Make your own free website on

Real Four Wheel Drive
Brown, Not Just for Dirt Anymore

Now I will write some stuff in defense of the style of AMC. I will attempt to quell or squash some things that the "other car guys" say about AMC's style and other stuff.

Common thing for a non-AMCer to say "AMC's, they are all ugly!" While some of AMC's cars may be less than visually exciting the AMX and the Javelin were considered to be one of the best looking muscle cars of the period (1968-1974). Also most of AMC's output during the sixties were remnicent of Chrysler's products. With light wieght V-8's, the big bad AMCs were no dogs.

Of course you are concerned more about the Eagle. First off, the SX-4 isn't ugly. If someone says this they are either anti-AMC all the way, or are brain dead. And a word about the rest of AMC's cars, one has to appreciate how little AMC had to work with to come up with a new car. Anti-AMCers are the worst. Often they will say just about anything to insult you or your car.

This Eagle is too tough for its' own goodThings they will say is, "My Camaro (or other car with a big V-8) could waste your Eagle." This one is something I hear alot from people. I argree 100% that a big bad muscle car could beat an Eagle. But put on some snow, a little ice, and some mud they will be seening nothing but the rear end of the Eagle when you tow them out of a ditch. Or waste them at a stop light durring a blizzard because of your four wheel drive (Be carefull of trying to take on the GMC Typhoon, this truck has AWD).

Or say something like,"Lets see how far your Pontiac will go off road." They will either back off or say something dumb like,"But my car doesn't have four wheel drive," or "My car could still beat yours." Until a certain 1993 Mercury Grand Marquis or a Camaro can make it through a three foot high snow bank from a dead stop 1 inch away from the edge of the snow bank (my Eagle did) they have nothing to say.

One time some guy challenged me to a race, I said,"You'll beat me, but let me arrange a little compitition somewhere else. Like off road." The guy agreed and started babbling on how his Pontiac could beat the Eagle at everything. Finally I said I intended to go through a ditch across the field and back onto a rutted back road. The guy immeadately stopped bragging.
Don't try this at home

I would have to say the most common thing people to say to slam the Eagle (besides styling) is, "The Eagle only had 110 horse power." Then they will go on an quote hp figures for either older engines (like 1970 and below) or quote figures for the newer engines. Funny how they forgot that other automotive manufactures also made engines during the 80's. Everyone's engines sucked as far as horsepower goes. Here are some figures for some engines made during the 80's (All use carburetors with two barrels or less like the Eagle). ChryCo's 318 only had a freakin' 120 HORSEPOWER!!! Chev's 305 was a little better, just about 130 hp was avalible. But then on to the Sixes. Ford's 200 cubic inch in a line six had 88 ponies. Chevy's 200 V-6 was slightly better with 90 horses. ChryCo's slant six at 225 cid had any where between 85-100 horsepower. Ford's 232 V-6 had 105 horsepower. And Ford's 255 V-8 (V-8's most of the time produce more power than their inline brothren) produced 111 hp. But the dog of all dogs was GM's 260 ci V-8 with only 100 to 110 horse power. I am amazed that AMC was able to keep the horses from going down any more and they all ready were with their shoe string budget. Some more examples, Ford's 460 had 208-210 hp, Cad's 425 V-8 had 180 horse power, Chev's 350 had only 155 horse power, Chryco's 360 also had a fairly anemic 150 horse power, need I go on? Nowadays all those engines (if they are even still in production) produce way over their pethetic horse power ratings of the eighties. AMC's 4.2 inline six produced exactly this big long number of horsepowers per cubic inches: 0.426356589147286821705426356589147 per 1 cubic inch.

ChryCo 318: 0.377358490566037735849056603773585 hp per cubic inch
ChryCo 225 80 hp Slant Six: 0.377777777777777777777777777777778 hp per cubic inch
ChryCo 225 100 hp Slant Six: 0.444444444444444444444444444444444 hp per cubic inch
ChryCo 360: 0.416666666666666666666666666666667 hp per cubic inch
Caddie 425: 0.423529411764705882352941176470588 hp per cubic inch
Chev 200 V-6: 0.45 hp per cubic inch
Chev 260 100 Hp V-8: 0.384615384615384615384615384615385 hp per cubic inch
Chev 260 110 Hp V-8: 0.423076923076923076923076923076923 hp per cubic inch
Chev 305: 0.426229508196721311475409836065574 hp per cubic inch
Chev 350: 0.442857142857142857142857142857143 hp per cubic inch
Ford 200 inline six: 0.44 hp per cubic inch
Ford 232: 0.452586206896551724137931034482759 per cubic inch
Ford 255: 0.435294117647058823529411764705882 per cubic inch
Ford 460 208 hp: 0.452173913043478260869565217391304 per cubic inch
Ford 460 210 hp: 0.456521739130434782608695652173913 per cubic inch
Awsome 1988 Eagle Wagon

In the light of all these figures, AMC's six has about the average horse power of engines during the eighties. AMC's 4.0 six (which is still in production) makes about 190 horse power out of 242 cubic inches. In pure numbers this is:
0.785123966942148760330578512396694 per cubic inch. This engine not only beats every single in engine in horse power except the 460 big block but gets better gas milage to boot. All these figures are out of Consumer Guide 1987 Edition and or manauls.

Page 7, Some stuff and links

[Back to page 5 One Body, One Company, Five Cars]