Now I always made a big deal about 409's and their impact back when they came out, but literally every old rodder I talk to gets a look of disgust whenever I mention a 409. They always prefer a small block in a tri-five, or refer to 409's as just being to heavy. So whats the deal? How did you guys see these mills back in the early '60s? -Dean
I think , unless seriously reworked , the factory power doesn't make up for the mass.............hence boat anchor.
They can make up for thier weight... In 63 w 2 4bbls they made 425 horse/425 ft. lbs. although I bet most guys couldn't afford a Z-11 motor in their hot rod when they were new, and when they weren't new there was better newer stuff.
Middle child, between the small block and big block. They got a bad rap in late '61-'62 because the blocks were thin and would scatter. They later went to a new foundry and were high-nickel content and more durable. They're a lot heavier than a small block, but I believe they're lighter than the later big blocks. They also have a very odd design, with a flat head and the combustion chamber in the block--with a deck that is NOT 90-degrees to the piston bore. I think a lot of people hold that against them, too. But they were rated at 425hp, and that's not the ZL1, that's what anyone could buy. Built right, they're great engines. And yeah, nothing looks like them! Plus, nobody ever wrote a song about a small block Chevy. Mine is being built to 482cid, and will have a solid roller cam and better intake and ignition than available then. Brad
I remember guys ordering new Chevys with 409's pulling the motor using it in a race car and putting a small block in the new car
I met a guy a few yrs back who had a 409/5-speed in a silver deuce coupe. Flat out ripped. I mean it really got the good shit on
I had a distant relative tell me once that his 409 64 (or maybe it was a 65) impala easily held the 66 396 66 impala owned by his brother way back in second place. I don't see any reason he would lie but the opposing side wasn't there to defend. They are cool to look at but unsure of what the reality is stacking up against the more modern bb's Rocky
The reality is that the Rat is a much superior motor. The 348-409 was kind of like the early 352-390 Fords....heavy in relation to power output. Remember though, these motors were both corporation's foray into big blocks. But nobody would deny that a W Block would make a cool rod motor with plenty of power.
Yes, and yes. But nevermind that shit. '09's are bad-ass. Are you building an LSR contender? Super Stocker? Then it's a bad choice. The combustion chamber and geometry suck, yes, but the heads flow decent, and they have good displacement. Imagine it's 1964, and the junkyard is all out of Hemi's, and Pontiac's. What's your next choice for the baddest hot rod mill you can score?
Rode in a guy's 32 with a 409, I drove his Champ Dirt car a few times back in the day, I swear my Flathead has more shit than his 409
A friend of mine had a '62 Impala with one of Curt Harveys stroker kits in it. Thing made 500 horsepower and 520 ft/lbs of torque. On pump gas. First time he romped on it, the car twisted like a pretzel. That thing was a real monster. Besides, it just looked bitchin'. Mike
The 409 was quite the engine at the dragstrip in 62 and 63 with Don Nicholson and was an evolution from the 348's. But they both evolved from truck engines and where noted for their torque. But 348's and 409's where respected as performance engines untill chrysler and ford came out with the 426 and and 427 engines then GM had to do the a version of the 409 punched out to 427 to compete. The BBC was born after that to keep the pace with chrysler and ford. Yet they are still a unique motor simply by the look of the heads. I saw a few rods back then with 348 tri power engines that looked good and ran dam well. You build them right they won't be a boat anchor and have a unique look like a hemi.
you are right in 62 and 63 09,s were the engine to beat ! you can keep your hemi and big block ford and chevy if you are looking for a cool looking engine that will run go 409
I think they're pretty neat engines. With big bore and short stroke, they had a lot of potential. I think their main problem was pistons that weighed a ton. Not good for rpm's. With light weight Ross pistons, modern cam and modern engine technology, they can run pretty well. Will they out run a big inch small block, big block or most any other modern engine? Probably not, but the modern engines don't look like this either.
It may be a bit easier today to throw stones at the 409 but in their day no one was claiming they were a boat anchor. You have to put it a bit in perspective since they were running against the 406s and 390 HiPos and 413 and 426 wedge cars and those guys were not dusting them off. When Ronnie Sox choose his car for 1963 you will notice he did not choose a 327 in his Impalas for him and Ole Mr Wilson, he choose the 427 Z-11 which was a rewoked 409, and if you think that car was a boat anchor then I am not sure we will ever see eye to eye. There is no question that the Mark IV BBC became a better powerplant but in its day the 409s were pretty quick. I know I ran a few with the 426 wedge I had and believe me when I later bought a 63 Impala SS the first thing I looked for was a 409 so I could replace the 327. When they were built and tuned they did not embarass themselves.-Jim
My Dad ran this one in JR Fuel it ran very good and it held its own against some BBC motors but when they did update it was straight to a 426 Hemi. But this 09' car will forever be my favorite of all his cars!
Unless you're going to race your car and performance to weight is critical, I would definitely run a 409. It's good to see something unique out there, and the few guys I do know that run the "W" engines really like 'em.
Heres one We saw at the Hot Rod Reunion this year. With the stuff available today Boat Anchor???? NOT. This car was WAAY BAD ASS!!!! Ran high 9s to boot. FEDER
Reading all these posts it's very easy to tell who never drove a 348-409 when new. or raced against one for that matter. there wasn't a ford built that compete till 64 and the thunderbolts. the mopar 413's and 426 wedge did good at the track but never ran strong thru the mufflers till 63-64 and the Hemi's with 13 1/2 compression would run 12's at the track and 14's on the street. Trust me on this one I was a dyed in the wool Ford man till I broke down and put a Chev motor in my 56 ford and I've never looked back
We (Shaker Engineering , Bay City ,Mi) held the national record in B/S with a 380 hp 409 in '63/'64. The 380 hp version was exactly like the 425 hp engine except it ran a single 4 bbl instead of dual quads. We were at Detroit Dragway one day when the GTO first came out. Ace Wilson's Royal Pontiac had a race preped GTO that was being used as a demonstration car around the country to introduce the new muscle car. Before elininations started they were going to make an exibition pass with the GTO to show the fans what was going to be available shortly on the showroom floor. We were first in line for B/S eliminations and when they were hyping the GTO over the microphone as it was staging for the exibition run our driver (who had balls the size of basketballs) fired up the Impala and shot up to the line and staged beside the GTO. The crowd went wild as the anouncer was just telling everyone that the Goat was to be competeing in B/S the next season. Before they could get the chevy backed out of the lights and back to the staging lanes the starter hit the button and started the tree. Our driver let the Goat leave first and pulled along side in first gear. Second and third put daylight between them and at the win light we had them by at least 2-3 lengths. The anouncer, realizing they had just done a no-no quickly regained his composure and said over the mike that the new car had some teething problems but he was sure that over the winter Milt Shornak (sp), (Royal's main drag prep guy) would find the means to humble the' 09. Never happened although the GTO did turn out to be a worthy 1/4 miler Later, we found out that the exibition car had a 421 full preped engine and not the 389 that the fender lettering announced. Those who were not there during those exciting days of the emergence of the muscle car will never know what they missed. The old timers remember what it was like along Woodward almost every night during those days. It was a blast. Frank
A high school hot rod buddy of mine called me at college ~1978, he says "I just bought a '63 chevy with a 409!" I went home a few weeks later and ran out to his farm to see the new toy .... yup, it was in a grain truck
Dig through a pile of '62-'63 Hot Rod magazines covering the major drag events, then come back and ask if they were boat anchors. Not able to keep up with the big block engines that followed them? Maybe so.....but then, how's a flathead compare to overheads?
I have a 409 in my deuce puched out to 472 CI, used Curt Harveys 454 crank and 454 rods topped off with an 871 blower. The motor is not a boat anchor, whether you are talking stock or not. If you want a belly button motor, well you know what you have to build. However; you cannot beat the price of a S.B. Chebby for horse power to $'s.... In '62, what ruled the streets, just maybe the Impala SS with a 409 backed by a 4 gear !!!!
You need to look at them in the proper perspective; by todays standards, they are expensive, sort of an odd design, and in basic form do not have the return for value that a newer engine does, but in their day, they were right at the top of the heap. There was nothing as impressive to me, as seeing that front end come up almost to a wheelie (in a street driven daily driver), and the chassis twist to the right, and lift the left front tire off; that was the signature of the 409s, at least it was in my view.
The Jalopy Journal
