In that article they only used a 9.6:1 compression ratio. With the cam they used and the aluminum heads you can easily run 11.0:1 on pump gas. 500hp/tq here we come.
We have a customer in ILL. that has built several strokers with 3.750 396/402 cranks and modern compression, rings, cam grinds etc. They run very well. If you end up with any more that you need to practically give away, please let me know.
NO URBAN LEGEND: "690" Casting Boat Anchor Castings at THOMPSON GASSER MEET............$500. Needed Work..........but a dated pair.
That's one great-looking motor and would look great in any hot-rod. It's hard to beat the power and durability of an SBC, but after a awhile they get a little...well, common. That 409 will always stand out.
Boat anchor? Blasphmy! Anyone who thinks that never heard of Ken Walsh or Lamar Walden. Flathed guys talking about 400 hp boat anchors- now there's some funny shit right there.
I made a good living in my shop for about 2 years replacing 348/409s with small blocks. Wish I had all those 409s back that went in the dumpster !!!
Heres a couple The 32 is a 340 hp 409 with a Isky solid cam and a few extra carbs, 425 exhaust manifolds Muncie 4 speed. The 62 Belair is a Curt Harvey built stroker Ross pistons Isky roller cam and a Richmond 5 speed,Doug Thorley headers. In high school I had a 62 Vette with a 327/340 411 posi and one of my buddys had a 63 Impala 340/409 Beat him every day. He installed the 425 hp heads solid cam, intake & exhaust manifolds I still dusted him. That being said I love 09s and plan to install another stroked one in my 57 Belair
legendary boat anchor. got a good 409 story for ya my buddies' dad bought one brand new in 64 4 speed, dual quad ,positraction ,etc. he took it out to thompson drag raceway and it ran 15.26 he was so pissed he went back to the dealership,threw his keys on the counter,and told them to "shove this car up your ass! its a sled." the dealership ruined his credit and three years later he had his dad buy him a 67 dart gts which he made the payments on. with a 273 ,4 spd, 4.10 gears,and slicks ran a 14.10 right out of the box. he still owns and drag races it today. but now it goes 9.70s with a 408 small block. sometimes our automotive legends are embelished on just a little bit.
I am a died in the wool Mopar freak, but 14.10's right out of the box with a 273? I think that may be embellished a little!
I posted earlier in this thread so I am not going to go over old territory but to call them a boat anchor is pure nonsense. If the best that a "drag racer" could get out of a 409 car was a 15.26 then he should have taken up another pastime. I spent much of my youth with racing all three makes and they all built some great running cars. IF you knew what you were doing the 409s could be made to run strong. It is amazing that the likes of Butch Leal, Ronnie Sox, Don Nicholson, Hayden Proffitt, Grumpy Jenkins, Dave Strickler and Dick Harrrell, were all dumb enough to have raced and won with 409 cars. How silly when they could have scored small inch Mopars. Now lets see how many big names raced 273s to banner headlines?????-Jim
Yeah.....we don't know WHY it ran a best of 15.26, do we? Not shifting at the right rpm, not shifting fast enough, the timing being off, smoking the stock rubber 3/4 of the way down the track...but everyone knows that the only reason a car ever didn't run up to its potential is because it was a piece of shit. Also, whether it's 1967 or 2009, throwing the keys at the service manager and telling him to shove the car up his ass because "it's a sled" has always guaranteed you top rate treatment from any dealership.
Thier definetly not no boat anchor. Back in the late 70's early 80's i ran a 66 chevell ss at the drags and some times on the street. It had a 440ci crower injected bbc and would run in the mid to low 9s. At the local drags and on the street i was able to beat any Hemi, wedge bbcly, Ford etc especialy on the top end. But thier was this 65 impalla with a bored and stroked 409 running a steet metal intake with dual 4's (heard it was over 500ci but do not know) but he wanted to race me. The first time i raced this impala was on the street in street trim and thought i would blow his doors off. Well that did not happen it was a perrty even race. After that race i talked him into meeting me at the local drag strip in full race trim. We raced 3 times that night and all 3 were very close and he won 1 of the 2. Now that's no boat anchor in my world
I owned, from new, a 1962 409 Impala. My engine was the 380 HP version with a single four barrel AFB. The dual quad version was rated at 409 HP as you're aware. A few months ago, it was cleaned up after sitting idle for many, many years and put on a dyno. Dual quads (stock AFBs) and headers were installed. It made 429 HP. So, I expect, it represented a typical street/strip 409. There were several cams considered "stock" by NHRA at the time. I found the #6 cam to be the best for all around use. My stock 62 (7" slicks, 4.56 gears, 2.20 4-speed) ran a best of 12.90s at approximately 110 MPH in B/S with the 4 barrel but the dual quad engines ran A/S in the early 60's and would go a couple tenths better. . Yes, the 409s were heavy BUT the biggest problem wasn't the engine, it was the weak drive train. You replaced the driver's side axle every 3 runs. The tiny rear would last longer but not indefinitely. I guess you could get 30 runs per rear before busting the R/P. I used a special beefed rear by Jerry Stahl and breathed on by Jenkins to no avail. Street tires only resulted in broken axles & rears on occasion. The 409 was fast but unreliable.
At last years Mo-Kan there was a 63/64 SS409 boat anchor that was rippin down the track..my 60 Impala 348 three-speed was plenty fast with 400K miles onnit..
Had a guy in my neighborhood that came out of the army in 1962, bought a new Chevy Impala equipped with a 409, and went from the showroom to the dragstrip. I don't remember his ET, but he was @ 104 mph. I was impressed. I was ten years old, but I was impressed.
90% of how they ran was who had tuned them and who was driving. I had to run against a 62 Chev wagon 409/4 speed with a batch of national record stickers in G stock at Little River (Temple Acadamy) in Texas in 1969. My Cutlass was good for 14.25 on their clocks and he was running right on the 12.68 record. I think the biggest problem with performance with most of the was that the owners tried to tune them themselves instead of taking them to someone who could make them run and then street racing after the tune had a few hundred or thousand miles on it.
they are awesome look great they came out in 58 its all about personal choice and they sound great GMs first big block.
When you look through and add a comment, they bubble to the top. BTW, W blocks have a cool factor off the scale. If you cant build em bad, build em good.
Its kind of ironic for me to stumble into this. I knew a guy back in the 90's that had a bunch of those hoarded away. He said it was his retirement. Ran into a mutual friend that told me the guy was still working. Didn't think to ask him if he still had the motors.
I'm as respectful to history as can be, love the looks of the venerable 'W' motor, but unless $$$$ was no object it's not what I would choose to build. Give me a MK IV with a lot of compression and a roller cam, and hell I'd even run the iron heads. Dollar per HP, no contest, MK IV wins. Looks? 348/409 wins. Kinda like a hot chick that's a 'D' student. You wouldn't want her on the spelling bee team but she makes a good cheerleader.
I've never driven a 409 powered car, but had rides in two - a 58 Impala, 409 single quad 4 gear, and a 65 Canadian built Parisienne with a 340 horse auto. Both big heavy cars but had more than enough to set you back in the seat. And besides, no one sings: "She's so fine my V-Tech fart can rice burner"
The Jalopy Journal
