I have a couple that'd I'd like to do eventually. I'm sure they've been run but I haven't seen them talked about.... 1968 post coupe non-a/c H/O..(mine would have to be a clone b/c of $$$) and a '70 RAIII Formula. I've seen the RAIII in a T/A but not the lighter Formula. Matt
My eyes weren't that bad at that time!! Without an interior or a ~roof~ being in the way it was easy to spot! It was a manual with TWO sticks poking thru the floor. The regular shifter handle, and then a smaller second handle next to it. Hmmmm.....unless it was an aftermarket Hurst shifter with the reverse lock-out secondary handle??o No: o No: Dang, Bob. If we're not careful, we can turn this into a RAMBLER/AMC hi-jack!!
Well Frank and Bob, I wish that I had seen this post earlier. It's not often that the Rambler guys get to "Hi Jack" a post. Anyhow , here's a couple of obsevations form this post relating to the AM's and beyond. Just as an educational thing here . There were two generations of AMC's V8's: Generation One ,would have been produced from 1956-1965 and were made in diplacements of 250, 287, and 327 cubic inches. They were rather bulky looking and looked similar to the Stude V8,but weighed only 80 lbs more than a SBC. They were not really a true performance motor but the 327 in 1957 was offered on the then new "Rebel" and was rated at 255bhp.With this combination and deep gears the Rebel was capable of producing high 15 second ETs which at that time was very respectable.The 327 Rebels were actually slated to be offered with Fuel Injection (Bendix Electrojector) and was rated at 288 bhp,but that FI unit proved tempermental and those cars that were slated to receive them were changed out to 4bbl induction. Generation Two AMC V8's were the V8 's that most here would be familiar with.That would be the 290 -401 cu. in. family of engines and was based on a modern thin wall casting design. By year it went: 1966 290 (2 and 4 bbls) ,1967 290 ,343 (2,and 4bbls) then 1968/9 290,343 (2 and 4 bbls) and the 390 (4bbl) .Side note here is that the AM V8's from 66 -69 ,displacing 290 -390 cu in (2 and 4 bbl versions) used the same milk toast camshaft.In other words, there was only one cam in their V8's from 66-69 period. Those diplacements would later change in 1970 from: 290 to 304 , 343 to 360,and the 390 carried on for 70 and was stroked to 401 cu. in. in 1971. Changes to the 1970 and up V8 was a taller deck height and better flowing heads. The 360 cu in version would carry on to late 1990's via Chrysler. Frank, if the car that you saw had twin stick or (June Cleavers Lightening Rods) as I like to call them,and it was original,it was likely a 1966 with a 290.The 343(280 bhp) mills were not avialble until 1967 and by then the twin sticks were gone. If that car was a 67 convrt with a 343 (transplanted Twin Stick),it would have been something really special and would have been one of about seven produced.Overall they didn't make many 67 343 Americans at all.If memory serves ,about 58 were Rogues ,and then there were a smattering of 220 and 440 trim level American sedans ,and 440 trim level hard tops ,with that mill.Probably the closest thing that AM ever had to a sleeper. For 1968 the 343 was dropped as a option on the Rambler American,and then by 1969 (last year of the Rambler nameplate),you had the Hurst S/C Rambler with the 390 to fill it's shoes. The 67 343 Americans (all varieties), were all single exhaust cars, and a very restictive single exhaust at that. Rich C.
Rick, It had the 343 flags on the fenders and two sticks. I can only assume it might have been an old Hurst with the reverse lock out shifter if the "twin stick" wasn't available in 1967. The original owner never mentioned swapping trans. It was "number match" according to him. As I said, I researched this car after getting home from that vacation and the numbers I saw match up with yours. Around 1 of 6 or 7 built with the 343-4 manual convertible. What's that thing worth?? Was he correct in asking $8000 for it in its shabby state?? It is, after all, a Rambler ya know.............:spank: :spank: Or was I closer in by offering him $2500 for it. What's it worth restored, and/or do you want to know the location of the car?!? :Brow: :Brow:
Frank, That car is very cool and is desirable. As for the asking price,I don't think that $8k is out of line ,although it would also kind of depend on the condition of the body. If the car was intact with most of the correct pieces ,then 1 of 6/7 of anything with the big motor and a 4 speed is a good buy at that price. As for what it's worth,that's really hard to say with certainty ,as it is with a lot of AMC cars,even the more well know Musclecar models. The prices that you typically see in the buyers guides ,do somewhat reflect the value,but those values are typically for avg to crappy cars.The rub with AMC's is that the good one's,"Keeper Quality" are trading hands behind the scenes,and going for a LOT more than the buyers guide will refect.The problem is that the buyers guide will likely never ,or will very slowly , reflect the values ,because there's no data of these transactions,like you'd see happening regularly at auctions for other makes. Just try to go out and find a keeper quality car ,that needs nothing. Most people come to the realzation that they will have to locate what they want,then restore it themeselves,because the ones that are truly nice aren't for sale. What's my reason to state things this way? Because a car like that is worth a good amount of dough to any collector worth his salt. There's just no real reference to attain real world value now. I appreciate the offer of the heads up,but with what I have awaiting attention now,coupled with some things that I've been working on over time now ,makes another car at this point detrimental to my marriage and possibly my very existance. Especially if the wife saw me type this.ou: I will now place my family jewels back in my wifes purse.:eek2: Rich C.
Rich, I can sort of understand. A man has to know what side his bread is buttered on. I saw that Rambler/AMC/Nash back in 2002. I bet it's still there, but I can also bet the floor pans are completely rotted by now without any form of cover over the car. Not to mentiuon a half dozen coon dogs using it for their pen. <shake head in disgust> Now, this shoud warm you to the bottom of your heart. We'll make this an Official Rambler Hi-Jack now:
Wow ,who wudda thunk that when I woke up today,that I would be taking part in the first American Motors / Rambler Hi-jack!!! The 60 Rambler ? pic. seals the deal !!! Way to go Frank!!! :beer
How about: 69' 428 HO 4spd GP (MINE) - it will be there if I ever get to it - my bad! 70 1/2 Falcon (a stripped Torino) with 429 SCJ, ram air, 4spd, 4.30s - I almost bought one in early 1992 for $4700 as a daily driver - the 11.3:1 compression in my opinion wasn't a good combo with 93 octane - plus the car had open headers - OOPS, I just mentioned a very bad word!:spank: 70 440 6pk Sport Fury GT Were there any Mopar 6pack cars built in 72'? Where the heck have the Shelby Mustangs been?!?o No: 69 Ford Galaxy XL GT 65 427 Galaxy or Custom (the 427 that year had some minor improvements over the 63-64 - something to do with a medium riser manifold?) 69 Olds Delta 88 W33 - 455/390 HP 73 GS Stage 1 4spd 59 348 3/2bbl 4spd Impala - Volo has one, but I sure don't want to spend $50k on it! 69 or 70 Mercury Maurader X-100 Big Block Canadian Pontiacs - pick a year! More Chrysler Letter cars I haven't been to every race so I could be wrong....
Joe, There was a white with blue interior Falcon running at the 2005 PSMCDR. Mopar did not build any 440-6 after 1971. The '59 348 would be an even wackier car than Brian's '58 Mercury. I think the rules state AMERICAN MADE muscle cars so that leaves out the Canadian Beaumonts and such (too bad). The X-100 would be different (and cool) with that swoopy loooong body work.
PSMCDR rules..... For 1955 to 1974 muscle cars built in United States and Canadian assembly plants Where do you think all them Studebakers came from?? ou:
First an Olds hi-jack. :bla: Then a Nash Rambler AMC hi-jack. :beers2: Now a Studebaker hi-jack. :Brow: :3gears:
Um, Frank, as a Mopar guy, you should be ashamed! You know there were a handful of '72s built, although I doubt they would be legal for the race because they were canceled on the first week of production. p But I think Canadian Pontiacs would be fine because they're basically Chevys underneath, and I know they are legal.
Not ashamed. I knew of the few that snuck thru in '72 (hey! that rhymes) but didn't merit a mention due to not really being an actual 1972 offered option so it wasn't really in the "mainstream". :bglasses:
That sounds kinda like the 1971 W31 that was built as a pilot car before they lowered the compression and killed the performance, and therefore the option. Pretty sure they had already sent out the conversion packages to the sponsored cars for updating from 70 to 71 at that time. In fact, we know who had one of those engines.
Awesome!!! Sorry Diego. You just know though, that Dave H. or Rusty, is out there somewhere ,waiting, just waiting, to land the knockout Olds Hi-Jack punch.:bla: Rich C.
If they're legal then the 1973 GTO SD 455 Cars Magazine, car of the year shoud be legal also. Very rare, zero out of none!:laugh:
