AMX? super cool!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SftI22XqKB4&feature=g-user-u

Wow that thing is sexy

Jaynen wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SftI22XqKB4&feature=g-user-u Wow that thing is sexy

Yep. A fun 11 minutes.

That was a much nicer piece of road than I expected on an episode of a series called "Big Muscle".

They have covered a lot of nicely done muscle cars with some handling

I will always despise cross-breeding engines/chassis in 'Merican muscle cars. AMCs should have AMC engines, Chevies should have Chevy motors, Ford/Ford, etc. etc.

Aside from that, I love the build.

Very cool. I love AMX (s)!

"We wanted to preserve the heritage, so we kept the grill and the body"....before changing EVERYTHING else that matters. What? I'm with ST_ZX2. If it's a Ford, keep it a Ford, and so on. I'm not opposed to radical engine swaps, but I'd rather see a nice 390 or 401 in there.

Packaging and weight I guess that is why the chevy motors are so prominent

Jaynen wrote: Cost to build and overall availability I guess that is why the chevy motors are so prominent

Fixed that for you.

Yup. The builder asked a lot of questions in the AMC community and ultimately chose the swap because it was easier and cheaper. There are other Pro Touring AMX's out there with AMC power that are faster and lighter. Still a cool car, but the swap really lets it down, IMO.

Tony Zamisch made a 70 Javelin go over 190mph (Silver State) on AMC power back in the late 90s...it certainly can be done.

ST_ZX2 wrote: I will always despise cross-breeding engines/chassis in 'Merican muscle cars. AMCs should have AMC engines, Chevies should have Chevy motors, Ford/Ford, etc. etc. Aside from that, I love the build.

Its all the same stuff really, just different enough that you cant mix and match. The real difference is the price of building stuff up. The engine in that car likely would have cost double if he went with a AMC engine and probably wouldn't have much AMC left in it other than the block anyways.

I'd love to "pro touring" something off beat that is smaller/lighter than your normal 70's muscle car

Kenny_McCormic wrote:

ST_ZX2 wrote: I will always despise cross-breeding engines/chassis in 'Merican muscle cars. AMCs should have AMC engines, Chevies should have Chevy motors, Ford/Ford, etc. etc. Aside from that, I love the build.

Its all the same stuff really, just different enough that you cant mix and match. The real difference is the price of building stuff up. The engine in that car likely would have cost double if he went with a AMC engine and probably wouldn't have much AMC left in it other than the block anyways.

AMC bottom ends are all forged (all 390/401 are)...very strong. All AMC blocks were cast with a very a high nickel content iron--almost as hard as steel. They are not "light", but they are strong.

As for the other comment that infers that "all V8s are pretty much the same"...well, we'll just have to agree to disagree there.

What makes all the 60s American pushrod V8 engines all that different? They all weight about the same, they all look about the same, they all given enough added parts, make the same power. They all came in a variety of configurations, up to the high nickle blocks and forged cranks. A lot of them share displacement, bore and stroke. The difference is merely in bolt patterns and parts cost/availability. It merely convenient to just keep the engine that already bolts in and build that up.

In reply to Kenny_McCormic:

If you really, truly, believe that, than you have no business being around engines at all. That's like saying all sport compacts are the same because they have 4 tires and look about the same.

I'm only semi serious here, just trying to make a point. I respect anybody who wants to take the time and added expense of building a relatively obscure engine. I respect the guy who says berkeley the purists and swaps in the easy answer just as much.

Sport compacts are not all the same, some are FWD, some AWD, depending on how you define sport compact, some RWD, they come with a variety of suspension underneath them, you have vast differences in engine setups(singe cams, dual cams, 2-5 valves per cylinder, belt vs chain drive, forced induction vs naturally aspirated, alloy vs iron blocks, etc), they come from all corners of the earth and it shows.

I love old American cars, but you've gotta admit they aren't that far apart from one another, especially under the hood, all 90*, typically all iron, V8s, usually in the 300-450 cubic inch range, with overhead valves all driven by pushrods from one chain driven camshaft in the block, all topped from the factory with a 2 or 4 barrel carb breathing air at atmospheric pressure(occasionally you get two 4 barrels, or 3 two barrels). Half the time the fastest way to tell em apart is the shape of the valve covers and where the distributor is located.

In reply to Javelin:

That's.... A bit rude.

Toyman says it best: 'Chevys are the cheapest horsepower you can build'. Other than the $/HP aspect, all the 'Murican bent 8's are capable of astounding HP numbers. And I agree that I prefer not to mix/match engines (says the guy who throws tumbling Doritos in everything British that slows down in front of his house).

In reply to Kenny_McCormic:

There's nothing obscure about nearly any of the post-war OHV V8's (seriously, look up the "Engine Master's Challenge", SCTA, or the number of entrants in a single NHRA Sportsman drag race), and there really isn't an "added expense". In fact, it's definitely more expensive to build an LS swap to the same HP/torque levels when you add in all of the extra costs (front accessory drive, EFI fuel system with return, crossmember and floorboard modifications, etc, etc, etc).

With that out of the way, the engines are incredibly different. Just because it's not as easily identifiable as "SOHC vs DOHC" doesn't mean they are all the same. The different port designs alone boggle the mind. Ford alone had multiple engine families and sub families (385-series, FE, Windor, Cleveland, Modified, Side-Olier, Medium-Riser, etc). Other manufacturers (including AMC) had a single block that went from miniscule (290) to massive (401) in the same physical block. Bores, strokes, rod ratios, hell even the port patterns (I/E/I/E/I/E/I/E like a BBC or E/I/I/E/E/I/I/E like an AMC, etc, etc) were different. Every manufacturer had their own unique ideas, many of which all engines now feature and take for granted (4-bolt mains, cross-bolted mains, short piston/long-rod, central plugs, roller lifters, roller rockers, etc, etc).

These same engines were some of the first to feature forced induction from the factory (including turbocharging and centrifugal blowers), fuel injection, 4-valves per cylinder, OHC's, and hemispherical combustion chambers. Saying they all had a 4-barrel carburetor is even as massively wrong as saying every car has four tires. Do you have any idea what kind of differences exist between a Carter AFB, a Holley 4130, and a Rochester Quadrajet are? Did you know that there's at least five completely different "Holley Carbs" just in the regular production engines?

Don't make massive sweeping false generalities about something because you don't actually know anything about it. Sorry if that's "harsh" or "rude", but I'd damn well expect the same if I tried to claim all FWD DOHC 4-cylinders were the same.

From what little I saw of the engine compartment, appears to be a more modern LSx in it. If he was keeping it carbed I would agree with keeping it AMC powered. Since it appears to have modern engine, seems LSx would be the way to go. For ease, availability and cost.

Uh, most inline four bangers in the fwd configuration are roughly the same. I completely agree with the spirit off what Kenny is saying.

That's my two cents and I'm sticking to them ;)

Now, if I wanted to really start a war, I would talk about the lack of difference between Mustangs and Camaros of similar vintage.

I reallllly like this car. Honestly I couldn't care less about keeping the "right" engine in a car (in fact I think BEC are the bestest, hence my building a BE Locost...).

I just love the look, power, and it's apparent fun factor. A car should make you smile IMO.

Kinda funny hearing folks on this site grumbling about authenticity of swaps. Anybody wanna give Andy Nelson greif because he put a Chevy engine in all those top finishing challenge cars? All this is said as an avid AMC fan, but like WEEN said, "just do what you want to, and it'll be okay"