RE: [ihc] Engine ID by pic

["Jim Grammer" <jgrammer@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Howard R Pletcher
>Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 8:35 PM
>To: ihc-digest@domain.elided
>Subject: Re: [ihc] Engine ID by pic

>My only insight into why the 401 was used was the official story that we
>needed all the 392's possible for Loadstars.

>Digging through some price books, I see that a Feb, 1973 price book for
>the Travelall shows the V-400 (we had to differentiate it from AMC's 401)
>was offered in the 1010, 1110, and 1210 4x2 models.  An automatic
>transmission was required.  It was not offered for 4x4 models.  I don't
>have a Feb, 1973 Pickup price list and the V-400 is not shown at all in
>the Nov. 1972 book I do have (meaning it apparently wasn't available at
>the start of the 73 model run), but I would guess the Pickup offerings
>were about the same as Travelall--although perhaps not the 1210s if the
>pattern followed 1974 below.

>For 1974, the V-400 was offered in both the 100 and 200 4x2 Travelalls
>(N/A in California), but only in the 100 Pickup, not the 200.  Also no
>4x4's again.  But the auto transmission was not a requirement for 1974.
>The T-428 (4.02 low) was an option.  But I can't say if any or many were
>built with manal transmissions--I would doubt it.

What a lot of engineering time to fiddle with a 'stopgap' engine. Of course
with the 1110/1210 already having a x-member available for the 258, we'd
only be talking about brackets but still...I wonder if anyone at IH was
seriously considering keeping the 401 in the range? That *might* help
explain the extra work to fit a manual in '74. I also wonder if they thought
the 401 was going to be easier to smog than the 392 going forward, the 401
did soldier on 'til '91 with a carburetor!

Jim