'53 Nash Rambler conversion, suggestions?

What is your objection to keeping the L 6 that in there??? You can mill the head, add a 2bbl, split the exhaust, and have an interesting and depedable engine. If I recall these engines had intake cast into the head, and for exhaust basically a piece of pipe clamped to the side of the block. So you can cover the cab port, hole saw a couple of holes, add some studs and dual up the carbs if you want. Making dual exhuast should be simple.

Stock you are looking a 7.5 to 1 compression, 40 off the head will take that up to 8.5 or so and it makes a big difference with these older flatties. Plus you can now crank in a bit of ignition advance,

Carbs exhaust and compression will probably give you 15 to 20 hp boost. Then you are in the same zip code with the newer 4 cylinders. Plus more torque.

 

Dont forget bellhousing and the trans tunnel..The muncie fit great but the mazda 5 spd required the trans tunnel to be opened up..

 

I did a search on fleabay and theres a ton of performance parts for the Ford engine! I think the Ford would be a good choice due to the ease of getting cool aftermarket parts. Rebuilding the L-head is an option..you would have a good little (all be it slow) driver. Check into the cost of a stock rebuild.

I wish I could just order parts for the quad 4! Had to make everything!
Nothing will be easy....

 

Of those three I think the turbo would be the way to go, and they have huge aftermarket support. Especially from the dune buggy crowd.

 

I had no objection to rebuilding the stock engine. I just thought that with all the modifications done, it wouldn't amount to that much more horsepower. Plus I don't have a machine shop in my garage to do all the work you suggested. If I were to take it to someone for rebuilding, I think it would cost more than if I bought a decent, low mileage Ford 2.3 turbo or 2.5 out of a junkyard.

 

The 2.5L Ford should fit with no metal cutting at all. It has to have the intake that curves up over the head, but I think all the 2.5L Ranger engines are made that way. The others will require some cutting, I think the 2.3L turbo the most.

 

Have you thought about a Corvair Front end. They are bolted in with 4 bolts, and have the springs mounted below the upper a arms. If I was doing a swap on this and found that the inner fender panels were in the way I would consider this or a later Nova/Camaro front subframe.

 

The "frame" rails in the front are only 27" apart in the center. That's too narrow for most Mustang II crossmembers, and too narrow for a Corvair to bolt right up. The Corvair compares favorably in front track, but the rails are further apart. It still should be doable though, and since at that point you're talking about a bit of sheet metal work anyway, it sounds like a good solution. The Nova/Camaro is way too wide for the early Rambler. Chevy II is about the same width though, and I did mention using an aftermarket Chevy II front clip. I suppose one could modify a stock Chevy II front clip to work as well. Either of the Chevy II options would take a good bit of work -- the Corvair suggestions looks better all the time!

50-55 Nash Rambler front track: 53.4". overall width: 73.5"
Corvair front track: 54", overall width: 66.9"
62-67 Chevy II front track: 56.8", overall width 69.9"
70+ Nova front track: 59", overall width: 72.4"
70+ Camaro front track: 61.3", overall width: 74.4"

 

Good job with supplying the dimensions.

I agree with all with a few comments.

The Chevy II 62-67 front subframe has springs above upper a-arm, which doesn't help with engine bay interior clearances. (I had one and tried everything to save the suspension, but ended up with Econoline beam axle).

The Corvair front suspension bolts up just about anywhere you want. I would think a decent crossmember with custom subframe would work well with the Corvair sustpension. Having the springs on the lower a-arm also helps clearance for interior of engine bay.

 

I have a 51 Nash Rambler wagon that I installed a 2.8 v-6 from Pinto/Mustang II/Bronco II with c-3 auto trans about 10 years ago. Also used the original Mustang II "formed" crossmember which supports the complete suspension as a unit. I notched the "unibody" subframe and sucked the crossmember in place and basically fishplated the existing rails around the unit both front and rear. Then used orig. strut rods to frame. Just recently I installed a 2.3 4 cyl. with a c-4 trans in a 54 Rambler with the same suspension setup except I narrowed the crossmember 3" as the stock width comprimised tire clearance issues.

 

Drop a V-8 60 in there then do this....

 

Do you have any pictures so I can see what you did?

 

The v6 is a very narrow and offset engine. This is what I would be looking to do. If not a Furd, then a Chevy from an early S10.

27 inches is huge compared to a Furd Courier. It only has 21 inches between frame rails. This is what I put the 2.8V6 cologne engine into.

 

after you modify or remove inner wheelhouse panel, a 289/302 ford will fit....

 

Ya what this guy said!

I got one with an edmunds head with two carbs on it a split exhaust manifold. I rebuilt the front suspension as well.
BTW you notice how the spindles bolt on to the upright in that picture^^^^ I took an 2wd AMC concord I found in a junk yard and raped the disc brakes off it they bolt right on and are five lug.
Hope that helps
Dave Hitch

 

it's a turboed pinto!!!....get a normally asperated pinto and just drop it in....that's all my pick up had in it.....it would cruise at 80-90mph and return 30-35 mpg...and it went in easy
drop the debate and just get on with it. Get the Nash running and on the road..then use it...
A cosworth engine (based on pretty much a pinto..ish) will produce 500bhp, in fact Ford did a Sierra with a 500bhp 4pot cozzy lump in as a production car in the UK

 

i'd be finding an S-10 2.8 V6 and trans if you're not wanting to do major cutting.

 

d2 -- The Rambler only has 21" above the frame rails between the "humps" (remember the photos?). The rails are a bit wider apart. A stock Chevy II clip would have some inner wheelhouse clearance issues with the top mount spring, but not as tight as the Rambler. The Chevy II did get a V-8. The aftermarket clips I would prefer if going this route either have a MII type front suspension or struts, no clearance issues there!

timcan -- I understand what you did. Works, but I don't care for the looks of it. I've seen it done, but the one I saw was not very well done at all, I'd have to call it a "hatchet job". I would think most here would do a neat, well thought out installation rather than a quick "just to see if it will work" job. I'd like to see a pic or two of your front suspension installation also. Did you cut out the inner wheelhouse panels? The suspension change is really an unnecessary expense in time and money though, the stock suspension will easily support a V-8. It needs 10-12% stiffer springs for better handling even with the six, but new springs aren't expensive. The front suspension can be rebuilt with new springs for under $500 unless the trunnions are really bad. A junkyard MII/Pinto suspension (if you can find one!) or anything else will still need to be rebuilt, and aftermarket is $1000+... PLUS the time and effort to install it. As "studhud" says, any later AMC front brakes work, as does the AMC disk brake kit made by Scarebird (that's what I recommend anymore -- AMC parts are getting scarce, won't be long before rotors will be hard to get and expensive, the Scarebird kit uses Ford Ranger rotors and a seal adapter).

studhud -- the little L-head is costly to rebuild, as much as a small block believe it or not! Mostly because of scarcity of parts. Pistons cost $50-$60 each, depending on where you find them. The cam can be reground to something better, but that's about it. You'd have to drill through the water jackets in the head to add carbs, but it could be done.

belchfire -- I've always thought that a flat-head Ford V-8 would just look so "right" in that little Rambler body! Even one of the later larger ones. The outer edges of the heads would still be very close to the inner wheelhouse panels, but you wouldn't really need the clearance -- plugs are on top where you can get to them!

stepchild -- the whole idea is to fit something in WITHOUT doing a lot of metal work under the hood. It's not terribly difficult to remove the bulged in part of the inner wheelhouse panel, and I think a small block will just barely fit even with them in place. Changing the sparkers would be impossible without pulling the engine though -- unless you did like the first such swap I know of. A guy in a 1954 "Speed Mechanics" magazine I have put a 283 "Corvette motor" in a 52 Nash Rambler. No mention of cutting the inner panels out, but he torched holes four holes through both wheelhouse panels on each side to run an extension and socket through to the plugs.

 

I have a '60 American, building it for the wife. I also have a 2.3 turbo with everything to make it work. I put the two in close proximity, and decided I'm not going to do it. My wife wants the car to be normal in comparison with what I would do if it was for me. She wants the heater to stay, and doesn't want the carr all hacked up. I'm now looking for the 2.5 Ranger setup or a 250 inline Ford. The 2.3 turbo is a pretty big project...take it from someone who has actually tried to put the two (car and engine) together in real life. Farna is a wealth of information, and knows what he's talking about. All the "what if" stuff just muddies the water. Listen to Frank, and you'll know what will fit, how much work it'll take, and whether or not it seems feasible to you. Good luck with your project!

 

theres actually more of thes out with small block ford/chevy's than you may relize....most ive seen keep the inner panel and remove the bubble are that Farna points out...wish i would have went this route with mine(less work/less money)...

some of these examples are beyond what I'm describing...

 

i would to see a 455 buick but a buick v-6 should work.how about a 300 ford 6-cyl???

 

Just purchased the '88 Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe for $1800. The car is in great condition, only 113,000 miles. So I guess it's final, the Nash will have a 2.3 turbo. A friend of the family volunteered his welding skills and his barn to do the work in (can't beat that!). I'll also be filming/ photographing the process from beginning to end in case anyone wants to do the same, or similar project. Wish me luck!!!

 

Hey Farna,
Would it be possible to use the '88 T Bird front end or any parts from it? Thanks for all your input!

 

The front end will be way too wide. As you can tell from the lower left photo stepchild posted, it's not hard to retain retain the front suspension and most of the inner wheelhouse panel. That's the only one that looks like it has minimal cutting. That and the black and white photo. That's one I posted some time ago. That car has a 383 SBC in it and is a wheel stander. The front "frame" rails and stock suspension were retained, just in case you didn't think it was strong enough (it's strange looking, but stronger than it looks and effective!). That car has been back halved and tubbed for bigger tires/wheels with the new rear rails welded securely to the stock rails and floor pan. The full roll cage helps stiffen things up, as well as the additional bracing under the hood.

The little Ramblers are actually VERY stiff unit bodies. They aren't like more modern ones -- they have rails underneath all the way from bumper to bumper, more like a full frame car. It's pretty much full frame rails integrated with the floor pan and body.

 

Hey Farna
I know the l head will be money to do but the down down time is less and the fab work is elimated time=$$$. I got an edmunds finned head two carb setup for $250 and made a header I will post pics of it later. My friend Randy put s Buick v6 in his and had to cut the inner fender humps out to clear then put a corvair front suspension in it it's cool but the steering radius sucks. I don't know how a v8 will fit with with the upper spring supports in the fender wells?
Dave Hitch

 

I just knew someone would "make" me dig out that old "Speed Mechanics" magazine article! I just posted the two pages of pics, nothing much of interest in the text. It's pretty easy to see that this guy cut JUST the humps out, not most of the inner panel (can make it look better by cutting more panel out though). What made this swap a bit easier was using a 57 283 that still had four motor mounts. A universal crossmember made for 30s cars can be bolted or welded in for a newer engine though, and the solid brace under the engine is a plus. The last paragraph starts like this though:

"Although this 'Couldn't be done!' swap has stood the test of time and miles, it should be recognized as an extreme conversion that involves more than the usual share of necessary modification work."

Heck, we're more used to seeing such "extreme" conversions today!!

 

You see, if a 283 can fit in one of these, so can a Packard 374! Corvair suspension, a little cuttin', and it goes in!

 

I don't know.... that Packard mill is just a bit wider than a 283.... and it's TIGHT with the 283!

 

As much as I love engine swaps I also like the appearance of a good-looking motor and the illustration (in an earlier reply) of the stock Nash 6 shows that one to be one nice looking 6 banger.

Dual exhausts would be easy and someone else has noted that twin-carb heads are out there.

A dressed stock six would look pretty good.

As an alernative, and because the stock engine bay is tall (at the fender wells) and narrow, perhaps a nice simple OHV straight six? The taller engine will fill out the engine bay nicely. Something that looks traditional, stove bolts and all, like, well, a 216 Chevy???

 

Even though the 216 is right era, it has splash type oiling, not very desirable, and the 196 has pressure oiling. Why change to a mediocre inline like the 216? If you are going to go traditional, then put in one of the AMC inlines, like the 232, or 258. They may be long, but have a stout bottom end.