My best friend had 2 Rambler S/Cramblers and a Rebel Machine. All 3 darn fast cars. It was usually a dead heat up to about 60 or 70 with my old Boss 302 with his Rebel. Not a light car. When the Boss started coming on he'd back out. He hopped up a '66 Rambler 258 6 Cylinder in the late 60's early 70's. Did just about everything you could do to an AMC 6. I think he suprised more than a few V-8s back in the day.
The Maverick rear end is the shortest drum to drum of any Ford rear end. That is what I put in my 62. The early Maverick 6 cylinder were 4 lug, the early V8 and all the later cars were 5 lugs. The old guy that built my front suspension loves the ford 8"s for their weight and strength, he still runs one in his altered, with a 460 big block.
first car was 62 rambler please replace the front suspenion and the brakes all the way around these items should scare you or him bad enough to stop any real hp from showing up there is a reason that company went belly up
The reason "that company went belly up" was because of bad decisions and just not being big enough (having enough cash reserves) to compete with the big companies, especially when they got into price wars in the 60s. I know enough about the history of AMC to know what those bad decisions were, but most couldn't have been foreseen at the time. They are bad in hindsight only. In 1962 the two MILLIONTH Rambler was produced -- starting with 1958 production. Rambler typically had 6% of the US market at that time, on average. In 1961 AMC was the third largest US auto producer, knocking Plymouth out of their traditional place (that's with all divisions of GM/Chrysler/Ford listed separately). During the depression Nash (forerunner of AMC and Rambler) was the only company to stay in the block most years. What do you have to say about GM and Chrysler going belly up now? Or they would be without government help. It's the market and not meeting competition, only in their case it's more stupidity and complacence than not being able to afford to keep up. They didn't keep up with the competition but they COULD HAVE, so now they're being propped up by you and me -- tax payers. You could say it's similar to AMC, the decisions are bad only in hind sight, but I don't buy it. They KNEW they had quality issues and drug their feet fixing them in the 70s, ALLOWING Toyota, Nissan, and Honda to surpass them, yelling at the government to limit imports instead of doing the required spending to fix themselves. Couldn't cut into execs bonuses and stock holders profits, not even if it meant running the company into the ground. AMCs decisions turned bad, but were made in an effort to compete and improve -- they just couldn't afford mistakes. The first serious one was trying to compete with the big three model for model starting around 66. That took a LOT of cash, and AMC was too small for that kind of spending. Couldn't get sales and production up enough to support that many models. A lot was spent on the Pacer -- a radical new car that everyone laughs at now. If the gas crunch hadn't come about the same time the Pacer was launched there would be no laughing -- most find it hard to believe that the Pacer sold as fast as AMC could roll them off the line the first year. Gas crunch the next year -- novelty wore off quick since it didn't get much better mileage than a standard mid size car at the time. Hence it was a bad idea, but one heck of an effort to modernize the AMC car line with a design that was years ahead of its time. GM sort of screwed AMC on the engine too -- Pacer was to use a GM sourced Wankel, which GM canned at the last minute due to a dispute with the government. There's nothing wrong with the front suspension. Different, yes, but it's actually a bit stronger than ball joints. It's more difficult to replace the joints, but that's it. The only time it causes problems is through neglect. The older Rambler suspension has metal on metal joints just like ALL pre 59 or so cars. Don't grease them every year or two and they will wear out -- but so will a ball joint, though they do seem to take such abuse/neglect a bit better. AMC kept the old style joints a bit longer as they had more limited funds to replace parts that worked just fine as they were. The AMC/Rambler trunnion joint is actually much better than what everyone else was using (king pins) when it came out in 1950. You must have had a 62 American - in 62 the Classic and Ambassador got a lower ball joint. The American got the lower ball joint in 64. You just have to know how to rebuild that front suspension -- it will easily support any small block. If different sacres you, replace it. It will be a lot of work and costly, but it's your dime, not mine! Cheaper and easier to rebuild it right than replace it -- just ask how or get a service manual. The brakes are as good as any others in the same era in similar sized vehicles. When you upgrade power you need to upgrade brakes no matter if it's a 350 going in a former six cylinder 62 Chevy II or a 62 Rambler American. The brakes are actually very easy to upgrade on the Ramblers, you just gotta know how.
WOW!!! I grew up with a 62 Rambler Classic wagon. My dad kept saying to my friends that some day it would be mine. Trust me, back in 1975 that was not a real cool idea. I bought a 57 Chevy 210 2 dr sedan instead. Would be a cool thing to have now though! God Bless
Laun--fantastic front end work done by the "other shop". Do you know if that is a T-bird rack or possibly a custom width? Are the lower and upper control arm pivot points inline with the rack inner tie rod pivots? (just asking about bumpsteer considerations) I know the stock T-bird rack is something like 1-2" wider than ideal for the stock American control arm pivots. I also assume the upper control arms are "shorter" than stock MII arms since I also recall (?) that they would protrude through the American apron if building to a 54.5" track width with the MII spindles. Can't remember for sure. Anyway, I was planning on adapting a Welder Series crossmember for my '61 but the super clean and cut-free apron concept on this car is really making me think again. -Mark
Here is an American I saw at Spokane this month. I had two friends in the early 60's that bought Rebels and they went like stink with the 327 motor.
an old neighbor of mine had a 1963 wagon that was slammed ond the groung and wore ugly orange and patina so i know first hand that they can be a bad ass hot rod.
The 58-63 Americans are really narrow at the "frame" rails. There's only 26" between them on the inside. the rails are about 2" wide, so there's about 30" from outside to outside (rails might be 2.5", which would make it 31"). The MII is wider, you'd need a custom crossmember. The T-bird rack is out of the question -- I have one on my 63 Classic which is a lot wider car, about the same as the T-bird. An MII rack might be too wide. The inner pivots are INSIDE the "frame" rails, less than 26" apart.
chevsen, the rack is a Mustang ll from Flaming River, all the pivot points are on the same plain. Bump-steer was the main reason I sourced it out to a pro, my comfort level falls short on geometry, (every day you can learn from your elders if you ask the right way). The upper control are is shorter but everything is built to mount using the factory inner hardware. If you want a group of closer photos PM me and let me know what parts and what angles you want. My guy can whip up an other set, he kept the jigs.
Just saw a super sano '67 AMC Rebel droptop in San Diego, bright red, big rollers and no body mods. Any one seen this?
In the early os I was running an Altered coup most weekends at fremont. Super Stocks were pretty big them with local heros gas Ronda and Tommy Grove being big around here at the time. Lots of dealerships sponsered cars. Melrose Missle was one from oakland. And Roberts Rambler ran two a SS/A and SS car. really fast Kind of surprising until I looked at the engines and they looked very much like 427 BBC motors. I asked about that but never got a real answer.
RichFox, those would have been 66 or earlier AMC GEN-1 engines. Biggest from the factory was only 327, but Kraft Rambler of CA bored and stroked one out to 418 inches and ran it in a 64 American (http://jubileejeeps.org/327/418.htm). Note that the "big" AMC V-8 (many call it the Rambler V-8 because it was only used in cars with the Rambler name) was never installed in the American from the factory. Fit was quite tight and there were also weight issues. The American got a V-8 in late 1966 when the GEN-2 290 was introduced. The GEN-2 290 and 343 replaced the GEN-1 287/327 completely after 1966. The GEN-2 and GEN-3 AMC V-8s are closer to the size of a typical small block, but are longer -- they shared bore centers with the GEN-1 so that the boring tooling could continue to be used. I forget the exact measurement, only recall that the bore centers are more than a typical small block and the same as a BB Chrysler, so the engine is slightly longer than most small blocks. AMC guys used to redrill the holes in Chrysler aluminum heads and bolt them to the GEN-2/3 blocks, had to use Chrysler headers and massage the intakes to fit. Of course that was before affordable AMC aluminum heads were available. Three different companies make them now -- Edelbrock, Indy, and Herman Lewis. The Edys are basically stock replacements, Indy makes a slightly better than stock replacement and a full race head, HL only makes a race head.
Very interesting. Sent you a PM. If you'd rather divulge to the group, are the control arms custom pieces? Thanks for this contribution - cool stuff!
I love those unique cars, had a 59 American tu-door. I have seen some wicked ones in the past and seen some awesome customs, when I lived in California had a buddy with a 660 hardtop that was a full on knock out custom cruzer. Cars can be almost anything you make'm to be. Go for it. ~sololobo~
62' Rambler American convt. 350 Chev, 4L60 auto. overdrive, Maverick rear,Mustang 11 ft.susp. built ft. clip, firewall and side panels. Nice driver just cut the car in half and start from there. My other car is a real Hot Rod.
I haven't found what model '62 Rambler the OP was inquiring about anywhere in this thread. Most of what are being presented are various year Rambler Americans. The 'full size' Ramber Classic or Ambassador engine compartment is quite a bit larger and will easily accomodate a large V-8. a big 327 was available in the Ambassador. (the springs are mounted on top of the upper A-frames and are way out of the way under the fenders) Back in '65-'67 I owned a '62 Rambler Classic with a 'built' 283 Chevy and Powerglide. The engine and trans swap was very easy. The hardest part of the swap was in replacing the Rambler torque-tube coil spring rear axle. I employed a '56 Chey rear & leaf springs, on home fabbed mounts. Put a lot of miles on it as my daily driver. One thing that I do recall was that it suffered from severe understeer, and I needed to really take it easy on the curves, of course those old maypop bias-ply tires may have been a major contributing factor.
doing a 62 classic now. was going to be a gasser the wife changed my mind wants a sleeper ...white walls and dog dish caps....but it will get a v8.i need to get up some pics of my progress
I wish! That, and about a dozen others that I let get away. Been a long time, but the swap was easy enough that a still wet-behind-the-ears 16 year old was able to pull it in off in a 2 stall garage (did get experienced help with the welding though)
I think you'll enjoy it a lot more as a sleeper.....mine was. Two-tone Green & White, clean, 'granny' 4 door. Had a rumpty-rump solid lifter cam, a big 'ol Sun tach & a 'big n littles' rubber rake. Soon got a 'reputation' going, and guys with their new Chevelles and 'Stangs feared to get embarrased by my old home-made Rumbler. Lot of fun, a lot of memories. priceless
The Jalopy Journal
