Hope this finds it's way to the tech archive! Someone asked me how to identify the engine and what trans could be used in a PM. Here's the answer! (in a bit more detail...) How to identify the AMC/Rambler GEN-1 V-8 engine and trans NOTE: This is the first AMC V-8, hence the "AMC Gen-1". Nothing to do with GM at all, just a realistic name. Many call this the Nash or Rambler V-8. Don't get confused by the name!! AMC was formed in 1954 by the merger of Nash and Hudson, the engine wasn't on the drawing board until 1955. The bell housing has to be from a mid 1956 Nash Ambassador Special or Hudson Hornet Special (will have "xxxx Special" script, on the Nash it's on the front of the front fender), any 57-66 Rambler with a V-8, or any 57 Nash or Hudson with a V-8. 55 and all but the 56 Specials used a Packard V-8. The AMC GEN-1 V-8 has a unique bell housing pattern. The "Specials" were the shorter wheelbase/lighter Nash Statesman and Hornet Wasp two door bodies with Ambassador/Hornet trim to make it easier on the 250/4V V-8 and distinguish them from the Packard powered big cars. AMC had a purchase agreement with Packard for V-8s and auto trans in 55-56. Packard was supposed to buy some parts from AMC but didn't, so AMC got ticked off and started making their own V-8. There's only one way to tell from the outside whether you have a 250, 287, or 327. The bore is cast into the right rear top of the block just behind the head. The 250 has a 3-1/2" bore, 287 3-3/4", 327 4". Other than that you have to pull the head and measure the bore. Crank and rods are the same in all three -- and forged steel. The cast in number is almost impossible to see with the engine in the car -- use a mirror and try to reach back there and clean it off... Casting numbers are way over on the side and impossible to see with the engine in the car, but here they are: 250 -- 3153077 287 -- 3169824 327 -- 1956-62: 3144932, 3147230, 3153044, 3153055, 3153677, 440275 63-67: 3166463, 4160275 There may be others for the 250 and 287, but those are the only two I have. If you find another, let me know (farna@att.net)!! All early 327s and 250s have four point motor mounts. Two in front of engine, two on the bell housing. 63-67 327s and all 287s have side motor mounts on the block (and one near the end of the trans) like newer cars. The early ones don't have the side mount bosses in the block, later ones have bosses for both mounting systems. The 327 was only used in the 1957 Rambler Rebel (a special edition, only 1500 made, if you find one and it's not rusted out or wrecked don't touch it -- let me know!!), the 57 Nash and Hudson (no Ramblers) and all 58-64 Rambler Ambassadors. If it has a 4V carb it's a 250 or a 327. The 250 was only used in the mid 56 Nash/Hudson Specials, 57 Rambler V-8 (other than the Rebel), and 58-61 Rambler Rebel models (I know, it can be confusing, but all V-8 Ramblers used the Rebel nameplate 57-61). There was a 2V and 4V model. All 250s used solid lifters. The 287 appeared in mid 1963. When AMC dropped the 250 there was no V-8 except for the higher priced Ambassador. Dealers complained, and AMC made the 287 available in the Classic in mid 63. The AMC Gen-2 290 V-8 appeared in late 1966 in the American, and across the board as a 290 or 343 in 67. These use a different bolt pattern. Kaiser Jeep bought 327s from AMC from 63-67. They used a TH-400 in Wagoneers. It's the "universal" TH-400, which was the Buick Nailhead model. Buick Nailhead engines have a deep flange on the back covering the flexplate/flywheel and require a shallower bell housing than other GM engines. That shallow bell left room to make an adapter without adding length to the engine/trans, so GM sold it as a "universal" model and continued production a few years after the Nailhead bit the dust. If you get one make sure you get the 1-1/2"-2" thick cast iron adapter as well as the flexplate and spacer. The crank will need a pilot bushing to match the flexplate. As stated, a Nailhead TH-400 will work if you get just the adapter. Rolls-Royce and Jaguar used the universal TH-400, among others -- smaller makers who didn't need enough to warrant casting a new case. Manual transmissions used were from Borg-Warner. The 250/287 typically used a T-85 three speed and the 327 used a T-89 three speed. Overdrive was an option. I'm not positive about input shaft length, but the bolt pattern is the same as other 50s and 60s Borg-Warner three speeds. The T-89 uses the same pattern as the T-10 four speed, and there were a few T-10s used behind the 327 in 66.
Good stuff, Frank. Keep adding things...there's not much information out there about the first-gen AMC engines, at least that I've found. Tech tips...weak points, if any...parts sources....original performance parts...etc. One source describes the '57 Rebel as the first American muscle car, by definition. They are striking cars, for sure.
They also had torque tube drive shafts. So you'll need a trans that will work with that or replace the rear with a non-torque tube rear. I have the 287 and Flash-O-Matic trans in my 65 Rambler 660 Classic and (a 2nd Gen) 360 with BW T-10 in my 70 AMX.
BTT That little '55 (or was it a '56?) with 250 ci., 4 barrel and solid lifters must have been neat. There used to be SAE papers on the net for this engine.
I'll add more to it later. The torque-tube isn't a problem on the transmission side. The shaft uses a standard Borg-Warner spline so a T-10 yoke (which is readily available) will fit the old cast iron auto trannys and at least the big T-89 three speeds. The seal is the same with or without torque tube. You'd have a funny big flange on the tailshaft is all! Not too many people look underneath, and if they ask what the flange is for tell them it's a shield to protect the seal and u-joint! The only problem with the torque-tube is if you want to upgrade a Rambler. Then you have to change the rear suspension as the tube is the axle locating arm!
Farna--nice write up on the Gen 1 engines. The T-10 was also available in both '65 and '66. It is odd as the rear housing has a torque tube adaptor on it. The main shaft is longer than other T-10's. Unique to Rambler and quite rare. Just FYI.
Something else interesting: The 58-64 (and possibly later or earlier, going by a '65 Motors manual) Rambler "Flashomatic" auto trans was also used by Studebaker in 58-64, Jeep in '63-'64, and Ford '58-'64 (replaced by the C4); there are a couple of type variations and the Rambler has push-button controls for at least some years. I should note that the '65 Motors manual doesn't cross-list Ford, but the '61 does; in the '65 you can look back and forth from one to the other and they look identical. What this means is it may be possible to combine various parts to build the Rambler trans for open drive, or install an early Ford/Lincoln/Mercury motor in the Rambler, and have it all bolt together. And presumbaly because it came in Fords, parts are available somewhere.
I'm sure Farna nows about this site but it is full of pictures and history too. http://amcramblermarlin.1colony.com/index.html
Most of those pics came from Greg Taylor's old site when he was working on a 327 in a Jeep Wagoneer. Tom Jennings saved it and reposted (with permission) on his Rambler site. Direct link is http://wps.com/AMC/Rambler-327/The New American Motors V-8 Engine (SAE Paper details).htm. I know Tom and Greg well, and of course that particular site, but hadn't seen the Marlin site you posted the URL to. Rambler bought the transmissions directly from Borg-Warner, as did Studebaker. Ford made their own version. As I said, I know for sure the Ford case is slightly different and the valve bodies won't interchange, but some internal components like the clutches (and I think bands, not 100% on that) interchange. I don't know about gears and shafts and such, but suspect many of those will interchange even if the gear ratios are different (not sure if they are different or not). The Rambler and Stude trans should be identical, but how much of the Ford trans will interchange is a matter of having the BW and Ford versions side by side and comparing parts. The only thing I know that has been compared is the valve bodies, and they definitely won't interchange. Internally Ford/BW models work and adjust about the same, and they are close enough that the rebuild gasket kits simply stick a few different gaskets in (such as 2-3 valve body gaskets) so that one kit works with many models.
Good engines with some pretty impressive performance. I had one in a 1957 Hudson Hornet Hollywood Super with the 4-speed dual coupling hydro. My plan was to do away with the torque tube rear end, install a 9" with ladder bars & coil overs and install a Jeep truck 400 turbo. I was told by several old AMC guys that the bell housing bolt pattern changed when the motor mounts changed in the early 60's by AMC so I sold it to a guy that wanted to restore it. Only 7 of the Super Hollywoods are known to be driveable in the Hudson club. Most were 4-door sedans or the Deluxe Hollywoods. Attached are some pictures of 10 shades of Fugly as she was known as. later, PaceRacer50
The bell bolt pattern didn't change with the motor mounts, it changed with the engine design. All GEN-1 AMC V-8s (250/287/327) have the same bell bolt pattern. When the new more compact design came out late in 66 (the GEN-1 was made through the end of 66, only the 290 GEN-2 was made in late 66 and used in the American) a new bell bolt pattern came with it. The six stayed with the same pattern when the new one came out in mid 64 -- kept the same pattern as the old sixes. It changed in 72 to the same pattern as the V-8 (but with a shallower bell) when AMC changed from Borg-Warner to Chrysler automatic transmissions.
Thanks for the Information about the bellhousing pattern. I never was able to confirm this before and that is why I sold the 57 Hudson. Kinda feel bad as this is the reason I sold it. the plan was to make it a Modified Production drag racer from the mid 60's with it but the rarity of the car held me back. One thing for sure it was very quick for stock! The Gray Marine 327 based AMC engine has some very useable parts for performance on these. The adjustable rocker arms, pushrods and solid lifters are easier to find then the 250 Rambler V8 parts. One question for you: the 327 with the 3x2bbl intake photos, what type of intake manifold was adapted or was that a custom made piece? thanks, PaceRacer50
Not my manifold, but it's a stock 2V intake that has had the runners on the ends drilled out and a plate welded on top. Since it's an intake and won't get real hot you could screw and epoxy plates on. Drill and tap manifold for a few screws mainly to clamp the plates in place until the epoxy cures. Something like JB Weld should hold forever as long as the surfaces were roughed up a bit and clean. I've used it on a carb adapter before to seal some areas. Nice info on the Grey Marine solid lifters, I didn't know it used them. Same as the 250 parts I'm sure.
From what I know, the Rambler 250's all used the adjustable rocker arms and solid lifters. All the boat engines used this set-up as well on both the 327's and 250's. They are all the same parts--boats did not have any "performance" advantage. In fact, the boat used restrictive intake designs due to height clearance issues. Of course they were after torque and mostly ran at lower rpm and not the same conditions as cars do. $.02
I also need to add something else -- the bell of the Gen-1 AMC V-8 is a bit deeper than the Gen-2/3 bell, so the trannys won't interchange. Have to thank Rebel 327 for pointing that out on an AMC board. The 250 did always have solid lifters. It was first used in the mid model year 1956 Nash Ambassador Special and Hudson Hornet Special. I mentioned this earlier, but didn't point out that the "Specials" were the shorter wheelbase (and lighter) Nash Statesman and Hudson Wasp two door hardtop bodies with Ambassador and Hornet trim. The 56-57 250 used a 2V carb with 8.0:1 compression, 190 hp. There was a 4V/215 hp model for 58-61 w/8.7:1 compression, and a 2V/200 hp model for 60-61, also 8.7:1.
Frank, Can you point me in the right direction on a 196 crank. I remember reading the standard crank is not interchangeable with the automatic crank on certain years. I have a standard crank I may want to use in an automatic car. I've never seen pics and the memory isn't so good. The oil filter on this "standard" motor was integral with the pump and I think that means it's later - '65 ish possibly. Were these the cranks that DID interchange or not. Can you shed some light on this or send me somewhere that can? I don't recall any "bump" on the flange that I seen references to. Thanks
On the 196: 1963 and earlier have a flat crank flange for auto cars, a large cone shaped center on stick some shift cars. 1963 and later all have a flat flange for stick and auto. The cone has been cut off earlier cranks, and later cranks have been used in earlier cars by having a pilot bushing made with a large shoulder. I've only had direct experience with 61-62 Americans, and they all had flat flange cranks with stick. I'm not sure about 58-60 Americans. Might just be the big cars that used the cone cranks. Can't think of any reason why - maybe the input shaft was a bit shorter on the big cars? Other than torque-tube adapter they used the same trans (T-96) as the smaller cars and same bell housing. Only the 65s had the oil filter on the oil pump. The pump cover with filter won't fit in the 58-63 Americans. Late model 64s might have the filter on the pump also. A couple have shown up from time to time, but no way to tell if it came from the factory or was retrofitted, or even the whole engine changed.
The Jalopy Journal
