'53 Nash Rambler conversion, suggestions?

The 2.3L turbo won't fit without a lot of work -- the 21" remember? What is known to fit by us rambler guys with no work to engine compartment (save making motor mounts), from least expensive/easiest to hardest/most expensive:

1. Ford 144/170/200/250 I-6. The ones with the intake made onto the head, which sucks for high performance, but desmog a 250 and it makes a great cruiser. You'll need a Ford transmission behind it. You can use the stock rear axle and have a driveshaft made to fit between the two.

2. Most Ford 2.3 and 2.5L fours. The turbo motor is too wide due to the turbo. The early carbed models will fit with just a little banging/cutting of the left (driver's side) "hump" under the hood, but those with an intake that sticks way out to the side (late 70s/early 80s, and the turbo) won't fit. Best bet is a Ranger model with the intake that wraps back over the valve cover. Height isn't an issue, but those are pretty narrow. Again, use Ranger trans and you could use the stock axle.

3. The Quad four. Main expense is the bell housing, then you need to source a rear drive transmission.

4. Small block V-8s and V-6s. These require both "humps" be cut out. Not too much work if you can do some body work. Fit will be tight. The smaller 60 degree V-6s seem like a natural fit, but the accessories for all of those are way off to the side. You'd have to spend a lot on "hot rod" accessory mounts to make one work -- something required for the small V-8s also.

On the good side, the front end is stouter than you think. That "little" 196 flat-head weighs around 500 pounds -- it's built like a battleship and has the iron to prove it! So it will take a small block with no problem. You might want to custom order front springs from www.coilsprings.com to improve handling. Those things were spring soft for a cushy ride on the rougher roads of the 50s, and have a lot of body roll due to the soft springs. 12-15% stiffer springs at the stock ride height will make a world of difference!

The rear axle has a 7-9/16" ring gear. It's strong enough for a cruiser, just loosen then torque the nuts on the end back to 250-300 ft/lbs. The hub nuts get stuck and may take a lot more than that to get loose, but that's not the same as properly torqued! They are just like front wheel drive axles -- have to be torqued right or you could spin a hub. I'd pull the axles and have the hubs pressed off and new bearings and seals installed at a machine shop if planning on using it, that way the hubs don't have to come off later.

A pre 93 Ranger axle (7.5"?) will fit, 93+ are 2" wider. See www.therangerstation.com for info on gear ratios and axle widths.

 

Sounds like a perfect candidate for one of those 470 Mercruiser bangers.

 

Chevy Colorado 2.9 and manual trans? youd probably have to run the computer controls though

 

Relocate the Turbo on the 2.3..build a manifold..or just do something cool with carbs and a 2.3

I would stay away from FI and computers if poss.

Keep it relatively simple. Farna is it just the turbo manifold that wont clear? Any pics of a 2.3 in a car??

Rangers have 2.3 rear wheel drive, 5 speeds and I think the rear may be close..need to check it out!

 

Just looking at your pics on Photobucket, I think a Ford 5.0 / AOD would fit. They are pretty narrow. Can you find a motor to test fit it with? Maybe you could borrow a bare block or fit-up (plastic) block and suspend it in the engine compartment.

You would need a remote oil filter and probably some custom headers since even the narrowest stock manifolds (early Falcon/Mustang) are a bit wide.

But I think it would fit, and the AOD would help your cruising a lot.

 

Friend of mine is putting a small aluminum Olds V8 in his Nash and it's a huge amount of work removing metal and suspension to make that wide engine fit! Fortunately he's doing a gasser wagon so it's getting a straight axle. If not for that I think there's no way a big V8 would go and not need a complete subframe install.

 

Yeah a straight axle helps
Not only is the width bad but the steering box location and the distance from the firewall to the steering...you can cut the humps out but if the engine is too long it will hit the steering..drag link..its that front steering that bites you..

 

It's mainly the turbo that won't fit on the 2.3L turbo motor. Replace the exhaust manifold with a stock non-turbo piece and run a pipe under the engine to the other side would work. Would lose a little efficiency in the turbo, but would still get plenty boost. The 2.5L Ranger engine will fit though. I'd use the electronics and EFI -- just lift everything from under a Ranger hood and stick it under the Rambler.

If the wiring harness for the Ranger is like the later Jeep XJs and all in one harness (lights, engine controls, and everything under the hood) just lift the entire Ranger harness and cut at the firewall plug, then cut the Rambler harness about 18" out. Identify and splice the wiring, run new where needed. That way you get newer wiring for the Rambler headlights and such. May have to lengthen or shorten a few wires going to lights, and change out connectors, but that's much easier than trying to separate the light and other wiring from the ECU wiring. Most of the wiring for the ECU goes between the engine and ECU, you only connect 5-6 wires specifically for the ECU, everything else is instrumentation and lighting.

If you get a complete wrecked Ranger to work with this is pretty easy and you have everything right on hand. You can also use factory diagnostic equipment and it's easier to get help if needed.

 

I located an '88 Ford Thunderbird 2.3L Turbo Coupe last week for the engine conversion. The engine only has 113,000 miles and the car itself is in very good condition. The owner is asking $1800 firm which is a great deal, but I'd hate to kill a decent car. On the other hand I do need a good engine for the Nash. I'm also going back and forth on the fit issues. Farna (Frank) brings up alot of good points about the turbo not fitting and using a normally aspirated Ranger 2.5L. Ramzoom also brought up the steering rack being in the way. From looking at the engine in the T Bird, it seems like there is alot of "stuff" in the engine compartment, so it's hard to get an exact measurement for height, width and length. Its also hard to tell where the fender wells on the Nash will need to be cut without the 2.3 turbo mocked up in the car. If I were to use a normally aspirated 2.5 from a Ranger, what kind of horsepower are we looking at with a decent carb setup? Also, kinda off subject, is there a front brake conversion for the Nash, from drum to disk?

 

Here are a couple pics of the T Bird 2.3 Turbo Engine...

http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp72/tonyjennes/Nash Project/DSC00137.jpg

http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp72/tonyjennes/Nash Project/DSC00136.jpg

 

My friend has a metro with a toyota 22r fits perfect.

 

The 22R is a great engine, but I don't know if I could force myself to put it in the Nash. There's just something "wrong" about it, I don't know what exactly. I think an American engine in an American car fits...just my opinion...

 

A guy had a 60 American wagon with the 22r around my hometown..you know what he drove the heck out of it everyday for years!

 

Space brakes makes a kit as well as Scarebird. Basically they supply backing plates and give you a shopping list of a mix match of parts to buy for the conversion..I had the scarebird kit but sold it awhile ago. I think the parts cost around 500-600 dollars.

Make sure whatever engine you get wont interfere with the stock steering box and the front steering...check the internet for measurements if poss..you dont want to cut (much) if you dont have too.

 

I used to see one here around Vegas that had a early Buick aluminum V-8 in it out of a Special(215 cid in a 61/62) with the Dynaflow trans. Was quite narrow, put locating one of those motor is pretty hard. The engine design is what V-8 Range Rovers are based on/from.

Michael

 

Yeah, I was going to put a Rover/Buick V8 in my MGB but opted for the stock 4 banger with "upgrades". They made MGB V8's in the early 70's, only sold in England. The Buick/Rover 3.5 liter was used on alot of cars and trucks including the Land Rovers from 1972-2004. I will definitely take that engine into consideration, just need to get some measurements.

 

I found Scarebird online. Couldn't find Space brakes, do they have a website also?

 

No I dont have the website....its been a couple years. The scarebird way is cheaper..alot cheaper from what I remember. I dont recall if it was on the HAMB but someone had a 215 and tried to set it in an early nash rambler and it didnt fit right in..fyi..
Narrow is a necesity but its the length that will get you...

 

how would a v6 work size wise ?

 

How about a slant 6 Mopar?

 

I would go with a supercharged 3800 with the Bendtsen's adapter to a 700R4.

 

I know you don't fancy the idea, but the turbo inline sixes Nissan and Toyota both offered could also be a lot of fun. Or go all out and channel the entire car over a Nissan 300ZX.

 

I agree, the Ranger V6, or even the older Cologne Mercury V6 is plenty narrow enough for the engine bay. The Cologne V6 is also an OFFSET V, which means that centering the crank in the engine bay actually moves the engine to the right or passenger side. It worked great in my 74 Courier swap, saved my ass.

The sbf's are also a good option, and even fit well in an MGB.

3.8L Buick V6 engines are a tad wide but are strong engines and can be found anywhere.

 

All the Chevy/Nissan/Chrysler sixes mentioned are TOO LONG!! Even the 66+AMC six is too long. You need another 3" and the only way to get it is to eliminate the stock heater box and go back into the firewall. Not that hard, really, but you lose the stock heater box... which may not be a big deal if you don't mind using an aftermarket setup or doing the metal work to the firewall.

Width is an issue with the V-6 and V-8s. You either have to cut access holes and take a tire off to change spark plugs on each side or jack the engine up. EFI with platinum plugs would be good. A narrow V-8 like a Ford 5.0L or the Buick/Rover engine still needs to be jacked up, and humps just above the suspension need to be cut out. Just make it flush with the panels fore and aft of the hump. Those who haven't seen one of these cars up close and personal just don't realize how tight the engine bay is!

The 98-01 Ranger/B2500 engine put out 119 hp and 149 ft/lbs torque. That's not bad, and you can expect to lose a little with a carb (maybe down to 110 hp). It would be about the equivalent of the Toyota 22R (108 hp/138 ft/lb in 1990 with EFI, 97 hp/129 ft/lb in 1981 with carb -- 81 was first year of 22R). Remember that the little 184 inch L-head in that car produced only 85 hp (later 195.6 models produced 90 hp/150 ft/lbs), and that was GROSS power! Subtract 28% to get a near equivalent to todays's NET hp ratings -- 61.2 hp (or 64.8 hp/108 ft/lbs for the "90 hp" version). The torque DID come in sooner, the old engines peaked at 1600 rpm (the carbed 22R peaked at 2800, no data on the Ford 2.5 but I suspect it peaks under 2500 rpm), but using a later trans and proper gearing will negate any possible advantage of the added low speed torque.

 

Good post! The 60 degree V6's of Ford and Chevy are pretty narrow engines. As I said in my last post, I installed a Ford Cologne V6 in a Courier and fortunately it was an offset V. It barely cleared the frame members, and by shimming the steering box, I was able to reform the left exhaust in a D shape to clear the frame.

I owned a Metropolitan years ago and was contemplating installing a Buick V6. It had that wacky up high steering, but I don't think Ramblers had that kind of steering. I believe you that it is a tight fit, but with careful planning, I believe a 60 degree V6 would fit reasonable well, with little modifications.

 

So many decisions... Since the car has Italian styling, how about an Alfa Romeo 2 liter?

 

Since few appreciate the tightness of the engine bay, here are some pics!


That is a 21.5" small drywall square wedged between the "humps" we've been talking about. They are 21" apart at the narrowest area. That flat upper crossmember in the left needs to stay! 58-62 models have the flat crossmember, 63 models usually have a tubular one. The six is hard to get out from the top with the crossmember in place, but it was designed to drop out from the bottom! DO NOT CUT THAT BRACE!! That bar bolted onto the bottom is the crossbar for the lower control arms. Remember, that old L-head six is a HEAVY monster -- a tad over 500 pounds. A modern small block V-8 only weighs about 550. The suspension is strong enough!


Here's a side view with the height shown. The top of the narrow area is only 4" shy of 21.5".


This is a view of the entire engine bay. The oil bottle is in the front right corner. That brace across the front has the lower half of the two (round) front motor mounts still on it. The K brace is in the middle. There's another crossmember in the rear just out of the bottom of the photo that has two more engine mounts on it. Both crossmembers bolt out, making it easy to drop the engine down.


Driver's side hump.


Passenger side hump.


Illustration from service manual. Most of the Inner Wheelhouse Panel needs to be cut away. Cut it where it welds to the firewall and right below the seam where the Wheelhouse Filler Panel above it welds on. Then fabricate a flat piece to cover the whole side. You just need to leave the area around the suspension mounts. Those two big bolts in the top of the reinforcing plate are for the upper arm mounting bar (similar to the lower one).

Maybe all this will help! Just for kicks, here's a photo of the other side:

Note that the suspension is messed up!

The only other alternative is to cut everything away from the firewall forward and build a subframe, or weld it up so that a Chevy II aftermarket subframe will bolt on (shouldn't be hard!). I've toyed with the idea of cutting everything away just above the "frame" rails and bracing with tubing. That would require a different type of front suspension -- Mustang II, struts, or a straight axle.

 

Everybody will go ugh, but how about a Mopar 3.9 v6 out of a Dakota or the Rear wheel drive chrysler sedan. They make quite a bit of power and with the AOD are pretty gas stingy also. You could probably get a used Dakota for the whole drive train and brains pretty cheap. The older 2 wd deive ones even match the wheel bolt circle if your car is 5 bolt. steering column controls etc.

 

For a V-6 (or even I-4) the Dakota sounds like a great idea! The 2.5L I-4 is even an AMC/Jeep design, so it would be a natural. Still have to alter the hump on at least the driver's side to clear the intake though. Could use a lot of parts from a wrecked Dakota or Ranger and have the same wheel bolt pattern all around. S-10 works, but bolt pattern is different on the rear axle of course. The Dakota, 93+ Ranger, and S-10 rear axles are a little wider than the stock small Rambler axle, but all will work. Might have to be a bit careful in selecting wheel backset, but that's not a big issue. Fronts can have spacers in behind the spindles to use the same (I think I've been over that!).

Oh, those would be Aerospace Components brakes that ramzoom mentioned, not just "Space" (http://aerospacecomponents.com/). They don't list an AMC app, but they DO have one, several of the guys on the AMC Forum have them (a member there is a dealer). Real good looking, in the $800-1000 range for an AMC. Ask for something for a 68-69 Javelin or AMX so you don't confuse them. They will fit the Rambler or any AMC/Nash from 52-83.

 

120 HP from an AMC/Dakota I-4, not too shabby...So if you were to do the conversion, with the least amount of alterations to the engine bay, which one would you do? Choices:
Ford 2.3L Turbo
Ford 2.5L
AMC/Dakota 2.5L I-4