RE: [ihc] Engine ID by pic

["Jim Grammer" <jgrammer@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Hofstetter [mailto:hofs@domain.elided]
>Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 4:26 PM
>To: Jim Grammer
>Cc: ihc@domain.elided; Joel Furtek; ken.dunnington
>Subject: Re: [ihc] Engine ID by pic

>I didn't realize that IH was using AMC engines as late as 74. That
>wasn't one of the options on my 72 1210, at least I don't think it was.
>Got a little history in this regard for us, Jim.

My source isn't any better than Furtek's ;)

The whole 401 thing is very interesting from a couple of angles. The
official story is that Indy wasn't able to keep up with demand for 392's, so
the 401 was a stopgap for the light line starting in '73 and ending in '74
AFAIK. A real flash in the pan, as it were. Absent any production problems
in Indianapolis, I can only surmise that Loadstars were selling *real* well
at that point. Most(all?) light line installations for '73 seem to have been
in 1010's, not sure about '74. It would make engineering sense in '73 to
only install them in the frames that already had a crossmember in the right
location for the mid-block motor mount location of the AMC. All they really
did to adapt the 401 to the 1010 was bend brackets to fit the existing
x-member and install some weld nuts in same. For '74, all the engines went
to mid-block mounting so theoretically there'd be no difference in mounting
for any of the light models.

The other point is how AMC happened to have a *2bbl* version of the 401
ready to go. They weren't selling a 2bbl 401 in any of their products in the
US at the time, and DOT/EPA approval for an complete engine isn't exactly
trivial. Did AMC have the 2bbl version certified in anticipation of using it
somewhere in their range, or had IH been working with them already in
anticipation of a replacement for the SV in the light line?

Dunno if Howard has any more insight on the subject(I'm still looking for
that line set! ;) ).

Jim