Hot Rods 1963 rambler american question?

I don't know what kind of manual transmissions got used in Rambler/AMC vehicles. But if your car has an open driveline I wouldn't be surprised if a 3 speed from a Gremlin might swap in. And the m/t Gremlins typically had floor shifters. Or maybe somebody on ebay has an old Spark-O-Matic shifter kit made to fit your Rambler...

 

I like those cars.When I was in school one of the shop teachers had a nearly new white 63 American with a 327 sbc and 4 speed in it.Boy did he have fun with that!

 

The small six cylinder engine Rambler used in the sixties, dated back to the prewar Nash 600. It was a small flathead. In 1956 they made an OHV version based on the same engine but continued the flathead. These were Rambler's six cylinder engines until an entirely new engine replaced them in 1965. The new engine is entirely different and quite a bit longer. It will not interchange with the older engine.

The little Rambler American was based on the 1949 Nash Rambler. It was designed for the flathead six and that was the standard engine throughout its life. The OHV 6 engine was optional at extra cost. No V8 was ever offered in this model until after the body got a complete redesign in 1964.

As for the auto trans there is no easy cheap way to do it. The easiest cheapest way is to sell the car and buy one that already has an automatic but for some reason nobody ever believes me.

 

Had a '62 when I was 13. Drove it around my grandmothers farm. If I remember right, the flat 6 was 3spd only. If you wanted the auto, you had to get the OVH valve 6. No V-8 in these. There was an article in a older, Hot Rod I think of how to put a SBC in one of these. Saw one years later with a SBF in it. Looked like it was made for it.

 

Okay, you're sort of stuck on manual and auto trans options with the original engine. AMC sixes use a "small" bell housing from 1950 through 1971 (not counting the big Nash sixes... Nash 172.6/184/195.6, all Rambler and AMC sixes). The 199/232 used a slightly larger diameter ring gear (gear is on converter), but you can grind the starter mounts on the bell to make the 196 bell work. Of course if you get anything from a parts car just get it all -- the 199/232 converter fits the 196 crank, just has a little less stall (not enough to worry about). So any pre 1972 trans will work. 63-66 models use a TV cable, but that's not hard to rig up. 67-71 models use a vac modulator and a simple push-on switch to activate an electric kick-down solenoid.

The manual trans is a T-96. No synchro on first gear! DO NOT down-shift into first to slow the car. You can do it while slowly moving, 5-10 mph tops, but best not to go into first until stopped. It's only intended to get the car moving. Down-shifting while moving and using to slow the car will eventually result in broken teeth. 2-3 and 3-2 shifts are easy, but go easy on using 2nd to slow the car. The synchro is a bit weak, and will be the first thing to go in the trans. Up-shifts are fine, it just wasn't really built to take down-shifting to brake as is common with modern cars. It's a 63, but it's all late 40s/early 50s tech! A later model T-14 trans with synchros on all gears will fit from an AMC six. It will fit the bell you have except for the bottom bolts. The four point engine mount cars (pre 63 all others, 63 American was the last AMC using four points) have the rear two mounts on the bell. The trans top two bolts are in the same position as the later cars, but the bottom two aren't as low on the bell. I've seen a later model trans mounted with two pieces of 1" wide strap bent/drilled/bolted between the two lower holes in the trans and two bell bolts. Seems to work. Or change the bell housing and drill the bell for the engine mounts.

I'm 6' even (maybe 1/2" over...) and "just fit" the little American. At 6' 5" you're definitely a tight fit! You can easily just drill new holes in the floor and move the seat back a couple inches, especially if not intending to carry back seat p***engers often. Didn't note if you have buckets or a split bench, both were available. If you have a straight across the bottom bench seat you might want to go junkyard shopping for some buckets and just mount the driver's side back.

One last thing -- a universal three speed floor shifter will work, but you will need to doctor up the mount to fit the T-96. You will likely need bucket seats to clear the shifter, but then again if you move the bench back (***uming you have one) enough to be comfortable there is probably room...

 

Wow, that is exactly the kind of response i was hoping for, You have answered all my questions, now i can do a little looking with this shopping list and try to find a different option, Thanks for your knowledge and your time. I did forget to mention, my car has some high back buckets from an s10? They are comfy but to tall and look silly, so they will go soon, I will mount the next set a little further back. Im sure i will have a few more questions, when i dig deeper, I really appreciate all who responded. Thanks JEFF

 

The Twin-Stick was only available a few years... 63-65 IIRC. The left stick was a standard three speed shifter, the right took the place of the under dash handle to lock out OD. That's all the left stick (or under dash handle) did -- lock OD out or allow it. You really didn't use the handle/left stick unless you were parking, towing, or for some other reason didn't want the trans to shift into OD. So it usually just stayed in the forward position (the stick). OD was automatic -- you just let off the gas when over ~30 mph and the OD would shift in.

Twin-Stick used a special three speed with a big "gap" between 2nd and 3rd gear so you could use 2+OD as "3rd" gear. That's why the kick-down switch is on top of the three speed shifter. You shifted 1-2 normally, let off gas for it to slip into OD ("3rd"), then pushed the ****on as you shifted into 3rd (now a "4th" gear), then let off gas again to slip into OD ("5th"). Down shifting was a little different, but those ******s weren't really made with down-shifting in mind for anything but accelerating. Then you hit the ****on and just dropped out of OD. It was hard to down-shift into "4th". With a normal three speed with OD 2+OD is so close to 3rd it's not worth split-shifting as the Twin-Stick did. There were some vacuum and electric controls involved to help with the shifting, just a little different than a normal OD.

The ONLY six AMC made from 58 through late 1964 was the 195.6, in both L-head and OHV configurations, and an aluminum version 61-63. They were made through 1965 and used in all models except the Amb***ador, which didn't get a six until the late 60s (I think 67...). The larger 232 was introduced in May of 1964 and only used in limited numbers for the last few months of 1964 production. There were 1500 "Typhoon" Cl***ic hardtops made to introduce the engine, all yellow with a black top and bucket seats. The only thing special about them were the new six and "Typhoon" cast metal emblems. A 199 was introduced in 1966 to replace the 196. The newer 199/232/258/4.0L (same basic block) is VERY different from the old six. Has a larger bore and shorter stroke, which makes it about 3" longer. Also has manifolds totally separate from the head (the 196 OHV models have an open top intake manifold made onto the head with an aluminum cover to mount different carbs, L-head made totally into the block and head). It's too long to fit the old 58-63 American body without firewall/trans tunnel work.

 

You might want to investigate alternative engines. There are only a few that will easily fit due to the short and narrow engine bay. While fours seem to be a shoe-in, the intakes on modern fours usually stick too far out from the engine. The Ford 2.3/2.5 models in Ranger trucks have an intake that curves over the valve cover and will fit. That's what I'd look for, with the mating transmission (auto or five speed). The Jeep 2.5L will fit, but only the carbed or TBI models, the port injected models (86-90 used TBI, 91+ port injection) have that wide intake. You could adapt a carb or TBI intake by drilling and welding in injector bungs, but that's a lot of work. Some other fours are probably narrow enough, you'd have to check.

All modern in-line sixes are too long, except for one. I haven't checked some of the Euro models though, so maybe a smallish BMW or Volvo six would fit, but that's getting too far away for most here. The Japanese sixes are mostly based on Chevy designs and are too long.

The one exception is the Ford 200/250. There were also 144 and 170 models made, but those are a bit small. A late model 250 is the best idea, it uses a 302 trans pattern whereas earlier ones use the Ford small six pattern. The older 240 Ford uses the same block design (shorter deck/stroke though) as the 300 and is also too long. The 200/250 design has an intake made onto the head for better fuel efficiency. That limits carb options, but it makes the engine narrow enough to fit the little American engine bay. It's also a relatively small bore/long stroke design, which makes it short enough also. Easier to find parts for too. There is lots of info on it at www.fordsix.com. The 200 is close to the same power as the 196 OHV, which is good with a better cam for the little American. I'd opt for a few more inches since you can and look for a 250. Still, lots of Falcon/Mustang people throw their 200 out for a 302, so you might run across a 200 engine/trans combo cheap. You will need to fab motor mounts as there is no under engine crossmember in the little Americans, but that shouldn't be hard.

 

I,m looking for an old wagoneer so I can transplant the 360/401,, 727/turbo400 combo in mine.

 

VERY good info, thanks, more things to think about for sure. Since im here, a little brake help,
Need a parts store cross ref number for the bendix 309789. it is a rear brake cyl, Napa, O'riley, auto zone? hoping to get something locally if not, i will order. Thanks dudes, you have been a great help so far on this project. JEFF

 

Question for all, what are your thoughts on gm151 iron duke? I have a lead on one, has a few hop up pontiac parts,? Fit,? or old is it just more old technology that i should steer away from. Thanks Guys

 

Cool car. I don't have any info for you but I am working on one right now too. Good luck!

 

Nice car, is it a 1963 440 american? What trans?

 

I figured it out, and thought i would share my findings, Bendix #309789 rear brake cyl, cross to a Car- quest EW49331 aslo used on 60's mustang 6 cyl. $13. Now on to the next fix. Thanks

 

An older model Iron Duke should work. Just have to watch how far the intake sticks out from the engine. The narrowest part of that engine bay is only 24", but that's down low between the suspension mount points. It gets a little wider above that, around 27-28" where the intake would be.

V-8s area tight fit! The "humps" just above the suspension brackets have to come out. They don't do anything, leftover from the 50-55 Nash Rambler design. Most of the main structure of that car (minus external sheetmetal, firewall, and dash) are the same stampings used in the 50-55 Nash Rambler and 58-60 Rambler American. It's the only car that was revived and successfull on the market after a few years hiatus. Many parts interchange a****st those models.

You don't have to go to a Mustang II suspension, the stock suspension will hold up very well with a V-8. The old flat-head six is very heavy for its size, only about 50-60# less than most V-8s. Exhaust will be tight, but stock manifolds usually work. You would need stronger springs as those cars were spring rather mushy. Go to www.coilsprings.com and order 15-20% stiffer than stock, and you can order about an inch lower without affecting geometry. If you want to go a little lower you can make lowering plates for the spindles. Ford 302/5.0 V-8s fit a bit easier as they are the narrowest of the US V-8s, just an inch or so narrower than an SBC, maybe 2" under the late model AMC V-8.

 

Don't check here much, just found this thread!

65 was the last year AMC used the L-head six. Last US car maker to use one.

The Twin-Stick was the only manual floor shifter AMC offered in 63-65. The trans has a big gap between 2nd and 3rd to allow using 2+OD as "third" gear, so it was actually a quasi five speed. The OD handle was only used to lock the OD out (for parking mainly) and making it active. Shifting into OD was automatic -- just let your foot off the gas over 30-35 mph. OD was deactivated by the switch on top of the shifter. That made it easy to shift.... first, second, let foot off gas to slip into OD, hit switch on top of shifter as you shift to third (now fourth), then let foot off gas again so it will auto shift into OD. Down-shifting to slow the car wasn't really done, so it's not near as versatile as a real five speed. There were two models -- a T-96 for sixes, a heavier T-85 for V-8s. The Twin-Stick was deleted when the T-10 four speed as added for V-8 cars in 1966. Noting but three speeds for AMC sixes after 65 until the mid 70s, except for the rare Mexican used T-10.

The auto trans you want is indeed a Borg-Warner M-35... or earlier M-8. Up through 1962 the Rambler six used a cast iron M-8 trans (57-62). They had a different crank with the auto though, so you really need a 63-71 M-35 or M-40. Those are basically the same trans, the M-40 is a later model. The six used the same bell housing 1950-71, changed in 1972 to the same bolt pattern as the V-8. You have to use a 56-62 six cylinder bell because the rear mounts are on the bell (63 American was last one to use that setup, 63 big cars deleted the bell mounts). A later model trans will bolt to the earlier bell housing though, just in case you can't find a good 63 trans. I'm not 100% positive the M-35 will bolt to the M-8 bell, but I think it will. You will need a 63 torque converter and flex plate also. Starter ring gear is on the converter.

I'd move the seat back though, as long as you don't plan on having many back seat p***engers. Just drill some holes and make some simple brackets. You might want to consider buckets, do some junkyard shopping and find some square backs so it will look period, or go modern high back.

 

The NAPA online website has an option right on the home page to search for interchange part numbers.

http://www.napaonline.com/napa/en/

It has been very helpful for me.

 

I have a 63 rambler wagon it was automatic from the factory if that helps any.

 

Wow, you seem to know everything about the amc, Very cool, SO for my small mind, Looks like if i can find a bw m 35 or m40, trans will the bell housing i have work? Thanks , just trying to make sense of all this info. JEFF

 

Are you driving it now?

 

Oldoval if I were you I would be shopping the junkyards for some nice seats out of a BMW or similar car. Since the original seats are long gone. It is possible to adapt or cut down a rear seat too, or fit the BMW rear seat upholstery onto your old frames. I say this because if you had some nice leather seats, you would only need to recover the door panels in matching vinyl, and put in some nice carpets and headliner to have a new interior.

Being 6'3" and 285 pounds I find the German cars have the most room inside and the most comfortable seats. Japanese cars the worst, American cars in between. That is why I was thinking BMW, or possibly VW or Mercedes.

I sympathize with you, those ****py S10 seats must be torture.

 

The BW M35 or 40 from a pre 72 AMC will work. You will need the bell housing though. I think the M-35/40 will fit the older M-8 bell if you have an auto, but I'm not 100% positive. You'll most likely find it with the bell anyway. You will also need the flexplate and converter. The flexplate is just a 9" or so metal disc. Check for cracks around the bolt holes. You can have one made locally or get from Rambler vendors. The starter ring gear is made onto the converter of the M35/40.

 

I have a ? for all the Rambler guys on this thread, my 63 OHV 6 American engine has what looks like GMC cast on the front P***. side of the engine. the PO said GMC made the engines, True? if so, does anything swap GMC to Rambler? thanks, sorry if i'm stealing the thread.

 

Actually, 6'5" is a deformity.

 

GMC didn't make the engines. It's an AMC design built by AMC in Kenosha. GM did, however, have a foundry, and AMC did order some blocks and maybe other heavy castings from them, as a second source. In the late 50s AMC had some issues with suppliers, and made sure they had at least two sources for nearly everything by the early 60s. Even to their wholly owned subsidies, as a strike at one of their subsidiaries held up production for several months at least once in the late 50s. Lots of people suffered when the Hydramatic plant had a fire in the mid 50s -- they were the ONLY supplier of fully automatic transmissions and were out of production for several months, then supplied GM's backlog before anyone else got any -- another few months.

 

Well, quick update, I have decided to do a swap, I will try to photograph and do***ent my progress as it goes, I have found a 1998 s10, Lower mileage, 5 speed with 2.2. I plan on taking all i can from the donor truck, but make drivable first off, then fancy after that? Here is the donor.

 

http://gtcarlot.com/engines/Chevrolet/S10/1998/348332/89397861.html
Looks like it might fit, but will be tight without removing the p***enger side hump. There might be just enough clearance without removing the hump in the Rambler though. Will be interesting to see the 2.2 lowered in the Rambler engine bay.

 

oooh nice. i'm interested in how you go about the S10 driveline swap.

that V8 might make it tough. the breadbox American's engine bay is very, very small.

 

I thought you wanted to get rid of the manual trans??? ha ha just messing with you. Let us know how it works out.

 

Rid of 3 on tree, im ok with a standard shifter out in the car where you can get to work with it. lol