:57pm
|
I'll take photos tomorrow and post. ------------- 1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto 1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Mar/20/2021 at 1:26pm
|
Head photos follow. I took some low-grade measurements; the location, then the caliper reading. The steel rule is .045" thick, you do the math. So lovely, so terrible.        I did the other valve pocket, but it's the same, so no upload. I could have sworn I did the "combustion chamber" but I lost the photo; no matter it's pretty much equal to the valve pocket.   here's #5, unencumbered.  ------------- 1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto 1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
Posted By: 43n
Date Posted: Mar/20/2021 at 1:57pm
|
WOW! Thank you for the over-the-top effort in taking these photographs.… To say I am in shock is an understatement ...really makes you wonder what they were thinking in this design?? Do you think this shape was typical all the way from 1941 through 65?… Hard to criticize especially if they spent many many dynamometer hours developing this |
Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Mar/20/2021 at 4:00pm
Here's the 1958 block that head was on. It's sad junk. The undercut (cast) here is about .15". See how terrible the valve shrouding is! It's terrible! OHV too.  ------------- 1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto 1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Mar/20/2021 at 4:20pm
You;re welcome. Adding to the collective knowledge pile I hope. It is easy, now, to see how primitive it is. but that's really a measure of just how fast technologies have been changing these last 50, and literally, 5, years. It's nuts now what's possible. With the Lhead, or OHV, block clean and on a bench it is not hard to visualize the wooden model the mold was made from. I sliced up an dead OHV head to see the water jacketing. Its awful! "Flow" is a generous word! Better was possible then for sure, but cost mattered. Computational machines were Comptometers and Brunsviga's, and paper pads and slide rules. This iron tech was based on older crafts-based approaches to problem-solving. Its an explosion in a hole, push a lever, wear out in 10 years, buy another. From what I can tell from reading, these old Nash inline sixes were considered pretty good tech for their time. I think though that applied to the seven-mains motors, not necessarily these little low-end things. The forged crank is high quality, but my good machinist says it is very ropey. I had rear seal issues, he pulled the rear main cap off (car on a lift), loosened the 3rd, the crank sagged enough to rotate a new seal in. With better metals, and stress and dynamical analysis, you can make twice as siff today with a fraction of the material. Also the bearings are too large and too wide. It heats the oil, lol! My ohv, 30 minutes held at 2800-3000 rpm high load the oil temp rises to 220F, and Ive got a huge 8" x 8" multi-pass cooler with fan and full-flow oil pump. 30 minutes at 3500 rpm and load and the oil runs 240F, with the cooler fan on. THe big bearings probably seemed like a great idea back then. Bigger than small is good, but bigger than adequate is worse. Etc. ------------- 1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto 1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
Posted By: tyrodtom
Date Posted: Mar/20/2021 at 8:06pm
|
What I did when I relieved the block was lay a head gasket on the block and grind away that sharp corner on each side of the chamber in the block until it looked like the gentle contours in head combustion chamber. That probably negated all the compression I had gained in the .030 cut, but the car ran noticeably better after this mod than it did before I relieved the block. Plus I think that sharp corner may have been a hot spot that was causing pre-ignition.
------------- 66 American SW, 66 American 2dr, 82 J10, 70 Hornet, Pound, Va. |
Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Mar/20/2021 at 8:51pm
|
Oh! I didn't realize you'd done these mods. Nice. I'm envious. I irrationally want one of these engines. I agree on the sharp edges. The weird bulge on the inside of the valve pocket too is sharp edged. Id ground mine as much as I dared -- there's water jacket in there -- and rounded the sharp edges. One upside to primitive iron is it's susceptible to new techniques and plain old care. How high do you dare rev it, for passing, etc? How high rpm would you dare to cruise at? ------------- 1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto 1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Mar/20/2021 at 8:54pm
|
I also want bragging rights on the ability tro change spark plugs with an adjustable wrench. I did that on the '59 I had right out of high school. It was an automatic too -- not exactly a speed demon, I did manage to hit nearly 80 on a long downhill. It wasn't in good shape when I got it, and tbh, I didn't improve it much in the time I owned it. ------------- 1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto 1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
Posted By: tyrodtom
Date Posted: Mar/20/2021 at 9:29pm
|
I had that 59 from 64-66. It had a Fenton head with 2 1 bbls., and overdrive. I never had a tach , I'd rev it till it till it just wouldn't rev no more sometimes. In road test of new flatheads, they reved to 5000. I'm sure I was at least that high. This was my first real overhaul of a engine. About as soon as I got it running good I got sudden orders to Asia. With only 10 days warning before I had to be at Travis AFB to ship out, I had to sell it to a friend in the USAF. ------------- 66 American SW, 66 American 2dr, 82 J10, 70 Hornet, Pound, Va. |
Posted By: 43n
Date Posted: Mar/21/2021 at 12:20am
|
If you Google “Monitor Sealed” the origin of this engine architecture is introduced in the 1935 Nash 400.. What a creative design ... eliminating both intake and exhaust manifold castings ..machining ...fasteners ..gaskets and assembly time… Brilliant! As you mentioned with a 7 main bearing crankshaft and 234 ci (The 234ci also available as an overhead valve Engine) Both 3 3/8”x 4 3/8”.. ..A little déjà vu for the future conversion of the 196 engine?? For the 1941 600 engine they dropped 62ci and reverted to the four main bearing crank creating the economy champion that we are still analyzing today |
Posted By: wittsend
Date Posted: Mar/21/2021 at 9:40am
|
When the spark plug location is considered it seems the ignited forces have to go horizontal..., then make a 90 degree a downward motion upon the piston. It makes me wonder how much energy efficiency is lost in that process.
When I look at the somewhat kidney shaped chamber I'm also left to ponder if any of the modern swirl technology was deliberate??? ------------- '63 American Hardtop |
Posted By: Ken Doyle
Date Posted: Mar/21/2021 at 11:10am
| My stock 1965 American with flathead, automatic, a Carter RBS 1-barrel, and 3.31: gearing would zoom right up to 80 MPH on flat ground, not that I would hold it there. It was happy cruising all day long at 65 MPH. If I drove it slower, it would get just shy of 30 MPG. I don't know much about engine design, but I was impressed with the little engine for the 15 years I drove it daily. |
Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Mar/21/2021 at 9:29pm
It's a gas, so pressure would be essentially equal on all surfaces, standard gas behavior with the "acoustic" behavior of moving gases. THe volume is a weird shape, flame propagation is probably terrible, dead, cold, hot spots, etc. Combustion tech is crazy now. I read about a HOnda engine (I don't think its all that unique) that direct-injects into a cup on the top of the piston with precisely controlled swirl, that will routinely burn 60:1 A/F. WOT accelleration is stoichiometric! ------------- 1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto 1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Mar/21/2021 at 9:34pm
Nice! That is also good to hear. I wonder if it's not more reliable than the OHV. ------------- 1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto 1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
Posted By: 43n
Date Posted: Mar/21/2021 at 10:13pm
|
Your 15 years with the flat head engine is remarkable… Would surely like to hear more including any of the major work that was needed throughout the history of your Rambler American What is this a 220?… & which body style? I am considering a 1965… Although the right machine 58 or newer would be acceptable Nice write up… Should help a lot of us |
Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Mar/23/2021 at 6:08am
|
Design elements first appeared aroun 1935 in the Nash engine (actually, I think at least some of those elements appeared much earlier), but the 195.6 was a clean slate design for the 1941 Nash ambassador 600. So it was designed in the late 30s. You should be able to shave 0.030" off the head and pick up about 0.25 compression, maybe a little more (maybe up to 0.50?? I don't think that much... big chamber area!). Any more and you're squeezing the transfer area too much. Should help a little with efficiency and low to mid rpm power, but doubt it will be enough to really notice. If the head needs to be trued up or is off for rebuilding the engine anyway, may as well go for it, but it's not worth pulling the head. These engines started off with 6.xx compression -- at 8:1 it's "high compression" for a flat-head. ------------- Frank Swygert |
Posted By: Ken Doyle
Date Posted: Mar/23/2021 at 8:55am
It was a 1965 American 330 2-door sedan. The only options it had were radio, heater, reclining bench seat, and automatic transmission. The only thing I did a little different than the average owner might is that I ran premium fuel, and set the timing to the premium fuel spec in the owner's manual. I drove it to work until the car was 48 years old, finally retiring it due to body rust from 48 years New Jersey winter road salt. It had only clocked 120k miles, but the head was never off the engine, the trans was never out of the car, and it still ran great the day I retired it. Once it warmed up, I ran it pretty hard. It would use about 1 quart of oil between 4,000 oil changes. I've also had two 195.6 OHV engines and ran one of them over 200k miles. Of course I kept the head torqued on the OHV. The two biggest differences between the OHV and the flathead are power, and weight. The OHV 195.6 is pretty heavy for it's size. My 1964 440 hardtop, with it's automatic and tall gearing, would run 85 MPH all day long. My 1960 Rambler 6 4-door hardtop and my 1963 Classic 660 2-door sedan were very peppy for mid-size cars with such small sixes. In both engines, I ran 10-30 oil in the winter, and HD30 oil in summer. I always warm up my engines by driving gently, and after a hard run, always let them idle a bit before shutting them off, which oils the cylinder walls. I've had about 8 Ramblers over the years, and got excellent service out of all of them.
|
Posted By: Heavy 488
Date Posted: Mar/23/2021 at 9:49am
|
The old economy models were just that. I still think back to the days when a large local Ford dealer did his TV ads. " Includes radio, heater AND white wall tires". |
Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Mar/23/2021 at 10:33pm
Nice work. Maintenance and good practices do wonders. Most people don't have the patience, only us old car nuts even talk about it. ------------- 1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto 1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
Posted By: 43n
Date Posted: Mar/23/2021 at 11:16pm
|
Your experience is a testimony to the durability and longevity built into this engine and car. Plus of course your careful operation and maintenance. This is great news ..I sure was hoping there were no replacement head gaskets or valve jobs needed… Nice work!
|
Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Mar/24/2021 at 5:07am
|
The Nash/Rambler/AMC flat-head is pretty bullet proof. No special maintenance needed. The only thing hard to do is adjust the valves. Supposed to be done every 8K or so, but most people just don't mess with them unless they start to make a noticeable amount of noise or they start to feel a power loss. They loosen slightly over time due to wear. They are just hard to get to with the motor in the car! If you ever pull the motor for any reason, ADJUST THE VALVES, even if the head never comes off. Do it while you can get to them easy! It takes a contortionist with the engine in the car from the top. Easiest way is to get it up on a lift so you can remove the steering linkage and K brace, but it's still tough. The OHV needs head bolt maintenance mainly due to the conversion nature of the design. Other than adjusting valves in car, the only thing hard on the flat-head is taking that head off -- after it's been on for several decades. Some corrosion gets around the bolts in the holes. The first one I ever had to take off was due to a piece of lock washer falling down a spark plug hole. Landed on a piston and got embedded in the aluminum, knocked against the top of the chamber (got all the way to the tight part of the chamber). Sounded like someone inside with a hammer trying to get out! NOTE: blow/clean top of engine BEFORE pulling sparkers out!! I ended up using a steel wedge around the sides to get that thing off (over 100K, been on for 18 years... my first, a 61 back in 1979). I was concerned about damaging the sealing areas, but I worked it in a little at a time all around until it broke loose. Had to get it about 1/2" up before that happened! Luckily no damage. Head was shaved 0.020" just to true it up, block never pulled. It didn't need that much, machinist recommended it since it did need a small amount taken off (0.005-0.010... don't recall exactly). Today I'd soak those studs with PB Blaster or something for a couple days before trying to pull the head, and then I might try pulling the studs instead. Definitely use the starter with a good battery and the plugs in with all nuts off to see if that will break it loose first.
------------- Frank Swygert |
Posted By: 43n
Date Posted: Mar/24/2021 at 10:15am
|
Thank you for the excellent write up… I have removed a lot of flat head cylinder heads and they can be tough… I think the worst one I ever read about was someone with a Packard straight eight... that is a lot of head bolts..or studs Just to clarify… I like your idea of cranking the engine over and using compression to help lift the head… Or were you suggesting trying to run the engine with all the nuts removed… Guessing this would end up with a lot of coolant in your oil? Oh.. first time trying an edit… What I should have said about the Packard Str eight cylinder head removal was that they lifted the head with a hoist using welded spark plug bolts ..I know my recollection is vague ...however I think they had actually lifted the front wheels off the ground and left it hanging overnight… Along with all the usual penetrants etc.
|
Posted By: 43n
Date Posted: Mar/24/2021 at 9:18pm
|
Math is Done: Using your .045” ruler as equivalent to a compressed head gasket then from the block deck to the top of the combustion chamber is the .358” shown in your photo ...Obviously the valves cannot lift that high or we are in trouble! The cam lift is .340”.. Minus the valve lash .016” ..Gives us .324” Valve lift Subtracting ...we can now see there is .034” Clearance between the fully open valve and the cylinder head roof Assumptions: 1 that the valve upper corner is flush with the deck 2 That your cylinder head has not been milled The exact numbers are not that important ..but the lesson is to check carefully if you decide to do any of the following: Mill the head Deck the top of the block Use a thin head gasket Decrease valve lash Install a high lift cam Over rev and float the valves … The way I drive nowadays the last one is irrelevant :-) Good insurance is a lump of modeling clay on the head of both valves ..Next rotate the engine 2 full turns then dissect the clay for an exact measurement of valve to head clearance I did some more math that may be possibly useful but will post it later Thanks Again for all the photos ..They are great! |
Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Mar/25/2021 at 6:02am
|
Not running, just cranking over. I would expect the coolant to be drained if you're pulling the head. Doesn't have to be fully drained though. You could actually start the engine -- just drain or pull the fan belt off first. It won't run, and that should definitely push the head up. No, it won't blow it up over the studs! On second thought.... that might warp the head if some of the studs are really stuck and others loose. That's a remote possibility IMHO though... very remote. When it fires that part of the head will definitely come up and immediately lose compression, and cause a compression loss in 2-3 other cylinders, so only one, maybe two cylinders would actually fire. ------------- Frank Swygert |
Posted By: 43n
Date Posted: Mar/25/2021 at 11:25am
|
Thanks… Interesting process… I wonder if anyone actually tried it ...if so maybe they could post their experience I need to run this by my brother… 60 years of Marine diesel engines ..outboard motors and tractors |
Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Mar/25/2021 at 9:34pm
|
43n, I wasn't too precise with the depth measurements. It's rough in there, and I was standing in front of the bench with a hand caliper. A better job would require sitting down and a depth tool that is vertical, placed carefully, etc. Given that there's no underhangs, greasing it up with vaseline and pouring in plaster of paris or dental casting stuff (that stuff is very useful) then you'd have a positive model to measure. I really want a flathead! I'm hoping the 1960 AMerican two-door wagon I'm gonna look at soon has one. Chances are its dead though. ------------- 1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto 1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
Posted By: 43n
Date Posted: Mar/25/2021 at 11:49pm
|
TomJ:… Your photos were priceless ..couldn’t find anything like them anywhere I generally grease the head surface and use an acrylic plate with a hole and a burette of water to find the cc… Same for the gasket… Blocks are more of a problem especially if it’s relieved but anyway the calculated compression ratio often falls below the advertised compression ratio A plaster 3-D model of the combustion chamber would be intriguing to analyze This combustion chamber is really strange… The curved end over the piston rather than the traditional straight cut squish pad about halfway across the piston…? What is with the deep bowl or dish where the spark plug is located?… Actually a dome when it’s inverted and the engine is running Maybe through trial and error they were onto something? ..Extra turbulence… Especially at part throttle ? We know these engines gave outstanding fuel economy … I know they could measure airflow back then however today it’s all about swirl and tumble And direct injection two door wagon… Yes!… Good luck Noticed a Rambler Engine on Tucson FB Marketplace for $100 The good news:oil pan cylinder head with spark plugs water pump motor mounts flywheel distributor all seem intact The bad news: it’s been outdoors for years The carburetor hole and the exhaust ports are open to the atmosphere… Doesn’t rain much in Tucson but you have to assume water got into it Has a PCV valve that should help date it...newer than say 1963?? |
Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Mar/26/2021 at 5:14am
|
That small area over the valves then a larger area over half the piston has to induce swirl. The intake charge comes in the small area then is pushed over to the top of the piston where it expands... I don't see any way NOT to induce swirl! The flat-head six gave good economy (and low performance) because it's a long stroke small bore engine. Almost all 40s and earlier engines are. Compression was low. The first flat-head of this design is thew 172.6 1941 Nash Ambassador 600 engine. 3.125" bore, 3.75" stroke, 6.70:1 compression, 75 hp @ 3600 rpm. It would reach 3600 on a test stand, but only about 3200 in the car -- in gear going down hill. so you never got up to 75 hp, more like 65 usable. The long stroke and small bore make it a great tractor motor. Along with a low geared rear axle (4.10 was standard with the three speed manual -- very few high speed roads in the 40s!) there was plenty torque off idle to get the car moving. I don't know what the top speed of the 2600 (and some change) pound car was, but at 3000 rpm with 26.5" diameter tires and 4.10 gears, it would be traveling 57.7 mph. I'd say 55-60 was tops. Most people hardly used first gear unless taking off from an incline or loaded down. The typical form of driving was to start in second then go to third once up to speed (30 or so). Typical speeds were 40-45 on most roads, and most rural roads were dirt with lots of potholes. I grew up on dirt roads... 30-35 is more like it. The low speeds helped gas mileage a lot!
------------- Frank Swygert |
Posted By: wittsend
Date Posted: Mar/26/2021 at 10:00am
|
This has been an interesting and enjoyable thread to follow. Within the aspect of bore spacing it seems a flathead potentially allows for larger valves since they are not confined to the the width of the narrow bore of the similar OHV engine. Regarding the notches in the block I too question that like 43n did. If the flow volume was needed why not just put it in the head? I have lightly notch blocks (OHV) in the past to increase flow around the valve. Others do this for (larger) valve clearance. In the flathead it would seem that rounding over the edge of the cylinder (above the top piston ring, on the valve side) would have helped flow rather then having the channel cut in the block and still retaining the sharp edge the mixture needs to flow over. Another though that comes to mind is that in a OHV engine the flow spills over all 360 degrees of the valve. In the flathead the flow on the intake side would seem to predominately come over the 180 degrees closest to the bore since that is the direction of the draw. I'd think that lift would be a significant performance increase given that the flow is outputting roughly half the valve area (see crude drawing).  As to the spark plug indent it might better displace the flame front??? The early Honda CCVC engines actually had a small, rich mixture, secondary chamber that was ignited, then burned into the much leaner primary chamber. The thing I find most interesting about this discussion is the AMC flathead was (to my knowledge) the last flathead ever offered in an American (and maybe any) car. Seeing one in a 1965 American caused me to double take the first time I saw one.
------------- '63 American Hardtop |
Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Mar/26/2021 at 9:28pm
|
I'm not convinced there was much, if any, hydrodynamic modelling or design done. It all looks like someone was winging it. Lheads are cheap to make. Good observation though that side valves would provide room for bigger valves, but it wasn't done on this motor. Also the pocket for it would once again increase chamber volume. And at these RPMs and fill rates, small valves are likely just fine. There's a lot of even-recent work on flatheads, so these things are knowable, though none of it was done on ramblers as far as I can tell! Side valve is side valve... I bet some grouchy old flathead Ford boards would have a lot of information on how they behave and how to make them better. ------------- 1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto 1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Mar/26/2021 at 9:40pm
I think the combustion chamber is really BAD, lol. Squish at least makes sense. All I know about it is casual reading, and the semi-obvious way it works (i'm sure dominated by subtleties I kow nothign about. A quick google of flathead squish shows a lot of lore and discussion. I think the dish around the plug is oooold low compression leftover design, plus manufacturing convenience. Weren't the first versions of this motor around 7:1? The water jacket is pinched to zero there; there woudl have to be a big dish on the top, or one on the bottom, for the top iron to meet the bottom iron, so they did both. (On OHVs the valve is in a head pocket.) I too wonder about the deep 1/8" dead space around the piston crown, down to the top ring. It seems like it's there to keep the top ring cool -- I'm guessing here -- since clearly gases won't burn well there! The thin gas section in contact with the moving wall and piston would suck a lot of heat out. (The OHV has the same awful wide dead space, but also the terrible pop-up wedge. From my studying of the chopped-up cylinder head I'm pretty sure the pop-up wedge's purpose is to make room for the intake trough -- clearly money savings over performance. THere is nothing "good" about the trough other than cost and compactness.) ------------- 1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto 1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Mar/26/2021 at 9:49pm
|
...but maybe the spark plug dome is more squish! It's hard to second-guess hydrodynamical stuff.... https://images.app.goo.gl/yDF661oeUDPZ4Rwr5" rel="nofollow - https://images.app.goo.gl/yDF661oeUDPZ4Rwr5 via googling "flathead engine squish area", select IMAGES ------------- 1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto 1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
Posted By: 43n
Date Posted: Mar/26/2021 at 10:35pm
|
The Nash 600 engine proved itself so that in the 50s the Nash Rambler used the same engine but stroked it another quarter inch to 4” And 184 in.³ And then of course sometime after that the 196 involved another quarter inch stroke increase 4.25” inches ..Bore increases to increase displacement were probably unlikely since this engine is so short already..Cylinders too close together. All this change was great for torque production as Farna pointed out Overdrive was another key factor in the Nash 600… Once in high gear at 3000 RPM you could engage overdrive and drop the engine speed to about 2100 At the same road speed I feel going oversize on the intake valve would be a definite plus provided that it wasn’t even more shrouded By being closer to the edges of the cylinder head Experiments using a flow bench would of course be the ideal way to perfect the combustion chamber Honda’s CVCC combustion chamber allowed them to meet emission standards without using a catalytic converter… I believe they produced a set of CVCC cylinder heads for the Small block Chevy just to let GM and others know that they could benefit too Why am I looking for a 1965 rambler American?… Since it is the last year for a domestic sidevalve engine in a production car ..So unique...Agree with wittsend… There will be some surprised faces when the hood is opened! As noted in this thread earlier the engine was available in the 220 and 330 series…I have seen it in two-door four-door and Station wagon…But never seen in the two door hardtop? Was it possible to have this in the 440? Not likely I guess unless a special order Last year’s for some other brands Flatheads were Ford and Mercury 1953… Pontiac and Packard 1954 ...Hudson 55 or 56… Dodge and Plymouth 1959 And Studebaker Lark 1960 I believe Speaking of Studebaker… I recall reading that when they introduced their Champion six cylinder 169ci back around 1939/40 they advertise that it was successfully test run for 100 hours at full throttle ...cycling between peak torque and peak horsepower.. I wonder how many other engines were tested this way? |
Posted By: Ken Doyle
Date Posted: Mar/27/2021 at 9:49am
I believe the 440 hardtop was the only one that came standard with the OHV. The 440 sedans had the flathead as standard equipment.
|
Posted By: 43n
Date Posted: Mar/27/2021 at 12:47pm
| Thank you!… So was 1965 the only year you could get three different versions of the six-cylinder engine’s? |
Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Mar/27/2021 at 10:28pm
Exactly. The siamesed cylinders immediately made the engine an evolutionary dead-end -- the paired cylinders are the minimum spacing for the tiny bore, so that was that, the only choice was to stroke it, and that has limitations of it's own. The 199/232/258, and the V8s, had adequate cylinder spacing to allow bigger bores. ------------- 1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto 1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Mar/27/2021 at 10:30pm
Oh, good point! ------------- 1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto 1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
Posted By: Ken Doyle
Date Posted: Mar/28/2021 at 8:35am
Yes that's true, and you couldn't get the 232 with air conditioning in 1965 because there was no room for the condenser in front of the longer new engine. This is one of the reasons why they made the American's nose 4 inches longer for 1966.
|
Posted By: 43n
Date Posted: Mar/28/2021 at 3:18pm
|
I think this may have led to some interesting conversations between customers and sales people at the dealership… Especially if they wanted the newest engine and found they couldn’t get it with A/C? But theoretically you could get A/C with the flat head engine?? Some brands in the 30s and 40s Lengthened everything ahead of the firewall… Including the hood and front fenders to accommodate the straight eight over the six. I think Nash was one. Guessing it was also a prestige thing so when you pulled up next to the same car at a traffic light it was obvious … Or how about Saab when they had to ditch the two stroke in the late 60s… Lengthened the nose to accommodate V4 |
Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Mar/28/2021 at 10:41pm
Lol... an old York on a flathead... with automatic... ------------- 1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto 1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Mar/29/2021 at 7:01am
|
I've seen it Tom! 54 Nash Rambler four door. Pulling a hill trying to hold 60 mph with AC on would have been a challenge! The original 172.6 used a 6.7:1 compression ratio. Lots of things have been done to the Ford flat-head V-8, and all of that should apply to nearly any flat-head design. Except cooling issues. The exhaust was routed through the Ford V-8 head to the outer edge, holding a lot of heat in. The Cadillac flat-head V-8 had intake and exhaust manifolds on the "top" (inner) edge of the head to prevent this, but then you've got a lot of heat near the intake manifolds and carbs. In-lines are better suited to the flat-head design for this reason. 9.1:1 is about the highest you can go as far as compression before the transfer area between valves and cylinder gets too small. I ran the numbers on using a 5-6 psi turbo and 8:1 compression on a 195.6 L-head once. You'd end up with about the same power as a 195.6 OHV/2V at the most. Would still be an interesting engine! I'd want to mount the turbo with the compressor housing straight to the head with a side draft pull through carb on it... Some good info: http://www.hotrod.com/articles/0905sr-ford-flathead-myths/" rel="nofollow - https://www.hotrod.com/articles/0905sr-ford-flathead-myths/
------------- Frank Swygert |
Posted By: 43n
Date Posted: Mar/29/2021 at 11:55pm
|
When boring the flat head engine for new pistons I suspect that .060” would be the maximum? .040”Could be enough… Some flat head sites talk about too much overbore leads to a hot running engine. Here’s what I calculated for the new displacements and compression ratio’s for each: .040”...200.62ci....CR 8.18:1 .060”...203.16ci.....CR 8.27:1 Modern piston alloys and a thin ring package would be a nice plus Recommended piston manufacturers? |
Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Mar/30/2021 at 6:24am
|
0.060" is the maximum practical, as that's the largest aftermarket pistons I've ever found. The 195.6 can be safely bored 0.080" over though. Most of the flat-head info you find on the Internet is Ford V-8 related, but a lot of it applies to all flat-heads. If the cylinder walls are too thin they don't absorb and transfer heat well, which can lead to overheating. You shouldn't have that issue with the 195.6 even at 0.080". I have an article (somewhere!! -- really just a photo and caption) of a fellow who used a 184 crank (4" stroke) in a 195.6 block bored 0.080" and was trouncing people in his engine size class at a drag strip in a 54 Nash Rambler. Hmm... it could have been a 172.6 crank (3.75" stroke). Used 4.10 gear and three speed OD trans, with OD locked out for racing. Don't know if he had a dual carb head, but I suspect he used the 184 crank and two barrel carb head from a mid 50s Nash Statesman. For a couple years there was a two one barrel carb head from the factory, and Fenton and Edmunds made a two one barrel carb higher compression head for all three. Chamber size varied. IIRc all thr5ee used flat top pistons and chamber size was altered to change compression. If you put a 7.3:1 (stock) 172.5 head on a late model 195.6 (8:1 stock) engine compression would be way too high (something around 10:1, but it's been a while since I read anything on that... could be more or less...). I really only recall 100% reading that you had to know what size the head was made for or it would be much higher than expected. All the Edmunds heads were made to deliver 8 - 8.5:1 compression, which was considered "high" for a flat-head in the 50s. Egge machine is the only company I know of that makes custom antique car pistons. ------------- Frank Swygert |
Posted By: wittsend
Date Posted: Mar/30/2021 at 12:43pm
When the word "pistons" is preceded by the word "Egge" the spelling changes. The correct spelling is Pi$ton$.  ------------- '63 American Hardtop |
Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Mar/31/2021 at 2:34pm
|
Well, they make things no one else does, and one-offs "ain't cheap". ------------- Frank Swygert |
Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Apr/02/2021 at 10:07pm
I have custom forged Ariel pistons with very modern steel Honda 83mm rings in my 195.6 OHV. OMFG! I had nice pics of them on my website but I can't find them! I'll find them later. They were not cheap, and the rings were very expensive. About 9:1. If you go through piston catalogs you might even find pistons that are close enough to bore to, and ream for pins. ANything is likely to be more modern, and the flathead has flat-top pistons; no chance of finding the weird pop-up OHV pistons. 83mm plus/minus is not a rare bore size. Diameter, pin height are the key datums. Brand of original motor doesn't matter at all, and it'll likely be an import. ------------- 1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto 1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Apr/02/2021 at 10:12pm
LOL! Yeah, "Hey honey, turn the A/C off and open the windows." Yeah, why was it now that people wanted V8's?
... yeah, those with MANIFOLDS! The OHV has really crappy exhaust heat issues too, but not as bad as the flathead of course... ------------- 1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto 1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
Posted By: 43n
Date Posted: Apr/04/2021 at 12:34am
|
Posted By: 43n
Date Posted: Apr/04/2021 at 12:51am
|
Oh I did see the Arias piston on your website awhile back
It looked like a piece of fine jewelry! Guessing these are forged?… Certainly more expensive For ordinary cast pistons I checked on eBay and found a set of 6 with pins at $240… Choose your typical oversize Same supplier out of Cincinnati also listed them including rings for $320 Called Egge 2 days ago.. they said they have no pistons for the 196 flat head in stock nor do they plan to make anymore. I asked him what would be a typical price and he said last time they sold a set with pins they were $541.20… And of course the rings would be extra |
Posted By: wittsend
Date Posted: Apr/04/2021 at 11:37am
The other day I commented that Pistons from Egge should be spelled Pi$ton$. But after reading this perhaps "priceless" would be more applicable - because there are no pistons to price.  From my recollection the inline 6 flathead goes back to 1940. That would make it 81 years old.------------- '63 American Hardtop |
Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Apr/04/2021 at 3:53pm
ARIAS, right, sorry for the error. Yeah, forged. Obviously they were a one-off, but with that part number I bet they have the design on record somewhere and could conjure up another set. They're in my fun motor. I'm soon gonna build a 195.6 OHV for a new car, it will get more ordinary fare. I have .060s but would rather save them; the block is now std bore and decent. I hate to chop all that life out of a very clean block. I don't actually know what the pistons cost, but it was around $700. Dunno the rings either but the builder told me they were about as good as they get. I seem to have lost the Arias piston photos. I'll try to find them... FOUND: https://www.sr-ix.com/AMC/195.6ohv/HEAD/images/forged%20pistons3.jpg" rel="nofollow - https://www.sr-ix.com/AMC/195.6ohv/HEAD/images/forged%20pistons3.jpg from https://www.sr-ix.com/AMC/195.6ohv/HEAD/index.html" rel="nofollow - https://www.sr-ix.com/AMC/195.6ohv/HEAD/index.html $540 is getting close to custom prices. But its a flat-top, theres a good chance you could find a compatible non-Rambler piston, maybe even a better one. Reamed for a new pin, rods bores/bushed. Never done it but I know it's done. Some specs in the Arias photo,. ------------- 1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto 1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Apr/05/2021 at 6:54am
|
Really need to look at the second link -- those Arias pistons are real beauties!! Nearly $1000 for pistons and rings (assuming $200-300 for rings) is asking a lot for a stock rebuild though. If Egge isn't producing the pistons any more, I wonder if Kanter has a few sets left? Maybe they have another or use a different source? Otherwise it's NOS/NORS for those needing pistons in the future... I still have a set of OHV pistons, I think they are 0.030" over, but might be 0.040"... IIRC I bought rings with them. ------------- Frank Swygert |
Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Apr/06/2021 at 12:10am
|
Yeah, I never had an engine like this before, and probably won't again, I can't afford the work or the parts. Learned a lot though. I think it's the flathead's that aren't made any more. I better go look. EDIT: No 195.6 pistons of any kind on Egge's site, nor Kanter's. I called Kanter, "will call you back". ------------- 1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto 1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
Posted By: 43n
Date Posted: Apr/08/2021 at 12:40am
|
I also called Kanters yesterday and questioned availability of 196 flat head pistons… Their website showed them at $40 apiece. I had to state an oversize(.060”) ..he confirmed they had them in stock when he called me back after checking their warehouse He did not know where they were manufactured He also quoted that the piston ring set was $90 |
Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Apr/08/2021 at 6:37am
|
Well, that's a good price for both pistons and rings for a 195.6!! ~$340 for the set... They may not have specific oversize pistons though. I think the chamber size determined compression on the flat-heads, so all year pistons should interchange -- just get rings with pistons. I suspect all the aftermarket pistons use the same ring set, but may not. I suspect that 0.030 and maybe 0.040 over pistons are sold out at Kanter, but they may still have a few sets. AFAIK there were no 0.080 pistons available and 0.060 are the largest commonly made.
------------- Frank Swygert |
Posted By: wittsend
Date Posted: Apr/08/2021 at 10:53am
|
Not flathead pistons but since OHV's came up in the discussion ... : 196 OHV .030 Silv-O-Lite pistons/pins set of 6 on Ebay for $150. Crap, the (lengthy) links failed. Easy search on Ebay "AMC 196 Pistons" The intended years vary and as I'm told so do the ring groove size. Probably not many (if any) bores that could use the standard pistons.
------------- '63 American Hardtop |
Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Apr/08/2021 at 5:14pm
|
Getting the correct rings might be a chore, but they show up on e-bay from time to time too. ------------- Frank Swygert |
Posted By: 43n
Date Posted: Apr/08/2021 at 11:54pm
|
When thinking about flathead engines I always find it good to review the major work that was Flatfire.. flatfire.com ..Is this the ultimate flat head engine?… You will have to decide for yourself.. but still using the 46 Ford block as a basis then achieving nearly 700 hp and over 300 mph with a little over 300ci stands as testimony to persistence, determination and of course unlimited resources Reviewing many of the engine photos I did not notice one of the combustion chambers ...wanted to see the twin spark plugs per cylinder… Since the Pistons are forgings from Ross it motivated me to call them… Mostly out of curiosity as to what a custom Rambler flat head piston would cost… This is what they said: Pistons $115 each Pins. $14 each Rings. $ 125-$150 Now back to reality… I hope the Rambler I find has decent compression and/or leak down test… And that I don’t need to buy any pistons! I do however have a list of simple changes I would like to try to improve responsiveness, mileage and overall drivability and enjoyment and then I would hope the readers would weigh in on my ideas |
Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Apr/09/2021 at 5:57am
|
Oh we'll weigh in... no doubt about that!! Few mess with the flathead. There was a guy on The HAMB that had a flathead 195.6 (172.6 in 51 Nash Rambler, bored out to 195.6) with an Edmunds 2x1 cylinder head and an old McCulluch Supercharger. He quit before he finished, but kept the engine (which he built before going to far with the body). Said he was thinking about putting the engine in a T-bucket. Pics of engine with supercharger in car on page 11 of this thread, lots of pics of engine throughout thread. (link below). A shame he got so far then switched gears -- too many projects! http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/1951-nash-rambler-build-thread.520340/" rel="nofollow - https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/1951-nash-rambler-build-thread.520340/ ------------- Frank Swygert |
Posted By: 43n
Date Posted: Apr/09/2021 at 10:31am
| Thank you for the link… Very informative… Will have to go back to it soon since it is so long |
Posted By: wittsend
Date Posted: Apr/09/2021 at 11:29am
|
Regarding the supercharged Flathead; there always seems to be two schools of thought here. The ever present LS argument that for the money you can't make more power. The other being someone who wants to do something different. It isn't the pursuit of total HP but rather maximum HP out of a specific engine. The LS guy will question the time and financial sanity of the pursuit and the other guy will question the uniqueness and creativity of yet ANOTHER LS swap. It seems both sides are ignoring certain truths and interjecting opinion. The reasonable person respects both sides. Frankly for me it is "bang for the buck" and I'm like both people mentioned (Oh the arguments that go on in my brain!). I have under my desk the parts for a "poorman's rebuild" on my 196 OHV, wanted to do a 4.0/AX-15 just because people say it is hard to do, I'd also like to do a more modern 4 cylinder swap (dang all those 4 cylinder engines that don't mate to a RWD trans - and, yes, I am aware of those that do) and just the other day bought a set of tight fitting 60's Ford 289/302 stock exhaust manifolds for a V-8 swap. WHY??? Well if ANY of those options became the most financially reasonable then that is the course I would take. A few years back someone offered me Ford 260 V-8. Should have taken it. I almost bought 2WD Cherokee but without a title disposing the carcass was a problem. If a cheap Miata or Ranger came along the 4 cylinder is still viable. And if none of that comes to fruition well there is always the 196 OHV poorman's rebuild - and if not I'll have parts for sale. Some people want the nicest looking car, some people want the fastest car. Me, I'm going for the bang for the buck and might I add as little buck as possible. In the mean time I wait... . Let's face it, half the fun of the hobby is dreaming of what you WOULD do. ------------- '63 American Hardtop |
Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Apr/09/2021 at 4:20pm
|
Rebuilding a 196 flat-head (or OHV) as a driver is questionable money wise, as you will have $340 or more in pistons and rings, another $450 or so in other parts -- then machine work of at least the same amount. $1200-1500 to rebuild. You might be able to do it cheaper with some careful shopping, such as those E-bay pistons (assuming you can find rings!), but it's still going to be right around $1000+. Yes, you can get a good used LS for that amount, but it's a lot more work to put one in. There are other engine swap alternatives (2.5L/4.0L Jeep, or 200/250 Ford six, for example) that would be much easier to install and a bit less money in some cases, but still a good bit of work. If you had to pay to have that work done you're looking at $1200-2500+, depending on the engine (and trans!) used and what additional parts are needed. Add about $1000 if it's an EFI engine for wiring and such. So $2400-5000 for an engine/trans swap (can't use original trans with any viable swap engine). $1200-1500 is looking more reasonable for a running car now! While you would have more power with the LS, you have to consider what you're going to be using the car for, and future value. A well done hot-rod Rambler with an LS will very likely be worth as much as a restored car today, but it's still a lot of work. I went over the numbers for a super or turbo charged 196 flat-head. About the same as a 196 OHV, which is an increase of 35 hp. Not a bad increase, but probably cheaper to find and swap in an OHV. The stock 196 flattie produced 90 GROSS HP (about 65-66 NET, comparable to a modern engine... -27%), the 1V OHV produced 125 GROSS HP (about 91 NET).
------------- Frank Swygert |
Posted By: wittsend
Date Posted: Apr/09/2021 at 9:22pm
|
For sure you have to want to do, what you do. The last two engine swaps I did doubled the original HP. Pinto, put in a 2.3 Turbo/T-5. I had the T-Bird Turbo Coupe as my daily driver for 10 years. Bought it salvaged for $1,500 and got $1,400 when someone hit my wife in it (just door damage). I sold parts for $250 and I'm + $100 after 10 years use and transferred all the parts (engine, trans, CPU/wiring, fuel etc.) to the Pinto. All in it was $150 my actual cost. The 150K motor still runs fine. 84HP to 190HP. Studebaker Daytona already had the McKinnon (GM Canada) SBC engine. So, engine mounts were not an issue. For $171 I got a 66K miles '85 Corvette engine off E-Bay. Intake, carb and distributor were about $75 all. Pick Your Part provided the 700R4 trans that had every sign of recently being rebuilt that was $80 out the door. 120 HP to 240 HP. These are the "Bang for the Buck" things I do. Likewise with my '63 American 196 OHV. It all depends on what comes along. So, far for the OHV I've gotten rod bearings for $12, mains for $30 (do need to get the crank turned), rings for $25 and cam bearings for $22. I'll probably never drive any of these cars more than one to two thousand miles in my lifetime. So, even if I get 5k on a poorman's rebuild it will be long after I'm gone. Decent enough is just fine with me. The bottom line is I'll never have the prettiest car. I'll never have the fastest car. But..., for the money I sure get a lot out of my investment of funds and the enjoyment of conquering a challenge. And that to me is why it is a HOBBY.
------------- '63 American Hardtop |
Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Apr/09/2021 at 9:30pm
|
Here's my ninety seven cents worth (inflation): I've already made my decisions about reasonableness. Making Ramblers to drive is what I'm doing, so it's automatically reasonable to do what it takes to make them drop-dead reliable. Both of my cars are drive-to-New-York-right-now ready. (No idea why I would do that though.) Financial sanity to me is I can afford it, and I do not do debt. I assume I'm perceived as crazy from the get-go; life is so much simpler that way. I've looked into the modern-4-banger swaps, they make sense, but are counter to what I find to be phun, and I know the 195.6 OHV PITA can be made reliable because I've done it, and now know how to do it again, much cheaper. I'm fine with 65 mph as sustained top speed (75 capable, peaks higher) in the new car (1960 American two-door wagon). I think it helps to have an honest end-use goal. Sunday driver really loosens up the specs. I like the engineering challenge of drop-dead reliability, which dovetails neatly with daily driver-ing. (For the '60, I will relax, greatly, originality, I'm doing another fun interior with an all-carpeted rear ala Nash Greenbrier. OHV, Flashomatic, drilled drum brakes, 2-circuit brakes, alternator, full-flow oil and cooler.) The OHV has a known list of expensive items to build, and you have to build, but it's still the shortest-path to a reliable engine. THe Flashomatic (T35) is another one, predictable price to rebuild. THe economic argument for a modern 4-cyl + trans swap-in is that you get a donor in good enoug condition to not open it up for repairs. This seems entirely reasonable, newer to begin with, and modern driveline life of 200K+. If you have to open it up there goes that feature. And fitting it will definitely be a lot of work, which I would assume you have to really love and enjoy doing. I suspect if you don't do your own work 95%, and pay for it all, it doesn't matter what kind of car you drive because you clearly have a lot of money! lol. Even something mundane like a '65 Mustang has a lot of expenses (repair) or cost (bought good). Owning old cars is foolish to begin with. Once you've accepted that, why worry further? ------------- 1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto 1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
Posted By: wittsend
Date Posted: Apr/11/2021 at 10:40am
Quite true. Overwhelmingly people just see a car as transportation. However, there are men that become nostalgic and therefore dare I say emotion over these hunks of rolling steel. And once emotions come into play reason goes right out the door. (Note, the author of this post has been self descriptive but is trying to hide from that reality) ------------- '63 American Hardtop |
Posted By: 43n
Date Posted: Apr/22/2021 at 12:11am
|
Rambler American Flathead plan: These are the changes that I intend to make once I purchase a Rambler American to use as a hobby driver several times per week… Not as a daily driver… Not for motorsports I am looking for the “reliability”and “bang for the buck” as expressed by comments before in this thread. I hesitate to refer to this List as “improvements”… (Just changes)… Until they have proven themselves My assumption is an engine with good compression… Automatic transmission… And a vehicle only needing routine maintenance 1 install Holley/Weber 2barrel carb… I have a NOS Ford Pinto carb on my shelf along with an aluminum 2bbl to 1bbl adapter 2 Cold air intake 3 MSD ignition with compatable coil… One I used on a Ford 6 pickup for many years...the points last forever since they are just a trigger... minimal current draw 4 Longer reach spark plugs… Try to move the ignition point further down into the “dome” in the combustion chamber 5 Clutch fan with shroud 6 Header with 2 1/4” exhaust through lower restriction muffler 7 Air fuel ratio gauge with O2 sensor Looking for your feedback… Ideas… And comments Thanks! |
Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Apr/22/2021 at 1:06am
|
The bigger carb will kill the motor. It simply cannot pump that much fluid to make velocity in that big venturi (pair). Likewise the exhaust will have no effect. If you rev it to 4000 rpm -- probably not for long -- given the typical volumetric efficiency of a flathead at 75%, it will pump 170 cfm with wide-open-throttle. Unless you plan quite radical port adn head work and a wild cam it will not flow for you. That flathead will not exceed the flow capability of that stock carburetor. I'm deeply skeptical of peoples' seat of the pants claims. I want numbers, non drag-strip, who drives like that on the street? Junk carb, junk results. And most of them are very old, so there's a lot of junk. Big carbs do not make power. Filling cylinders with fuel/air makes power. The engine draws it in, the carb does not push it in. The best thing about the flathead, and the OHV too, is all it's torque available by around 1800 rpm. Work with that! It's not HP that turns the wheels, it's torque. A LARGE electric fan might save you .1 to .5 hp. My advice is to build a stock motor for endurance -- oversized radiator (so-called, you can't really be too big). Spend the $250 on a Champion aluminum radiator. This will make your car "faster" by letting you to work the engine hard without overheating. The drag-race mentality looks for peak power, which is a specific application, not a good rule for a driver. It's common experience that hauling a** up a steelp grade in hot weather is hard work on a little engine, then it overheats and you gotta slow down. So keep it cool, you don't have to slow down (as much) and voila! free power! Take that distributor out, completely disassemble it, gun-brush the bore, oil it, make it smooth, and stick a Pertronix Ignitor II (note the 2!) in it. Then any decent coil -- the II auto-adjusts dwell for maximum coil charge-up. Done and done. Spark can't gain power, but bad spark loses it. All you can do is not lose. But first, use a spreadsheet or a good online calculator that shows you RPM vs tires vs MPH at various RPM/MPH combos and in 2nd and 3rd. Then dial in what you can -- tire size. It's all a dreadful compromise, big engine or small. And the factory did a pretty good job of extracting the most from an engine/trans/tire combo, if you vary from it, you ought to know exactly what effect it iwll have before you start. When you start with 80, 90 hp there's not a lot of room for error! lol. ------------- 1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto 1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
Posted By: 43n
Date Posted: Apr/23/2021 at 12:55am
|
Good points… Well taken! Will advise of any results and post them
|
Posted By: wittsend
Date Posted: Apr/23/2021 at 10:58am
Ironic that even with my daily driver (2000 Protege) I was told the same thing on the Mazda Performance Forums. That being 'the engine was built to a specific purpose.' The throttle body size, port size, the cam specs., valve size were a finely tuned "matched set." Any attempt to increase one (or many) bought little to no increase in power as elsewhere down the line was a bottleneck - or the additional air created a negative effect. That said the manufactures likely leave a "Margin" of protection in the tune. I found an article regarding the Miata (that my engine is very closely related to) and a 4 degree ignition advance and a 3 degree Intake cam advance garnered a FEW horsepower. Both were accomplish with a file elongating the bolt holes on the ignition timing wheel and the cam pulley alignment pin. The Butt Dyno says there is a marginally noticeable increase in the mid RPM range. With that in mind it is a thankful thing that many of the motors we do have respond well to modifications. But whether the flathead or my much newer Mazda motor lets just say of those, 'a screwdriver will never make a good pry bar.'
------------- '63 American Hardtop |
Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Apr/23/2021 at 9:50pm
Of course you are right -- I guess I overstated it. Of course there's plenty of room for improvements but often you're exchanging one thing for another. But metal and fuel were cheap. ------------- 1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto 1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
Posted By: wittsend
Date Posted: Apr/24/2021 at 11:10am
|
No. You didn't overstate anything at all. I was in agreement with you ("the factory did a pretty good job of extracting the most from an engine"). I was just saying that even many years later after the flathead was designed/built that some engines (My Mazda engine) STILL have limitations for addition power because of the overall (intended) design. My additional dialogue was simply to say tweaking the tune a bit did garner a slight increase but overall things like a bigger throttle body or wilder cams would show little or no return on the investment. ------------- '63 American Hardtop |
Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Apr/24/2021 at 10:43pm
|
1. That carb might help as it's not very big, and the original one may well be about worn out. Better yet, you can get a new Carter YF from Daytona. Wit the little Pinto two-stage Holley Weber you will hardly ever need the second barrel as the engine doesn't pull much, but it won't hurt. 2. The cold air intake is really a moot point. The flathead originally came with a totally open air filter, at least the later 61-63 models did. Not exactly a cold air intake, but nothing restricting it either. With the intake built into the head it gets warm pretty quick without heating the incoming air. 3. The old MSD spark will work fine, and as you said, only uses points for a low voltage trigger. I must contend that the Pertronix II is a much better solution, but if you have the MSD already you may as well use it. 4. There is no "dome" of the combustion chamber on the flathead. Hard to describe -- just look at one. This link shows an aftermarket (and very rare today!) Edmunds dual carb head. you can see where the sparkers are. They are right between the valves, over near the cylinder. If the spark plug hole were moved over it would be over the valve head itself. A longer spark plug probably won't help, but as long as it doesn't contact anything I don't think it would hurt. http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/edmunds-head-flathead-rambler-6-cyl.1045196/" rel="nofollow - https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/edmunds-head-flathead-rambler-6-cyl.1045196/ 5. The water pump wasn't made to support a clutch fan. Might not last long with the extra weight. If anything get a flex fan or one of the Flex-A-Lite single piece nylon fans. Better yet an electric fan. A shroud with the stock fan will improve cooling noticeably though. 6. Those things have a 1-7/8" head pipe. That fit neatly inside a 2" pipe. All I'd do is run a 2" exhaust and turbo muffler. The original muffler was a large three pass that's very restrictive and quiet. Opening up the exhaust won't help much, but may a little at higher speeds. Edmunds made "fittings" that bolted to the block where the exhaust pipe clamps are and had fittings for 1-7/8 pipes so you could make your own headers. Only seen a set once! You could put a T between the first and second exhaust ports and run a second pipe, or just cut the end cap off the front and run a second pipe from there, then into a two in one out muffler. Not going to be much help, nothing noticeable over the single 2" with turbo muffler for sure, but would be neat looking. Oh, there is a brace rod from a bell housing bolt to the exhaust pipe. That HAS to be there or the head pipe will crack at the rear exhaust port. Don't ask how I know... 7. A/F gauge will be helpful when tuning the carb for sure!
------------- Frank Swygert |
Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Apr/25/2021 at 9:46pm
|
All excellent points. I put a plastic "RV" flex fan on my 68. It weighs nothing and costs $25. It moves noticably more air and won't shake the pump to death. I'm building a mostly-stock 195.6 OHV for my new 60 wagon, I'll probably use a mechanical pump and this same fan. It's a 1965 so it has the head-to-block circulation built in. ------------- 1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto 1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Apr/26/2021 at 6:10am
|
That plastic RV fan is most likely a Flex-A-Lite. Haven't seen one made by anyone else, but there may be (or may have been) another manufacturer. Smallest I could find is a 14". The original fan is only 11-12", IIRC... may have been as little as a 10" across (diameter). Four blades unless with AC. http://www.summitracing.com/search/part-type/fans-mechanical/diameter-in/14-000-in?N=brand%3aflex-a-lite%2bdiameter-in%3a14-000-in" rel="nofollow - https://www.summitracing.com/search/part-type/fans-mechanical/diameter-in/14-000-in?N=brand%3aflex-a-lite%2bdiameter-in%3a14-000-in ------------- Frank Swygert |
Posted By: 43n
Date Posted: Apr/28/2021 at 11:21pm
|
Farna: thanks for the very thorough and specific comments… The Holley/Weber carburetor On 2 L Pinto engines and 140ci Chevy Vega engines produced a 5 to 10% improvement in fuel economy. Also TomJ He has in-depth Weber carb tuning data on his site ...And a great heads up for an inexpensive but effective plastic fan The MSD ignition improved the idle and tip in response… In my experience. The multiple spark feature Works through 3000 RPM… I generally experimented with plug gaps from.045”-.060” The cylinder head “Dome” I referred to can be seen in the Tom J photos on page 1 of this thread..May benefit from a long reach spark plug since there would be no danger of hitting the valves or piston The Edmunds cylinder head combustion chamber looked like a more typical Flathead chamber… On the topside it was evident the 2 carburetors could better feed the especially distant end cylinders ..#1 & #6. Normally the end ports on an in-line six cylinder are exhaust… Not intake.. However this was intentional I believe because The stock Nash/AMC layout had the advantage of the carburetor directly over a pair of exhaust ports for quick winter warm up and fuel vaporization...Imagine a winter start up in Kenosha at -10°F with blowing wind and snow… Everyone else’s Manifolds snow and ice covered and hanging out in the icy blast & being further chilled by the Subzero air from the fan… Score one for the Nash/Rambler/AMC design It is no secret that Henry Ford ran the exhaust passages on his flathead V-8 through the block… We’re talking winter in Detroit and warm up with quick heat was an essential part of his design A 2 inch exhaust sounds adequate… Thanks |
Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Apr/29/2021 at 5:41am
|
I forgot TomJ posted photos of the engine and head! Went back and looked... definite "dome" where the sparker is. An extended reach plug might very well help, but it may foul more easily or burn too hot (in the flame front more) and not last long -- only one way to find out! Nash was known for an excellent heater, and I'm sure the intake design had a lot to do with it. They also were the first to routinely use a 195 degree thermostat, at least AFAIK. Most other US makes were using 180. Even the big OHV sixes used a "built-in" intake. ------------- Frank Swygert |
Posted By: RINGO
Date Posted: Oct/30/2021 at 4:29am
| HI. I HAVE 64 330. WANT TO SWAP ENGINE , TRANS AND REAR END. WANT EASIEST SWAP POSSIBLE. 4 CYLINDER V6 OR V8. I'M LOST AS FAR AS WHERE TO GO TO GET IDEAS. AND IDEAS OR HELP WOULD BE AWESOME. THANKS BOB |
Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Oct/30/2021 at 8:23pm
|
Post this over in the Frankenrambler section. Of course you can swap in any AMC V-8 or inline six. The 4.0L from a 96-2000 Cherokee would be your best bet -- still AMC in design and "allowed" in the AMC six section. The four cylinder (fuel injected) from the same would also be a great choice, and was also used in Dakotas in the 2000s. Depends on what you want! At least one guy (WARBED on the Forum) has used the 2.5L Jeep four, but in an older American. With a six or four you can even use the stock rear axle, but will need a driveshaft made. The "big nut" axle/driveshaft is a little weird, but it works well -- unless you want to put a lot of power through it. Stay under about 300 hp and you won't have an issue with either. Keeping the rear axle makes any swap a little easier, but you may want to change it anyway. ------------- Frank Swygert |
Posted By: Kcarlsted
Date Posted: Jul/05/2022 at 8:12pm
|
Very interested if anyone has measured the cc volume of a stock '58-'60 Rambler L-head I have sourced a Nash Statesman 2v head, I'm not 100% sure of what year it's from. I'm trying to figure out what compression it will be without removing my stock head. Thinking about machining a little off if needed. I have read that can cause flow issues resulting in decreased performance despite the increase in compression. My simple water test on the Nash 2v head is measuring about 60cc The casting number is 3143892 My searching doesn't come up with much with that number. It appears to have a date cast into it as well, 3-14-56, but I don't think the '56 Statesman used the L-head motor Any info on this would be appreciated. I want to swap the 2v head onto my '59 Rambler American motor
|
Posted By: ramblinrev
Date Posted: Jul/05/2022 at 8:39pm
|
Right...if you shave the head or deck the block to try to raise compression you also hamper breathing on an L-head. ------------- 74 Hornet Hatchback X twins (since 1977) 62 American Convertible (still worth the $50 I spent in 1973!) AMCRC #513, AMO #384 70 AMX 360 4-speed (since 1981) |
Posted By: tyrodtom
Date Posted: Jul/05/2022 at 10:07pm
|
There's a process old flathead Ford racers did, I think it was called relieving, slightly grinding away the top of the block in the area between the valves and the cylinder. Of course the takes back away from some of the compression you just gained by milling the head. I did this on a 59 American flathead 196 I rebuilt in 66, I did so many other modifications during the same overhaul that there was no way I could say for sure what helped and what hurt, but the end result was a fine running flathead that was noticeably faster than a later OHV 196 in a 64 American I had next. ------------- 66 American SW, 66 American 2dr, 82 J10, 70 Hornet, Pound, Va. |
Posted By: nickleone
Date Posted: Jul/05/2022 at 10:59pm
|
My 62 Classic SW with 196 OHV runs 160 to 170 degrees at 70 MPH and a few degreese more sitting in 100 degree humid weather. I use a 95 Ford Explorer radiator $25 at the pull a part. Stock fan with the Explorer shroud I rebilt the engine in 2010 it has 10K miles from doing 3 Hot Rod Power Tours. Does not burn oil. Also a T5 trans with Modern Drive Line adapter and 8.8 rear with 3.73 gears. I use a Chinese YF clone cost about $70 from eBay. ------------- nick 401 71 Gremlin pro rally car sold 390 V8 SX/4 pro rally car sold 1962 Classic SW T5 4 wheel disc brakes |
Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Jul/06/2022 at 8:43pm
|
Kcarlsted -- The Statesman used the L head 195.6 from 1952 to 1955. The L-head was converted to OHV in 1956. All 56 and 57 engines were OHV. The L-head was reintroduced along with the American in 1958. As long as you have a 195.6 head it will have the same compression as the Nash engine. All the L-heads have flat top pistons and the same bore, compression was controlled by chamber size. 1953 models first appeared with the WCD 2V carb with 7.45:1 compression and rated at 100 hp. 1954 models had 8.5:1 compression and were rated at 110 hp. The source I'm using (Standard Catalog of American Motors, 1902-1987) gives the 1955 specs as back to 7.45:1 and 100 hp with the 2V. You might want to check with the Nash Car Club of America ( http://www.nashcarclub.org/" rel="nofollow - http://www.nashcarclub.org/ ) on the specs and how to tell the year of the head. ------------- Frank Swygert |
Posted By: Kcarlsted
Date Posted: Jul/06/2022 at 9:04pm
|
Farna, That is what I have found as well in my research for compression ratio's and hp specs. The head I bought was advertised as a '53 Statesman 2v head But it appears to have a date casting on it that says 3-14-56 (pretty sure it's a 6, maybe a 5?) That date was throwing me off. I'm hoping it's a 8.5:1 head. The chamber shape and size sure look just like the Alcoa aluminum 2x1v heads judging by photos. I believe those heads were 8.5:1 I was initially thinking I could just machine the head to get it to 8.5:1, but that sounds like it might not be worth it. I assumed that they had just machined the head to achieve the difference between the '53/'55 heads and the '54 8.5:1 heads. But maybe they modified the shape of the chamber before casting. It would be nice to have a cc volume reference of my stock '59 head before I tear it off the car.
|
Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Jul/07/2022 at 7:26pm
|
Well, at least you won't lose power even if it is the 7.45:1 head. The 8.5:1 with single barrel Carter YF was rated at 90 hp, the 7.45:1 head w/2V at 100. The 8.5:1 3V head was only rated 10 hp more. so no big loss. ------------- Frank Swygert |
Posted By: Kcarlsted
Date Posted: Feb/21/2023 at 3:28pm
|
Back at it! I finally pulled my head. Motor looks pretty good inside! My first very unscientific measurement of the head volumes show my stock 1959 1V head to be about 50cc The 1953? Nash 2V head is about 60cc. So it appears to be the lower compression ‘53 head versus the 8:1 compression ‘54 head. Of course my ‘59 motor could also have different piston height than they used in ‘53/54. At first inspection of both heads, it looks like I have pretty significant room on the ‘53 2V head to take off material and maintain the same valve clearance. Also I purchased two different head gaskets. The newer Fel-Pro 7802B gasket is significantly thinner that the older looking Fel-Pro 7802A that I got. The head gasket I removed looks like the 7802A. So my next steps are accurately measuring the volume of each head. And checking valve clearance on each for comparison. My initial thoughts are that I will have room to machine the ‘53 head to get be back towards the 8:1 compression and use the newer thinner 7802B gasket. Just need to figure out how much material I can and need to remove. |
Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Feb/22/2023 at 7:41am
|
1953-55 was 7.45:1 compression. Some internet sources say 7.30:1, but that's incorrect, the older 172.6 had 7.32:1, the 184 had 7.0:1). Compression was raised when the L-head was reintroduced for the 1958 American (dropped after 55 -- only 195.6 OHV sixes for 56-57). The 1955 only LeMans two carb version had 8:1 compression. All the Nash/AMC L-head parts interchange. It started out in 1940 as a
172.6. Stroke was increased by 1/4" and it became the 184 in 1950
(172.5 was still made for the Rambler line). Stroke was increased by
1/4" again in 1952 to create the 195.6. Bore on all three sizes is
3-1/8". All used forged crank and rods, cast aluminum pistons. Combustion chamber sizes are smaller for the smaller engines. If you use
a small engine head on the bigger ones compression will go up, and
vice-versa. Most of the small engines were low compression, so that's
usually not a problem. The original 172.6 only had 6.87:1 compression
(raised to 7.32:1 by 1955). The 184 had 7.0:1. The 195.6 started with
7.45:1, 8.0:1 for the dual carb. The water pump location moved to
the front of the engine and compression was raised to 8.0:1 for the 58 reintroduction (and stayed
there through the end in 1965). The 56 OHV still used the side mount water pump, 57 switched to front mount. While the OHV is a conversion from the flathead, meaning many parts interchange, you can't bolt an OHV head to a flathead block. The valve area of the block was changed. Just about everything except the lifter, cam, and valve components interchange between OHV and flathead though. You can bolt a 172.6 or 184 flathead crank/rods/pistons in a 195.6 OHV block. Pistons would be flat top and drastically lower compression, but the bore is the same on all three sizes -- use OHV pistons. The Edmunds aftermarket heads are "high compression"
and raise compression by about 1 full point for the engine they were made for. The early 172.6 head on a
late 195.6 might raise compression more than 1 point, you'd have to
measure combustion chamber volume. ------------- Frank Swygert |
Posted By: Kcarlsted
Date Posted: Feb/22/2023 at 12:41pm
|
Frank, You're a great source of information. I appreciate all the specs very much. When I first posted back in July you posted the specifications that I had also found researching the 2V Statesman motors 1953 = 7.45:1 compression and 100hp 1954 = 8.5:1 compression and 110hp 1955 = 7.45:1 compression and 100hp We know my 1959 1V motor is 8:1 with 90 hp I wasn't sure what NOS 2V head I bought, 53,54 or 55 It appears to be a low compression head due to the larger chamber volume versus my 1959 head. I still need to take more accurate measurements when I get a better syringe and clear plate to close off the chamber. I wasn't sure what they did to increase the compression for that one year in '54, change the head or just install a taller piston? Once I get a more accurate volume measurement, I can start to figure out how much I would need to machine off to match the volume to my 8:1 compression head. But I will also check how much room I have to work with around the valves. I know it's a balance between flow and compression.
|
Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Feb/22/2023 at 8:21pm
|
The only 2V head was used in the Statesman, I think that's the 54 110 hp model, I'd have to look it up. IIRC it was only used in front of a GM Dual-Range Hydramatic -- needed the little extra power to turn that big hunk of an auto trans! I couldn't tell you what they did to bump the compression. I know that the 8:1 models have flat top pistons and are just a little down in the hole. My best guess would be a slightly taller piston height. Could be chamber though. ------------- Frank Swygert |
Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Feb/22/2023 at 8:28pm
|
The only 2V head (not the dual 1V carb head) was used in the Statesman, I think that's the 54 110 hp model, I'd have to look it up. IIRC it was only used in front of a GM Dual-Range Hydramatic -- needed the little extra power to turn that big hunk of an auto trans! I couldn't tell you what they did to bump the compression. I know that the 8:1 models have flat top pistons and are just a little down in the hole. My best guess would be a slightly taller piston height. Could be chamber though. ------------- Frank Swygert |
Posted By: Kcarlsted
Date Posted: Mar/15/2023 at 7:11am
|
New
|
Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Mar/16/2023 at 6:22am
|
Great work! With 8.2:1 (even if it's a bit less at 8.0:1) compression you should get a little boost in power... maybe as much as 10 hp, with another 10 hp from the 2V... up to 110 hp! You might talk with a company that's used to making flat-head cams. With 0.1175" clearance you really can't increase lift much (maybe 0.050?), but could increase duration. Not sure what that would do to the power curve or total power. Increasing lift by 0.100" and duration by 20 degrees gave my 195.6 OHV about 20 hp at around 1500-2500 rpm. ------------- Frank Swygert |
Posted By: nickleone
Date Posted: Mar/16/2023 at 3:08pm
Here is the cam card from my reground 196 Ohv engine. I believe the cams are the same as the flathead.
 ------------- nick 401 71 Gremlin pro rally car sold 390 V8 SX/4 pro rally car sold 1962 Classic SW T5 4 wheel disc brakes |
Posted By: Kcarlsted
Date Posted: Mar/25/2023 at 8:43am
|
Got the head back from the machine shop, they removed .065” Measured two of the chambers and they are right on 55>55.5cc matching the volume of the stock ‘59 head. So it should maintain the 8.0:1 compression. Going to double check valve clearance and then get to re-assembly
|