Re: [Amc-list] 195.6 Photo Page
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Amc-list] 195.6 Photo Page

Frank Swygert wrote:
> Yep, typical 196 block! You missed one important pic though, the
> crankshaft flange! Since you mention it, and few have seen it, I hope
> you go back out and take/add a pic of it.

I did, but it was all blurry, but I will go re-do it. It's on the stand 
so the angle is oblique, but I can get a (232) flange that's the same, 
minus the volcano.

> You have the start of a good 196 OHV page, just needs a few specs and
> a mention about how to maintain that cylinder head. I'll write
> something up on that if you like.

Sure! That's a good idea -- a unified page for that motor would not 
hurt. I'll see what other data i have laying around.

Here's something that really troubles me -- it's really easy for me to 
whip up HTML pages. I know html inside and out, and I have shell scripts 
that take a directory full of photos and make tables and all that. With 
wikis, CMS things like drupal, etc it's like moving a hill with a spoon. 
Each file uploaded one at a time, all sorts of weird little non-standard 
codes. Are there tools to convert? Is there some way to import a 
complete HTML web page? ANd maintain all the thumbnailing and all that? 

If you have specs ready to go send 'em on, I'll add it in. I can scan 
TSM pages too.

> There's only one visible difference in later (mid 63-65) blocks.
> That's the extra hole roughly above the front oil tap into the main
> oil gallery (the bulge on the oil pump side that runs the length of
> the block through the pump) in the flat of the block -- it taps into
> the first cam bearing journal. 

Joe, do you have a photo of your new new engine showing that cam-bearing 
oil outlet? Mine's filthy, and it's really cramped in my car, it's hard 
to photo.

THe motor in my AMerican has that tap -- but it's plugged and head oil 
comes from the main gallery. This was a store-bought rebuilt motor. 
There is a lot of oil in the head! It doesn't seem to have caused any 
harm -- check out the condition of these spark plugs, they've got 6000 
highway miles on them. #1 to #6, left to right.

(I'm also surprised at how good fuel distribution is; on the 232, 1 and 
6 are usually a bit visibly leaner.)

> The only other difference I know of is
> internal -- the diameter of the cam bearings changed in model year
> 1961, and the bearing itself changed in mid year 63 to accommodate
> the new head oiling.

At some point this winter I'll disassemble this '58 motor and I'll 
document at least that crap.

> It's possible that 63-65 196 engines were cast slightly thinner than
> older ones, at least the cylinder walls. I have no idea if they were
> or not, I've never compared the weight of early and late blocks. I do
> know that thin wall casting techniques appeared around that time
> though. For the most part manufacturers stayed with the older cores
> and techniques until an engine design was replaced, 

I'm just guessing here, but I imagine that the 232 was two years in 
development (1961) and the 195.6 was old news, frugal AMC would have 
left it alone. Though clearly there was some experimentation with the 
aluminum engine; it uses 232 hydraulic lifters.

(I always wanted to play with that aluminum six, but when I realized the 
cylinders were siamesed, I dropped it. It sounds impossible to bore 
concentric and keep sealed! Anyone got a torque plate for one? :-)

> I'd check before doing any drastic overbores (more than 0.060").

but Chevy altered
> their small block cores to take advantage of the new casting
> techniques by thinning the cylinder walls (and other areas?). AMC may
> have done the same with the 196 and GEN-1 V-8, I can't say for sure.

Well you can eyeball some of the cyl wall thickness with the head off 
and water pump out. I know that's not really adequate, but if it's too 
thin in one of those places it's certainly good enough to check.
Amc-list mailing list

Home Back to the Home of the AMC Gremlin