ORPHAN CARS

"Refinish King" > wrote in message
...
> Hello:
>
> I've been following this thread closely. My father worked for a Bronx,
> N.Y. Kaiser/PAckard dealer, when he first came from Italy in 1949.
>
> Then was at a few different places until 1961.

What a combo. Packard AND Kaiser.

> He went to work for a Chrysler-Dodge dealer from 1961 to 1963, then was
> solicited by a Rambler/AMC dealer in 1963 and accepted the job. He worked
> there till 1977, and was offered a job at another AMC dealer, by the
> factory Service Advisor, and stayed there, until his retirement in 1982.

> Till his death, he said that Packard and Kaiser had the best engines, and
> AMC's blocks were like battleship engines. He said that Packard tried to
> use auto level, and the most advanced automatic transmission in the
> industry. That lasted for their last two years in business.

Yep. And cost them plenty.

> He said the all the advances killed Packard, because they added them all
> the same year, and they had reserved service bays, for warranty service.
> Because the cars were there for months at a time, waiting for parts.

> My father was going to buy a brand new AMX in 1970, for a return home
> present, and my brother called it: "A POS"

I bought one of the first 100 cars, They were GREAT,

> Wally Booth was kicking ass in Pro Stock for a couple of years back then
> with his AMX, but then NHRA outlawed welded heads. So that ended AMC's
> lead role in early NHRA Pro Stock racing.

Lots of speed records were set with the AMX.

> Thanks for bringing back memories of my father's favorite subjects,
> Kaisers, Packards and AMC.

Packard was a good company that was poorly managed. With the 55 model
year they got desperate and screwed the pooch. Neither the new transmission
nor the torsion bar suspension were debugged well enough to be put into
production. Kaisers were slow as hell but ran forever. Indestructible. The
AMC engines WERE like battleship engines. In Trans Am the Fords and chevys
kept blowing their bottom ends out. The AMC engines almost never did till
Penske TRIED to build up the engines using Chevy parts and techniques. That
first season the engines kept going bang. I and some others kept telling
Penske that the AMC engine was not a Chevy, that it would run the pants off
the Ford and Chevy at half their RPMs. When he finally built the engines
that way, neither Ford or Chevy could stay on the same track with the
Javelins. Through the turns and out the Javs would just RUN AWAY from the
Fords and Chevys. They were getting beat so bad that both Ford and Chevy
QUIT Trans Am that year mid season.

"Refinish King" > wrote in message
...
>
> An AMC 390 looked like a Buick motor, as did all the last generation AMC
> engines.

Everyone had ideas that it was somebody else's engine. It was 100% AMC. Look
at the degree in the V. Nobody else was close to it.

> The 327 looked unique, with wide cylinder heads, and two phillips bolts
> holding on the valve covers.

> No other American auto maker's engines lasted close to 110K miles, but the
> Rambler/AMC engines made it way passed that. As long as you did the timing
> chains, before you bent a bunch of valves.

The biggest shortcoming in the AMC V-8's were the valve guides tended to
wear. But a new 390. Install aftermarket guides, an aftermarket timing gear
set up, get rid of the Carter AFB, put a Holley double pumper on, put a
forged steel flywheel (get rid of that aluminum crap) and tune it on a
chassis dyno, change distributor springs and you add almost 100 HP to the
wheels.

I remember the name of the owner was:

Barney Leckner, on Southern Boulevard in The Bronx.

I was a kid, but I remember Barney till he died, when I was 12, and
everytime my father was looking for a new job. He'd speak on my father's
behalf, because my father spoke broken English.

Thank you,

RK
" krp" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Refinish King" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hello:
>>
>> I've been following this thread closely. My father worked for a Bronx,
>> N.Y. Kaiser/PAckard dealer, when he first came from Italy in 1949.
>>
>> Then was at a few different places until 1961.
>
> What a combo. Packard AND Kaiser.
>
>> He went to work for a Chrysler-Dodge dealer from 1961 to 1963, then was
>> solicited by a Rambler/AMC dealer in 1963 and accepted the job. He worked
>> there till 1977, and was offered a job at another AMC dealer, by the
>> factory Service Advisor, and stayed there, until his retirement in 1982.
>
>> Till his death, he said that Packard and Kaiser had the best engines, and
>> AMC's blocks were like battleship engines. He said that Packard tried to
>> use auto level, and the most advanced automatic transmission in the
>> industry. That lasted for their last two years in business.
>
> Yep. And cost them plenty.
>
>> He said the all the advances killed Packard, because they added them all
>> the same year, and they had reserved service bays, for warranty service.
>> Because the cars were there for months at a time, waiting for parts.
>
>> My father was going to buy a brand new AMX in 1970, for a return home
>> present, and my brother called it: "A POS"
>
> I bought one of the first 100 cars, They were GREAT,
>
>> Wally Booth was kicking ass in Pro Stock for a couple of years back then
>> with his AMX, but then NHRA outlawed welded heads. So that ended AMC's
>> lead role in early NHRA Pro Stock racing.
>
> Lots of speed records were set with the AMX.
>
>> Thanks for bringing back memories of my father's favorite subjects,
>> Kaisers, Packards and AMC.
>
> Packard was a good company that was poorly managed. With the 55 model
> year they got desperate and screwed the pooch. Neither the new
> transmission nor the torsion bar suspension were debugged well enough to
> be put into production. Kaisers were slow as hell but ran forever.
> Indestructible. The AMC engines WERE like battleship engines. In Trans Am
> the Fords and chevys kept blowing their bottom ends out. The AMC engines
> almost never did till Penske TRIED to build up the engines using Chevy
> parts and techniques. That first season the engines kept going bang. I and
> some others kept telling Penske that the AMC engine was not a Chevy, that
> it would run the pants off the Ford and Chevy at half their RPMs. When he
> finally built the engines that way, neither Ford or Chevy could stay on
> the same track with the Javelins. Through the turns and out the Javs would
> just RUN AWAY from the Fords and Chevys. They were getting beat so bad
> that both Ford and Chevy QUIT Trans Am that year mid season.
>
>
>

They were an unbelievable engine.

100K miles, and hardly a ridge in the cylinder.

RK
" krp" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Refinish King" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> An AMC 390 looked like a Buick motor, as did all the last generation AMC
>> engines.
>
> Everyone had ideas that it was somebody else's engine. It was 100% AMC.
> Look at the degree in the V. Nobody else was close to it.
>
>> The 327 looked unique, with wide cylinder heads, and two phillips bolts
>> holding on the valve covers.
>
>> No other American auto maker's engines lasted close to 110K miles, but
>> the Rambler/AMC engines made it way passed that. As long as you did the
>> timing chains, before you bent a bunch of valves.
>
> The biggest shortcoming in the AMC V-8's were the valve guides tended to
> wear. But a new 390. Install aftermarket guides, an aftermarket timing
> gear set up, get rid of the Carter AFB, put a Holley double pumper on, put
> a forged steel flywheel (get rid of that aluminum crap) and tune it on a
> chassis dyno, change distributor springs and you add almost 100 HP to the
> wheels.
>
>

"Roger Blake" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-11-09, krp > wrote:
>> What a combo. Packard AND Kaiser.
>
> Indeed!
>
>> production. Kaisers were slow as hell but ran forever. Indestructible.
>> The
>> AMC engines WERE like battleship engines. In Trans Am the Fords and
>> chevys
>> kept blowing their bottom ends out. The AMC engines almost never did
>> till
>> Penske TRIED to build up the engines using Chevy parts and techniques.

> One of the problems the 2nd-generation AMC V8s have in high power
> or racing applications is that the valve train is fed from the oil
> pump first, BEFORE the main bearings. (I have no idea why. Maybe
> because the new sixes that AMC had just come out with had top end oiling
> problems early on.) The rear main bearing therefore tends to run
> a little dry. It's not a problem in stock form, but racers would
> generally have to come up with ways to reroute more oil to the mains.

Melling oil pump.

> The first-generation AMC V8s, based at least somewhat on the Kaiser
> prototype, were very stout engines. Heavy, stable blocks (originally
> intended for aluminum?), with forged crank and rods.

That they had to use cast iron blocks was why Kaiser never got a V-8.
The "orange juicers" (the Kaisers) were tantrum insisting on an aluminum
engine and would not consider anything else. (See Last Onslaught on Detroit)
It was a fanaticism of the Kaisers. (Henry and Edgar) they had tons in
Kaiser Aluminum. They wanted to make it work in engines. The technology just
wasn't there. Even GM in the aluminum engines had to sleeve the cylinders
with cast iron. That engine that was being engineered at Kaiser from 1947
on never saw the light of day at Kaiser although as a cast iron engine it
could have been in the Kaisers as early as 1950.
It was stubbornness in the Kaisers. The car people at the factory (Old
Graham Paige folks) had NO respect for the Kaisers because the California
were pretty stupid when it came to cars. There was a war between the
California folks and the Michigan folks from the start.

"Refinish King" > wrote in message
...

> They were an unbelievable engine.
>
> 100K miles, and hardly a ridge in the cylinder.

I had one of the first 100 AMX's built in 1968. I ordered it before
production started. Spec'd it out. 390 4 spd. Changed it out and tuned it in
a Clayton Chassis dyno at a hot rod place near the Wisconsin State Fair I
used to go out HUNTING Corvettes (427's) and Cameros (SS 396) and Mustangs
(500KR's) and I whip them all the time. The ONLY cars I would back off of
was the big Mopars. Nothing street wise that GM or Ford built bothered me.It
was a damn good engine if you understood it was NOT a Chevy or Ford engine
and you learned what it needed. Had to get rid of those nylon timing gears
and a WEAK timing belt. I forgot to add that you needed a better oil pump. I
did the mods and the car constantly did in the high 12's in the quarter to
the low 13's. With ME driving. A pro drove it once at hit 12.5 with it. I
was more into trans-am than dragging,

>>> An AMC 390 looked like a Buick motor, as did all the last generation AMC
>>> engines.
>>
>> Everyone had ideas that it was somebody else's engine. It was 100% AMC.
>> Look at the degree in the V. Nobody else was close to it.
>>
>>> The 327 looked unique, with wide cylinder heads, and two phillips bolts
>>> holding on the valve covers.
>>
>>> No other American auto maker's engines lasted close to 110K miles, but
>>> the Rambler/AMC engines made it way passed that. As long as you did the
>>> timing chains, before you bent a bunch of valves.
>>
>> The biggest shortcoming in the AMC V-8's were the valve guides tended to
>> wear. But a new 390. Install aftermarket guides, an aftermarket timing
>> gear set up, get rid of the Carter AFB, put a Holley double pumper on,
>> put a forged steel flywheel (get rid of that aluminum crap) and tune it
>> on a chassis dyno, change distributor springs and you add almost 100 HP
>> to the wheels.
>>
>>
>
>

" krp" > wrote in message
...

> I am not sure of the sales figures but they were UGLY as hell.
> But the WORST - the absolute worst was the PACER!

I suppose, but at least they were trying. The Pacer was an attempt to
make a roomy smaller car. I never actually rode in one, but I sure
remember seeing them on the highway. At least AMC was trying to break
out of the "me too" mold. They were never going to be successful
building Nova clones.

And I don't think they were so ugly. Different yes, ugly no. A Pontiac
Aztec is ugly. A Pacer was different.

Ed

"Roger Blake" > wrote in message
...

> The Gremlin had its good points. It did not suffer from the
> self-destructing engines of the Vega or the exploding gas tanks of
> the Pinto.

I wish people would quit perpetuating the myth of Pinto's having
exploding gas tanks. Pinto's were no more likely than other small cars
from the 70's to catch fire. Ford's mistake was that they fought
against a ridiculous lawsuit and lost a mega settlement (that was
eventually reduced greatly on appeal). If Ford had followed the GM
practice of buying off the people suing with a fat settlement, then
this myth would most likely never have been born.

Check into it sometime. The original big case that got the myth
started involved a Pinto that was backing down an expressway that was
struck by a dump truck at highway speed. The gas cap was not found at
the scene. The theory (at least the Ford theory) was that it was left
off and the driver was trying to go back and get it. The entire rear
of the car was pushed past the rear axle (trying hitting your car in
the rear with dump truck a closing rate in excess of 60 mph). It was
claimed that the driver and passengers died in the collision, not the
fire that followed. The attorneys for the plaintiff dredged up some
old Ford memos (that were not actually related to the Pinto) and
painted Ford as skimping on safety to save a couple of bucks per car.
Ford provided engineering data that proved the Pinto's gas tank
exceeded all Federal Standards and that it was at least as safe as gas
tanks positioned similarly in other cars similar in size. The facts
did not matter and Ford lost the case in spectacular fashion (a super
large award, that was later greatly reduced on appeal). The results of
the favorable appeal were never publicized. And to make matters worse,
a lazy, incompetent journalist for Mother Jones News did a hatchet job
article on the Pinto that was widely cited as accurate. The fact that
it was wildly inaccurate and clearly designed as an attack article was
ignored. So the myth of the exploding Pinto was born. Ford had to
spend millions recalling Pintos to modify the gas tank mounting (a
polyethylene shield under the tank, a longer filler neck, and a
reinforced mounting for the filler neck). Safety statistics show that
Pintos were no more likely to catch fire than other 70's era small
cars, yet people keep calling the Pinto a fire bomb. Sometime look at
the original US Chevy Chevette. The first model year Chevette actually
had a much higher incident rate of fires than Pintos, yet no one ever
calls it a fire bomb. GM settled all Chevette lawsuits quietly and
recalled them to correct the problem with little publicity. The lesson
learned was - even if you are right, don't go against trial lawyers -
pay them off to go away.

Ed

"Refinish King" > wrote in message
...

> No other American auto maker's engines lasted close to 110K miles,
> but the Rambler/AMC engines made it way passed that. As long as you
> did the timing chains, before you bent a bunch of valves.

Huh? I have driven a 1957 Ford with a 312 with over 150k original
miles (not my car). Plenty of 50's era Chevy and Fords running around
with well over 110K miles. I would say that almost any engine with
reasonable maintenance can last well past 150k miles. I've never
actually had to replace a car because of engine problems, so I don't
have any idea from personal experience how long an engine can last
(most I've ever driven a car I owned from new was 150k miles).

Ed

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
news:491831f0$1@kcnews01...
>
> " krp" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I am not sure of the sales figures but they were UGLY as hell. But the
>> WORST - the absolute worst was the PACER!
>
> I suppose, but at least they were trying. The Pacer was an attempt to make
> a roomy smaller car. I never actually rode in one, but I sure remember
> seeing them on the highway. At least AMC was trying to break out of the
> "me too" mold. They were never going to be successful building Nova
> clones.

AMC had the best A/C system in a car ever. (Kelvinator) However the
Pacer was a greenhouse. Even in Wisconsin, in the summer you baked your
brains. In Florida here it was intolerable 9 months of the year even with
tinting.

> And I don't think they were so ugly. Different yes, ugly no. A Pontiac
> Aztec is ugly. A Pacer was different.

The Pontiac Aztec was a contest at GM to design the MOST ugly car ever
to hit the road. Then it had that awful yellow/green paint. As they drove
down the street people would throw ucp just looking at it.