So i'm thinking about selling or trading my '66 el camino to get a '59, '60 Bel Air / Impala / Biscayne. I want to do a period correct hot rod / kustom. I was thinking about putting a 409 in it, what do you guys think? Also, I don't know too much about 409's, how much harder are they to build than a 350, how much harder are parts to come by? Any help or input would be great.
i know the 409 has alot of differences from the 348 . not sure if it a bored out 348 . cant remember that far back ! .... steve
Have a 60 2 DR SD, no engine right now, have a 400 or a 327 along with a 700R but don't know if I want to finish it. Had one in the sixties, only trouble with it was on the highway between two trucks! 409's are very expensive, and cost much more to rebuild than a 350, my pick is the 327, or the original, 283.
which motor to use depends on what you want the car to be when you're done...probably you'd be better off with a 327 for a late HAMB (63-64) era build. The 409 is a neat motor, but not very common back then and very expensive now. They came out in spring 1961 as far as I can tell.
squirrel is correct about 09's coming out in 61, but very late. There were 162 09's put into 1961 model Chevrolets. The W motors look cool and are almost art deco. But they cost a ton! They are not very efficient, will require a beefy front suspension, bigger radiator and would not have even been a consideration in July when gas was over $4. A 348 W motor with tri-power would be correct and possibly worth the expense. A 283, 327 or retro-appearing 350 would be so much easier, cheaper, more efficient and would certainly be correct for the period. And guess what? Most would have been just that. The W motors were real good a giving up and many were replaced by sbc's anyway. Now if you were building a 62-64 Biscayne with a stick and fenderwell headers...that would require an entire different thought process and the dual-quad 09 would be my vote.
The "W" motor purists can tell 348 / 409's apart visually but to most of us commoners they look the same. 348's can still be found for a semi-reasonable amount but 409's are high dollar. I vote with roadstar and bobwop: A 348 tri power would be "period correct"
Another tri-power 348 vote... And as stated, 61 was the first year for a 409... Here's a 61 SS 409 Convertible... RARE
Just retrieved my 348 from the machine shop. This is the second go round for this motor. The last rebuild lasted 25 years. I used pistons from Egge (cast) They treated me real well as I had to have them machined for full floater rods. About $400.00 per set. Stainless valves. Used a cam and accessories from Aubrey Bruneau. He's from Canada and was a big help. You can find him on the Internet. Not terribly expensive as long at your not trying to build a race motor. I had the 348, .060 over, 286 duration 512 lift cam, Edelbrock 4bbl, headers, TH350 and a stock 3.36 rear. Pulled about 15-16 mpg running 70 in the 58 Impala. New motor will have nearly the same setup but will be running the 3x2s and a 700R4 with a 3.70 rear. Hope to add a little mileage and a lot more snap. Build a 348 - 409 and you'll never be sorry. Gets lots more attention.
As a high school kid in the early to mid 60s who's father sold used cars, I remember 58-59-60-61 Chevrolets (actually 58 to 64) to be quite common and plentiful with 348s in them. Especially so in the more desirable and sought after hardtops and convertibles (my uncle's sleeper, dark blue, ex-cop car, two door sedan a notable exception). Although most were probably four barrel motors teamed up with the infamous Turboglide, a most undesirable "triple turbine" automatic quite resembling a dynaflow, (you found yourself using the grade retard position to try to make it "get off the line", I'm not sure it helped, but the motor sure screamed), it just wasn't that hard to find a 3X2 version, and often with a more desirable transmission. This point is brought home by the fact that by the mid 60s the cost had decreased to the point where not only could a lot of high school kids could afford them, a lot of them did, a case in point being the one I found for my best friend in 1965; a 348, three carburetor, three speed, 59 Impala two door hardtop to replace the 56 BelAir four door sedan that he managed to blow up the powerglide in (behind a 283 no less!) six times. I have to say W motors (at least the 348 version) were quite easily found "back in the day". Period correct? You bet your sweet bippy! Was it common to find a 409 swapped into a 59 or 60, even in the mid 60s? Probably not, but you can also bet just about everyone "in to cars" that had one of these cars then, wanted to do just that. Fast forward to today; these motors are still out there, and although, by belly****on small block and big block standards (the latter very much NOT common at the time making it not really period correct), harder to find and build, very distinctive, and desirable. As a matter of fact, I can't quite picture one of these cars as a custom or hot street car in the late 50s or early 60s without one.
i vote for the 409 if that is what you'd rather have....it only came out like 2 years after the car, suppose you are around in 1962 or something, you buy a 60 chevy or the like, 6 cylinder car and you go to the junkyard and get an 09...perfectly period correct...it all depends on the year you are trying to be period correct towards, and how exact you want to be.
I have a '60 Bel-Air two door post that's next in line to be built, right after the wife's '48 5W pickup. The '60 will be getting a bored and stroked 409 with a 5-speed. Granted, it won't be period correct but that's not what I'm aiming for. W motors have had a bad rap for years, and unjustifiably so. Just like ANY motor, built right they perform very well. And to underscore other comments made here, they ARE expensive to build. I can send you a few links to good info on W motors if you wish, just PM me.
Build a W engine!! Edelbrock now makes aluminum heads, intakes, and finned valve covers for them. Check out the January 2009 Hot Rod Deluxe page 72 to learn how to make a 348 a 434cid stroker! 348's are a little easier to find nowadays, I'm trying to pry one out of a local guy's hands (in an old fuel truck). It will be an interesting engine when the hood is up! Externally the 348 looks the same as a 409 except the dipstick is on the driver's side on a 348.
I've got several squirrelled away in my junk collection, Truck motors all. Both 348 and 409s. A lot of them ended up in the 1 ton and larger trucks + a lot of military used them. Just have to know where to look. A good source for parts and information on them is http://www.lamarwaldenautomotive.com/ look for the 348-409 catalog
Is it true that you had to get the SS package in the spring of 1961 to get a 409 in a 61 from the factory...sorta like having to get SS 396 package in a 66 Chevelle to get a 396? I believe the SS package and the 409 were introduced at the same time...spring of '61. A friends 57. He has added the "trips" since these were taken. Everybody loves this car. Me included. He doesn't try to BS people about it being an '09. I'm sure someone did it back in the day but it was not common. It's won't be an economy build. Unless you are hung up on originality, I'd look for a 348 to put in it. It will probably cost just as much to rebuild as an '09 but it should be cheaper and easier to find. We saw an extremely nice 60 2dr post car with a 348 4spd that really turned our crank last year. Body and interior was the stock bottom of the barrel stuff but as clean as a clap doctor. It had American 5 spokes and would have fit in perfectly at the Mighty Mo in 1964 where I hung out. My buddy who became a "Mo Rat" a few years later wanted that car real bad and he is a dyed in the wool Ford nut. We've gone to a lot of shows over the years and these 2 cars stand out in our memory banks because they are uncommon. If they ask you if it's a 348 or a 409...just give them a **** eatin' grin and say...maybe That's what we said when the street racing BS started flying on Fri and Sat. nights in 1964.
If I had the $$$, I'd do a W motor... But I don't, so I dropped a BBC in my 60 belair, it was fresh and available. Bolted right in using the 348 motor mounts. I added a 4 speed OD to make it a little more fun. I figured if I am not doing "period correct" I might as well make it fun. Nothing that can't be changed back either (if I hit the lotto). I have a few pics in my gallery.
I had a 58 Impala back in 61 had the 3-2 intake with Olds. J-2 carbs. Set up the dist. curve set, stock cam with .003" clearance at rockers and could rev to 6500 rpm. Had a 3 speed ****** with 6 cyl. gears lower ratio low gear and a 3:55 rear. I beat many GTO's and my buddy had a Buick Wildcat big engine that ran fender to fender never could beat each other.
You can still find a 348 for a decent price if you look around, ask around, etc. Who wouldn't want one Travel back in time to 1968....348's were "outdated" "unwanted", and ridiculed. I bought a rustfree 55 belair 2dr htp that a Army draftee hit a pole with while "on leave". It wrecked the fender/hood/grille & bent the frame. It had a fresh 348 tripower with NEW carbs! 3 speed hurst........for $75 !...because the owner was heading to Vietnam. I gave the body to my friend who hauled it home for me. I used the motor in my 56 htp and later sold the 348 to a friend who put it in his 60 convertible.. I sold the motor for $75. I just found a virgin 348 4bbl with stick setup at a swap this spring. I have no car for it, but I just wanted one again.. Do a 348..
Actually it was early 1961 the 409 option came out. A friend of mine ordered a 61 two door Biscayne with the high performance version of the 409. Another buddy had gone to his local dealer and asked if there were any new engines coming out from Chevrolet. He was ***ured there was not so he ordered a 348 hi perf with three deuces (the 350 hp version) and he was really pissed when the 409 was released a couple of months later. In 62 I was driving the former North Carolina 1960 super stock champion I bought off a used car lot. By that time it needed work so I thought I could convert it to a 409 by boring it out 1/8th in. NOT! Not only was the 409 bore larger than that but the crank was stroked also. The most I got was 369 c.i. after having it bored and balanced my Holman Moody in Charlotte. Oh, and I forgot to add an additional fact. Chevys at that time had a type of swing arm attached from the rear axle housing to the rear of the body. The high performance engines tended to fatigue that arm so Chevy started adding a second one on the other side of the center section. Even so I had to periodically put mine on the lift and retighten the bolts.
I was told the SS package could be had on any body style in 1961, as it was jsut a performance option, and that there actually was a 61 ss four door wagon built. Any truth to thisd??
isn't the first visual difference between 348/409 the dipstick location. 348 drivers side and 409 p***engers side.
The Jalopy Journal
