bricklin
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: starters

To: Jim Pivirotto <jimp@SALT.FirstIndustrial.com>,
Subject: Re: starters
From: Kenneth Parkman <Kenneth.Parkman@pwc.ca>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 12:10:35 -0500
A couple of reasons - first the stock AMC starter is a little marginal in torque
and when you have a 401 (especially with high compression) the stock starter is
barely adequate. Next advantage - a small starter is a few pounds lighter
(whoopee), but the big advantage is ease of assembly in some chassis when you
have headers. I don't know the Bricklin specifically, but on my Rambler (with a
stock starter) it all fits when assembled, but you can't assemble it. Putting it
together involves supporting the engine, taking off the steering & sway bar,
dropping the main cross member, a lot of swearing, and a broken watch (and this
is the easy way). With a small starter a 4 hour job becomes a 1/2 hour job. I
will never again use a stock starter on an AMC.

Ken

Jim Pivirotto wrote:

> Just curious, why is a smaller starter needed on the AMC motor? Pugs # 756

///
///  bricklin@autox.team.net mailing list
///


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • starters, Jim Pivirotto
    • Re: starters, Kenneth Parkman <=