Features Nash Rambler Whos Hot Rodding Them

You CAN'T Hot Rod a Rambler - sheesh! I thought everyone knew that!!! ;-)

 

How did the nickname "Kelvinator" come about, or is that more for AMC's? Since Nash evolved into Rambler and American Motors and then was bought out by Chrysler, all these cars are Mopars, correct?!!! And as a Mopar lover, who wouldn't like a Rambler or Nash to show up beside their Charger or Road Runner!!

 

Nash was part of a larger corporation called Nash-Kelvinator that also made appliances. The hot water heater in the family cottage has a Nash-Kelvinator badge.

Nash merged with Hudson in 1954 to form AMC. The Hudson and Nash nameplates were dropped after 1956 to focus on the Rambler line. The Rambler name was dropped after 1969 (it was continually de-emphasized starting in the mid-1960s). Kelvinator was sold off sometime in the '60s or '70s.

The MoPar connection didn't come along until 1987 - decidedly outside the scope of the HAMB-friendly AMCs.

 

I was making the boneyard one saturday morn

 

There is a Mopar connection with Nash-Kelvinator! In the late 30s Charles Nash was ready to retire and wanted a good CEO as a replacement. He consulted with his old buddy Walter P. Chrysler (who Nash helped get started in the auto industry) about this. Chrysler recommended George Mason, who was running Kelvinator Corp. Mason was interested, but not interested in leaving Kelvinator. Nash was impressed enough with Mason that he bought Kelvinator in 1937 and merged the two companies to get him. Nash continued on the board of directors of the new Nash-Kelvinator Corp., but Mason was running the company.

Could you imagine the head of GM consulting with the head of Ford about who should run GM today??

 

Fun thread! Some photos from my albums, maybe borderline O/T but there have already been a few of those posted here already so what the heck, the cars are cool!

This one from MSRA BTT50's 2011:

 

Another one that showed up at the BTT50's Mecum Auction last year:



Don't know the story behind it but it looked to me like a survivor.

 

Again, a little O/T but nice. This one showed up at the 2012 Car Craft Nats:



And cruisin' around at the MSRA's Super Secret Fun Run in 2011:



Again, this is a neat thread for those of us who dig "out of the ordinary". Carry on!

 

My Ambassador 66.
She s been painted since, and now in the garage for a few repairs and "upgrade"
Should be back on the road for the end of summer.

 

My second 63 American..stock as a bone.
Bought it from Corncobcoupe

 

Not a rod more daily sled but here's my 60 American in progress


Previous owner cut out the rear fender and part of the rear door to stuff a n50 15 looked like crap so I found 2 more doors and skirted it. It's going to look like a mini 54 nash when all said and done


Posted from the TJJ App for iPhone & iPad

 

This followed me home today. No plans to hot rod in particular, just to clean up, repair, and drive while my Falcons are laid up.

 

That 64-65 American is directly comparable to a Falcon. Of course I'm a Rambler fan, I think it's better! What engine does it have -- the 196 flat-head or the OHV? The flat-head is about like a Falcon with a 170 six (it has a LOT more torque than the tiny 144!), the OHV comparable to a 200 six.

If you have any problems or questions about the car drop me a line, I'm real familiar with it -- have two 65 parts cars behind the shop!

 

Thanks, farna, I will keep that in mind. So far I'd say this '64 American 330 is very comparable to my '61 Falcon. The 196 flathead is torquier than the 170 in my Falcon, but seems to run out of breath quickly (this could also be a gearing difference). It definitely needs a tune up and to have the front brakes bled - there's no pedal right now and the rear reservoir was dry.

 

Could be gearing, but it's mostly cam and carb. The old L-head is good on gas around town, not so much on the highway. After 50-55 it's working pretty hard! I had one a long time ago, it would hold 55 okay -- but you had to get up to 60-65 going down a hill to hold 55 by the top of the next one! You can actually get a cam reground for it, but wouldn't do a lot of good. The AMC 232/258 will fit, as well as the 4.0L from a Jeep. If you wanted to keep it that would be the way to go! Of course being a Falcon man you may have a 200 or 250 six lying around... one of those would fit along with the transmission with just a custom drive shaft and engine mounts.

 

It happens I do have a 200 hanging around. I read elsewhere that the Ford 2.77 3-speed in my '61 Futura is a license-built copy of the Borg-Warner T-96 in my Rambler. Meaning that the 200 with the '61 Futura bellhousing would bolt right to the Rambler trans?

More intriguing yet, I read an old HAMB classified ad where a fellow was selling a Rambler T-96/R-10 overdrive trans that he'd removed from a '61 Ranchero!


Dispatched from my 1949 Underwood Master.

 

I have been told that the T-96 and Ford 3.77 are the same trans too, but I don't know if the bolt patterns are identical or Ford changed it. I'm afraid you'll just have to try it, but at least you have all the parts there to do it! I'd be interested in knowing. Not only could the bolt pattern be different, but the input shaft lengths might be also. The later is more likely than the bolt pattern being different, I'm afraid.

 

I am unlikely to find out for certain, as I don't intend to mess with my Rambler, but if enjenjo says it, I'm inclined to believe it. The guy is like a walking Hollanders.

 

One of the coolest I've seen. Richard Beggs built this for his wife Maureen. It's on an S10 Chassis with a SBC powertrain. There is hardly an item on the exterior that has not been customized. See if you can spot them all.

 

That last one is very well done!

The T-96 was used behind Rambler 195.6 flat-head and OHV sixes. It was also used in Gremlins and Hornets behind the 199 and 232 six through 1972. The T-96J appeared in 1970 behind the 232, and was the only model for 71-72. The J is interesting -- it uses a slightly larger input shaft and bearing and slightly stronger components (either larger or harder material). I guess AMC could get the old non-synchro first gear trans cheap enough that it was worth asking for a beefier model. Even then the J was just adequate for the 232, like the original T-96 was for the 196 OHV engine.

None of the T-96s will take a lot more power than the engines they were originally behind, but they are tougher than you think. I ran one behind a 260-265 hp 4.6L EFI six (AMC/Jeep 4.0L stroked with a 258 crank, and bored 0.030" over -- right at 280 inches). It was only temporary until I could find a stronger trans, but I ended up running it 18 months and about 8,000 miles. I took it easy, but the synchro only lasted about 150 miles. After that it was double clutch to downshift. When the synchro rings cracked on a trip and I had to remove the trans and take them completely out I stepped up finding a better trans. Took a year to crack those rings, another six months to settle on an AW-4 2WD OD auto from a Cherokee. I'd wanted a five speed but couldn't find one at the time from a 2WD Cherokee -- plenty of 4x4 models around though! I took the top cover off the T-96 when I pulled it. Had about 8K miles, the gears looked like they had 30-40K on them. The trans had been rebuilt with all new gears before I put it in -- I figured a rebuilt one would last a while.

 

More food for thought: If the T96 and the 2.77 are identical, or at least share a case-to-bellhousing bolt pattern and front-bearing retainer, then this adapter from Modern Driveline should work to put a Mustang T-5 behind a 196.5 or an early 199/232/258.

 

Modern Driveline now has a 195.6 to T-5 adapter!!! You'll have to call and ask about it though. Here's the info I got from them in July this year. A friend and I worked with them to make the adapter available. It uses the Mustang V-6 T-5, so the trans will be easier to find than the early V-8 WC model. The T-5 is a nice match for the old motor!

On 04/17/2013 06:16 PM, Bruce Couture wrote:[FONT=&quot]Ok, gentlemen[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We have AMC adapter available for sell. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]MD-401-2400 Adapter plate, T-5 Ford, AMC/Nash/Rambler 199, 232, 71 258, 1950-71 6 cylinder T-96/T-14, with hardware $180[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]MD-401-2400S Adapter plate, T-5 Ford, AMC/Nash/Rambler, 199, 232, 71 258, 1958-71 6 cylinder T-96/T-14, with hardware, No rotation for Front shift T-5 $180 [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Taking order at this time. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Regards, Bruce[/FONT]
Modern Driveline Inc.
[FONT=&quot]"Your five/six speed conversion source"[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]208-453-9800 ext 101[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]facebook.com/ModernDriveLine[/FONT]

 

Well, how about that! More fuel for this dream.

 

Oh, there are two different bolt patterns for the AMC/Rambler 196! Early models with four point engine mounts use a "short" pattern (short distance between top and bottom bolts), later three point engine mounts use a "tall" bolt pattern (greater distance between top and bottom bolts). The two top bolts are in the same location on both though. I think the Ford 3.77 trans uses a different trans to bell pattern, or Bruce would have just modified the T-5 to 2.77 adapter. That's what got us started with them -- asking MD if the 2.77 was in fact a T-96 and whar the bolt pattern was. The AMC/Rambler T-96 pattern is rectangular, I don't think the 2.77 pattern is.

The 196 to T-5 adapter is made to fit both the tall and short pattern AMC/Rambler bells.

 

Ah hah! Mystery solved.

By the way, the Falcon trans is a 2.77. I think you're meshing it with the 3.03 Toploader to come up with 3.77.

 

No, just a typo on my part!! First gear in the Rambler T-96 is 2.605:1. Ford probably used the lower 2.77 first due to the smaller 144/170 six in the early Falcons.

In case anyone is wondering where this came from, I went back and edited my post mentioning a 3.77 Ford three speed (a couple posts back).

 

Actually, on a Ford 2.77, first gear is 3.29, second is 1.75, third is 1.00, and reverse is 4.46. The 2.77 nomenclature comes from the distance between the shafts, as in the 3.03.

I'm shocked first is so high in the Ramblers! But the smaller Thriftpowers aren't exactly torque monsters. My 170/2.77/3.10 combo wasn't very neck snapping at stop lights.

And I apologize, as it seems we're getting kind of far afield from talking about Nash Ramblers.

 

Well, maybe, but we are talking about Rambler transmissions!! Thanks for clarifying where the 2.77 comes from on the Ford trans. But we had best stop this line and get back to Ramblers...

The old 196 isn't much of a hot-rod engine, but can be helped out a little. Best thing to do is get a stock cam reground for a little more lift and duration and use the stock 2V carb. Can't put many other carbs on it because it's so close to the valve cover. Easy to make (and Offy made) a 2x1V plate for it though. Won't do any better than the stock 2V (I've run both), but looks a bit cooler. Paired with the T-5 it will be a lot better! You'd need 3.31 or better gears (3.08 might work, but you'd only use OD at 70 or better!), and first would be rather short, but even if you didn't use either first or OD you'd have a great four speed with a better gear spread than the old three speed, and you'd have a fully synchronized trans (only one synchro between 2nd and 3rd on the old T-96, DO NOT down-shift into 1st unless at or very near a complete stop or you'll chip teeth!!).

 

What year mustang t-5 works with that adapter?

 

It uses the modern V-6 T-5 (96-98 has cable speedo, 99-04 has electronic speedo pickup only) or the 94-95 V-8 T-5 (cable speedo). The V-6 model has a 0.73 OD, the V-8 a more palatable 0.68. Both use a 3.35 first gear.

The 2005-2010 Mustang V-6 T-5 should work as well. It has a lower first gear (3.75), electronic speedo pickup (no cable!), and has a remote mount shifter. The shifter mounts to the body with rods connecting to the trans, similar to the old Rambler Twin-Stick shifter and some van floor manual floor shifters. This might help with shifter location. It also uses a hydraulic throw-out bearing and a different driveshaft -- no slip-yoke, the shaft bolts to a flange. The shaft must be a telescoping type, so get the shaft as well if using one of these.