'53 Nash Rambler conversion, suggestions?

BTW I patented that exhaust and it is split in the middle port
Dave Hitch

 

Studhud's old Nash L-head (note that the fan is on a shaft with bearings bolted to front of block, not a water pump, which is on the left side driven by an extension shaft off the back of the generator) with the rare (not an over-use of the word here!) Edmund's finned dual carb head is a nice looking set-up. I like the exhaust. I've seen them with a 45 degree Y between the first and second port too. There was a cast iron take-off made for each of the three ports for three pipes "back in the day", made by Fenton I think. I've only seen one of those. Nash made a dual carb head (aluminum, but not finned) for two years in the mid 50s (I think 54-55), and they made a 2V head for 2-3 years about the same time. Neither was used in the Rambler line, they were used in the Nash Statesman, which used the same engine. but usually the next bigger size. When Rambler used the 172.6 Statesman the 184, when it went up to 196 in the Statesman the Rambler got the 184. All three L-heads use the same block, just different strokes, so parts interchange. The water pump moved to the front of the block in 1958 (there was no L-head in 56 and 57).

plym49 and d2 -- I'll say it once again: The ONLY other straight sixes that are short enough to fit are the 133/179/200/250 Fords. The Chevy and later AMC sixes are too long by about three inches. I even measured the Datsun/Nissan straight six, same thing. There might be a couple 50s L-heads that will fit, but unless you're upgrading it's hardly worth putting a different L-head six in. All the bigger displacement L-head sixes that I know of are too long as well.

 

Take a real good look at this link:
http://speedhunters.com/archive/2010/01/29/car-feature-ultimate-misfit-the-ferrambo.aspx

Scroll down to where they are building the body (underside on a rotisserie) and you can see that they cut the floor out right between the original rails, then made a frame for the body to sit on. You can't really see it, but the frame was made so that the original body rails sit on supports on the frame. This is the ultimate Rambler build! More than I'd want to do, but shows what can be done...

 

I understand that the Rolls-Merlin V12 is a virtual bolt-in....

never tried it myself, of course

dj

 

133 and 179 sixes??? I would think it would be 144 and 170 sixes.

The newer AMC engines are beasts, but if too long, doesn't matter. Could the radiator be offset the three inches somehow?

 

Yeah, 144 and 170. Slips of the fingers!!

There is no more room in front of the engine. There's only a couple inches between the radiator and grille as it is, and that's needed for the hood latch and the upper brace. The only way to get the extra inches is to eliminate the factory heater in the center of the firewall. That's not that hard, and the engine won't be set back into the firewall much (as it is on the Pacer and many modern cars). You'd just need to install either an aftermarket heater/AC setup or use something like a 50s truck heater under the dash. The defroster duct work inside could pretty much remain, just duct over to it from the heater box.

 

A Packard V-8 will fit in there. Might sit a little high, but it will go in. Need some measurements?

 

Sure, why not? How about using the specs as laid out at the bottom of this page (http://www.carnut.com/specs/fengdim.html) if you can? These don't include exhaust manifolds.

 

Yes, definitely supply the dimensions and any other stuff. Pics would be great to have too. I plan on putting a Packard 352 or preferably 374 V8 into one of these little bad boys, of course hooked to the dual range hydro that Rambler used from 53-55.

I would really like to make this a very professional swap, and using a Corvair front end, would solve side clearance issues. By reducing the inner fenderwell width, I believe the Packard could sit in the car quite nicely.

 

Splash would be fine on a light car like that. With today's oils it would outlast the car. The AMC 6's are big heavy brutes and there are no dual or triple carb manifolds available for them.

 

The old AMC sixes are heavy for their size, the "modern" 64-06 models are no heavier than the 250 Chevy and 300 Ford sixes (the 300 is probably a bit heavier). 64 through mid 1980 model 199/232/258 weighed around 500 pounds. In 1980 about 60 pounds was dropped from the overall weight of the engine -- mostly by updating the block and head castings and using a lighter crank and manifolds. The lighter crank is newer technology and is apparently as strong and balanced as the heavier early models. The light one has four counterweights, the heavy one has 12. Jeepers report no more crank breaks or other problems with the light one than they do with the heavy one. For a quick turning engine the light crank is preferred (about half the weight loss was in the crank alone), but rock crawlers still prefer the heavy crank because the heavier rotating mass is harder to stall when crawling at low speed. Even at 440 pounds the six is not a light weight. It's only 35 pounds lighter than the typical SBC, 20 pounds lighter than the SBF. On the other hand, it weighs about the same as the Ford 2.3L turbo motor according to one chart (http://www.team.net/sol/tech/engine.html -- it lists the early 199/232/258 AMC six weight, as most references do).

 

All these responses and nobody mentioned the 200ci Ford I6? It's about the smallest/lightest inline six around, and with seven mains in the later ones, they're about bulletproof.

Quite a few speed parts and dress-up items available as well.

 

And it fits in the 50-55 Nash Rambler engine bay with no cutting. You sure that wasn't mentioned? Maybe because the OP asked specifically about a certain engine -- will have to go back and look! The Ford 144/170/200/250 family is the ONLY other I-6 that will fit the small Rambler (also 58-63 American) engine bay with no sheet metal work. It's about the same length as the old 172.6/184/195.6 L-head and 195.6 OHV Rambler six, and it's narrow enough for the same reason -- intake is cast into the head. No point in using the two smaller ones, and the 200 is about the same power as the Rambler 195.6, so I'd opt for the 250. That was also the last made, and easier to find. A number of Rambler people have bit the bullet and put 200s or 250s in the small body Ramblers. The 195.6 Rambler six is getting expensive to rebuild due to low parts availability. If building a driver the Ford motor is the better choice. I had to wait two weeks to get a water pump rebuilt the last time I needed one for a 196! If I'd been far from home that would have been a costly tow home instead of waiting a day or two and changing in the field (assuming worse case -- pump went out Sat. afternoon/evening, and even a 200/250 water pump will likely have to come from a local warehouse, so Monday afternoon to Tuesday around noon to get it).

 

Ok, admittedly I only searched for the word “Falcon”. Maybe somebody mentioned it as Maverick engine, or only as a Ford 200.

I remembered hearing elsewhere (probably from you!) that the Thriftpower family fit without cutting in the Rambler engine bay.

It’s interesting to hear the 250 is a good fit. You probably know, it’s a slightly longer and taller engine than the 200. They’re tight in an early Falcon. If they fit well, that’s the route I’d go myself.

I wonder how a Buick 215 V8 might do in one...

 

If I mentioned it (I didn't go back through the thread) I would have said "Ford 200" or 250.

The old 196 is rather tall, and there's plenty room vertically in the 50-55 Nash Rambler/58-63 Rambler American -- lots more than the more modern Falcon! AMC changed the design of the American in 64 to something similar to a 64-65 Falcon. The earlier ones were re-skinned 50-55 Nashes, with the exception of a different firewall and dash for the 61-63 models. You'd think the 61-63 was a totally different car, but it's just a drastic re-sinning of the old chassis.

The 215 or any small block will fit, but width is an issue. There's only 24" between the spring towers. The inner humps are a design left-over from the early 50-52 Nash Rambler and can be cut out to gain a couple more inches on each side. Do that and the small V-8 fits... tightly. Forget headers, though one guy used over the rail Chevy II headers on an SBC in one. He just cut large openings between the spring towers and firewall, but just enough for the headers to go through. I'd put an AMC 360 V-8 in one with Jeep CJ over the rail headers... that might work! Otherwise it's stock exhaust manifolds, and because of the way the spark plugs are in the heads the Ford 302 is a better fit (plus it's a couple inches narrower than an SBC). With an SBC changing sparkers is a chore! Some people cut strategically located holes in the side panels so they can jack it up, take the front tires off, and run an extension through the hole to get the plugs out. It's that or pull the engine half way out... or just run platinum plugs.

 

I'm partial to the 215 Buick/Rover. they are smaller than a SBC. If you consider it, snag a couple drivers side cast four into two Rover headers. They hug the block the block better than drunken aunt Tessy at a family reunion.

 

OK, I've gotta do it - Mazda rotary out of an RX8 with 6 speed - 250 hp of fun in a small package!

Sorry, had to do it. Lord, I apologize to you and all the little pygmies of New Guinea


Mine has an LT1

 

You can see how the LT1 looks under my profile Nash album.

 

Rotary in a Rambler! Who'd be crazy enough to tackle that!



Actually I am pulling the rotary out of my 60 American wagon and using a Ford 2.3 turbo drivetrain..Just easier and waaaaaaay cheaper...

 

I was just about to mention you! If you get the rotary with the rear drive trans it shouldn't be a hard swap, just depends on what you get the engine for. The rotaries aren't much on low end torque.... you'll need some rear gear! The stock rear axle would probably be about right, they were pretty low geared for the L-head.

RZ -- that turbo motor will be a tight fit! The turbo is off to one side pretty far. It's kind of high up, so you might get it in by just taking the right side "hump" out of the engine bay. Nothing between it and the outer wheel panel, you'll gain 2-3" on the side.

I don't think the 53 uses the upper front shock mount with the brace rod at the top. That rod goes through the outer panel to the highest point on the inner. That inner panel (the engine bay side) has that hump just to accommodate that brace rod, so it is at the right angle. 50-52 models use the rod, I forget if the shock mount was changed in 53 or 54. The upper mount from a 54-55 Nash Rambler or 58-63 Rambler American will fit and replace the early model mount and do away with the rod.

 

My inner fender wells are already cut out. And with the rotary it was nec. to cut. Mine is the 13b-rew 255 hp. rotary. Of course with the single turbo, FI and a street port hp is not a problem..We had a 93 RX-7 and trust me theres no problem with torque with the turbo..they get up and go. Problem is to tweak the thing you need a stand alone computer. LS coil packs and bigger injectors..it just adds up..also you need to run the turbo II trans and relocate the shifter forward. The original trans is a bit long. I decided to go with the 2.3 turbo..I can tweak it a bit and its just simpler to live with.

 

Can't wait to see some pics of it!

 

Whats wrong with the flathead 6 If I was to do it all over again, and I didn't find the edmunds head and McCulloch Supercharger I would have gone with a flathead v8, and if that didn't fit then a v8-60 although power would have been less...


IMG_0447 by Dimitri Lazaris, on Flickr

 

I thought about a flat-head V-8 AGES ago! With the styling of the car it would just look "right" under the hood, and it would probably fit without removing the humps. There is just 24" between them though, so they might have to go even for a flat-head (Ford) V-8. Would be easy to change the sparkers on a flat-head V-8 though! On an OHV small block they are tough to get at. The little V8-60 (actual model is V8-74, which is 136 cubic inches -- tiny!!) would be a bit low in power, the old 172.6 flat-head six you have put out 82 hp!! A 49-53 8BA with 100-110 hp would be more like it... properly hopped up to around 150 hp, of course!

The hump and it's original design purpose are clearly seen in this photo on the left (there is a twin on the right behind the air filter). See the stud sticking up? That's for the upper shock mount (but it isn't the shock, just a support rod!). The shadows perfectly show the outline of the hump.

 

Not a Rambler, but my neighbor just bought his wife a Nash Metropolitan with a 70's Datsun 4-banger and auto trans. Looks like it came in it and it runs like a scalded dog!

 

IIRC the Datsun four was based on an Austin design, at least the original 60s Datsun four of which the later ones were based on, was. So naturally it fits and looks right. It's a fairly common swap for those who build "driver" Mets, or at least it used to be.

 

2.3 turbo 59 wagon

 

I see you cut the "humps" out, did you leave the stock spring towers though? If it fits with the stock front suspension I might have a plan...

 

What's your plan Farna?