RE: [ihc] Engine ID by pic

["Pete Shubin" <pshubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Did the AMC 401 ever come in an IH with a manual transmission?  I ask
because if it did that would be another AMC/IH anomaly.  I found several
references that said the 401 was never offered with a manual transmission
and that the crank was not drilled for a pilot bushing.  This is the biggest
reason I stopped looking for a 401 and went with the 360.

When I did the 360 swap into my Scout II I researched the AMC V8
extensively.  I remember AMC offering a 304 2bbl, 360 2bbl, 360 4bbl, 401 4
bbl in the early '70s and even had other separate listings for single or
dual exhaust.  The nice things about the AMCs is except for pistons, rods,
cranks, flywheels, harmonic dampeners, and the 304's small valves I remember
everything being the same.  So EPA issues aside there is no reason you
couldn't built a 401 2bbl or make that 401 2bbl a 401 4bbl.  Also the 258 1
bbl Holly was also specific to IH with the Jeep and other AMC 258s running
Carters.

I wish I could find all the paperwork for that build.  I have had several
requests for a build sheet for my 360 but I can't find the old paperwork.  I
have heard that the AMCs are rather hard to build and get power out of from
several Jeep guys but this runs contrary to my direct experience with my
360.  I would love to pick up that truck with the 401 and build it but I
already have too many projects for a track home in Brea.

Pete

-----Original Message-----
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 09:57:06 -0800
From: "Jim Grammer" <jgrammer@domain.elided>
Subject: RE: [ihc] Engine ID by pic

>-----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