409?
04-25-2014, 12:05 AM
#43
Racer
IMHO, excessive engine weight wasn't the reason the 409 was not available in the 62, 63 and 64 corvette. The 409 weighs about the same as a 427 at around 650 lbs. Chevy had just come out with several variations of their new 327 and at a top rated 375 hp was just 5 hp less then the single four 409, which was rated at 380 hp. Maybe John Z could give us the definitive answer. I've always wondered about this....
04-25-2014, 09:47 AM
#46
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Feb 2011
Location: Middletown Ohio
Posts: 2,892
Received 167 Likes
on
130 Posts
2016 C1 of Year Finalist
409
There is a guy around Cincinnati who has a black 62 Chevy with a 409 bus engine and a strange washing machine motor alternator.
He might know why they were not used on Corvettes.
Can you post some pictures???
He might know why they were not used on Corvettes.
Can you post some pictures???
Last edited by ohiovet; 04-25-2014 at 10:00 AM.
04-25-2014, 10:30 AM
#47
Team Owner
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: Greenville, Indiana
Posts: 26,118
Received 1,843 Likes
on
1,398 Posts
I'd question the return on investment it would take to put that low volume engine in a low volume car for starters. What's the payback?
The second thing I'd question would be whether there'd be any gain in performace as relating to a "sports car"?
Your run of the mill, factory stock engines were not that steller of a performer. They did make a lot of noise though when the throttle was opened.
Yes, I know some professionally prepared 409's were very, very quick.
The second thing I'd question would be whether there'd be any gain in performace as relating to a "sports car"?
Your run of the mill, factory stock engines were not that steller of a performer. They did make a lot of noise though when the throttle was opened.
Yes, I know some professionally prepared 409's were very, very quick.
04-25-2014, 10:42 AM
#48
Racer
04-25-2014, 11:16 AM
#49
Drifting
04-25-2014, 11:33 AM
#50
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Feb 2011
Location: Middletown Ohio
Posts: 2,892
Received 167 Likes
on
130 Posts
2016 C1 of Year Finalist
We like to give him grief about it.
The owner is a member of this forum, I hope he chimes in......
04-25-2014, 04:10 PM
#51
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Sep 2008
Location: Lake Minnetonka, Mn
Posts: 5,072
Received 1,728 Likes
on
810 Posts
2018 C1 of Year Finalist
IMHO, excessive engine weight wasn't the reason the 409 was not available in the 62, 63 and 64 corvette. The 409 weighs about the same as a 427 at around 650 lbs. Chevy had just come out with several variations of their new 327 and at a top rated 375 hp was just 5 hp less then the single four 409, which was rated at 380 hp. Maybe John Z could give us the definitive answer. I've always wondered about this....
The Cobras did all there winning with a light SB engine and never won an international event with a 427. As a practical matter, they never sponsored a Factory 427--period. Unlike its predictable 289 brethren, the 427 Cobra was a pig to drive.
04-25-2014, 04:15 PM
#52
Melting Slicks
04-25-2014, 10:55 PM
#53
Instructor
Hey guys I love the 409 discussion. I am putting one in my 64 and have a thread on it here. I'm not sure how to put the link up but tomorrow I will post some pics of the motor I'm just about to drop it in the car for mockup. I'd love to see some pics of 409's in vettes if any one has any.
04-26-2014, 12:06 AM
#54
Race Director
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: Mustang OK
Posts: 13,852
Received 3,772 Likes
on
1,674 Posts
2023 C1 of the Year Finalist - Modified
2015 C1 of the Year Finalist
And how about an all aluminum 409, built into a 509. This is one my machinist recently built for a customer. Should weigh close to the same as a SB.
The following 2 users liked this post by DZAUTO:
jerry gollnick (02-03-2017),
Rumblegutz (02-03-2017)
04-26-2014, 12:29 AM
#55
Race Director
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: Mustang OK
Posts: 13,852
Received 3,772 Likes
on
1,674 Posts
2023 C1 of the Year Finalist - Modified
2015 C1 of the Year Finalist
We have here what distresses me about some of the writer's knowledge (or better, LACK of knowledge).
Roger above posted a link to the history of Chevy big blocks ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Big-Block_engine ). When you go to the link, then scroll down to the Z11 section, DO NOT take the information as gospel, because some of it is totally incorrect! First, the writer states that the 427 Z11 engines were all aluminum. WRONG! The were cast iron just the same as any other 409 engine. Only the 3-piece intake was alum (this is well documented from Chevy records). What is NOT sufficiently documented is the actual number of Z11 cars that were built. Yes, it APPEARS that 50 whole Z11 engines were built, but it is NOT well documented that all 50 engines were installed in cars. Thus, the actual number of Z11 cars may be less than 50.
Oh ya, and the quoted stroke (3.95) is wrong---------------it was 3.65. The only other alum parts on those cars was the forward sheet metal/bumpers.
So, you can't always believe what you hear, and only half of what you see.
The bad thing about this is that when this kind of information is printed for all the world to see/read, and then when someone reads it, they take it as gospel and it just continues to perpetuate itself. I just hate it when these writers don't do their homework and get the facts straight.
Roger above posted a link to the history of Chevy big blocks ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Big-Block_engine ). When you go to the link, then scroll down to the Z11 section, DO NOT take the information as gospel, because some of it is totally incorrect! First, the writer states that the 427 Z11 engines were all aluminum. WRONG! The were cast iron just the same as any other 409 engine. Only the 3-piece intake was alum (this is well documented from Chevy records). What is NOT sufficiently documented is the actual number of Z11 cars that were built. Yes, it APPEARS that 50 whole Z11 engines were built, but it is NOT well documented that all 50 engines were installed in cars. Thus, the actual number of Z11 cars may be less than 50.
Oh ya, and the quoted stroke (3.95) is wrong---------------it was 3.65. The only other alum parts on those cars was the forward sheet metal/bumpers.
So, you can't always believe what you hear, and only half of what you see.
The bad thing about this is that when this kind of information is printed for all the world to see/read, and then when someone reads it, they take it as gospel and it just continues to perpetuate itself. I just hate it when these writers don't do their homework and get the facts straight.
04-26-2014, 09:06 AM
#56
Drifting
We have here what distresses me about some of the writer's knowledge (or better, LACK of knowledge).
Roger above posted a link to the history of Chevy big blocks ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Big-Block_engine ). When you go to the link, then scroll down to the Z11 section, DO NOT take the information as gospel, because some of it is totally incorrect! First, the writer states that the 427 Z11 engines were all aluminum. WRONG! The were cast iron just the same as any other 409 engine. Only the 3-piece intake was alum (this is well documented from Chevy records). What is NOT sufficiently documented is the actual number of Z11 cars that were built. Yes, it APPEARS that 50 whole Z11 engines were built, but it is NOT well documented that all 50 engines were installed in cars. Thus, the actual number of Z11 cars may be less than 50.
Oh ya, and the quoted stroke (3.95) is wrong---------------it was 3.65. The only other alum parts on those cars was the forward sheet metal/bumpers.
So, you can't always believe what you hear, and only half of what you see.
The bad thing about this is that when this kind of information is printed for all the world to see/read, and then when someone reads it, they take it as gospel and it just continues to perpetuate itself. I just hate it when these writers don't do their homework and get the facts straight.
Roger above posted a link to the history of Chevy big blocks ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Big-Block_engine ). When you go to the link, then scroll down to the Z11 section, DO NOT take the information as gospel, because some of it is totally incorrect! First, the writer states that the 427 Z11 engines were all aluminum. WRONG! The were cast iron just the same as any other 409 engine. Only the 3-piece intake was alum (this is well documented from Chevy records). What is NOT sufficiently documented is the actual number of Z11 cars that were built. Yes, it APPEARS that 50 whole Z11 engines were built, but it is NOT well documented that all 50 engines were installed in cars. Thus, the actual number of Z11 cars may be less than 50.
Oh ya, and the quoted stroke (3.95) is wrong---------------it was 3.65. The only other alum parts on those cars was the forward sheet metal/bumpers.
So, you can't always believe what you hear, and only half of what you see.
The bad thing about this is that when this kind of information is printed for all the world to see/read, and then when someone reads it, they take it as gospel and it just continues to perpetuate itself. I just hate it when these writers don't do their homework and get the facts straight.
Too many magazine writers today are just out of puberty and their research consists of reading what was already printed in other magazines.
Verne
04-26-2014, 09:16 AM
#57
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Feb 2011
Location: Middletown Ohio
Posts: 2,892
Received 167 Likes
on
130 Posts
2016 C1 of Year Finalist
Ken Kayers Big Block books.
Ken Kayser is in the process of writing a book (s) on Chevrolet big block engines. I'm not sure if it will include the "W" engines or begins with the 396 porcupine head big blocks.
But it should be interesting
But it should be interesting
04-26-2014, 01:19 PM
#58
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Sep 2008
Location: Lake Minnetonka, Mn
Posts: 5,072
Received 1,728 Likes
on
810 Posts
2018 C1 of Year Finalist
We have here what distresses me about some of the writer's knowledge (or better, LACK of knowledge).
Roger above posted a link to the history of Chevy big blocks ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Big-Block_engine ). When you go to the link, then scroll down to the Z11 section, DO NOT take the information as gospel, because some of it is totally incorrect! First, the writer states that the 427 Z11 engines were all aluminum. WRONG! The were cast iron just the same as any other 409 engine. Only the 3-piece intake was alum (this is well documented from Chevy records). What is NOT sufficiently documented is the actual number of Z11 cars that were built. Yes, it APPEARS that 50 whole Z11 engines were built, but it is NOT well documented that all 50 engines were installed in cars. Thus, the actual number of Z11 cars may be less than 50.
Oh ya, and the quoted stroke (3.95) is wrong---------------it was 3.65. The only other alum parts on those cars was the forward sheet metal/bumpers.
So, you can't always believe what you hear, and only half of what you see.
The bad thing about this is that when this kind of information is printed for all the world to see/read, and then when someone reads it, they take it as gospel and it just continues to perpetuate itself. I just hate it when these writers don't do their homework and get the facts straight.
Roger above posted a link to the history of Chevy big blocks ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Big-Block_engine ). When you go to the link, then scroll down to the Z11 section, DO NOT take the information as gospel, because some of it is totally incorrect! First, the writer states that the 427 Z11 engines were all aluminum. WRONG! The were cast iron just the same as any other 409 engine. Only the 3-piece intake was alum (this is well documented from Chevy records). What is NOT sufficiently documented is the actual number of Z11 cars that were built. Yes, it APPEARS that 50 whole Z11 engines were built, but it is NOT well documented that all 50 engines were installed in cars. Thus, the actual number of Z11 cars may be less than 50.
Oh ya, and the quoted stroke (3.95) is wrong---------------it was 3.65. The only other alum parts on those cars was the forward sheet metal/bumpers.
So, you can't always believe what you hear, and only half of what you see.
The bad thing about this is that when this kind of information is printed for all the world to see/read, and then when someone reads it, they take it as gospel and it just continues to perpetuate itself. I just hate it when these writers don't do their homework and get the facts straight.
The following users liked this post:
jerry gollnick (02-03-2017)