Return to those thrilling days of yesteryear...

[grumpy]

Its 1961 and I take my bone stock 61 409 to the drags on street tires. What are my et's.

again 62 for 380 and 409 hp on street tires'

once more in 63 for 340, 400, and 425 on street tires.

Remember this is the tires that came on the car. car broken in, fresh tune up, minor adjustments. in the year of the car. Let's say Impala, no air, other normal street trim.

I'm going somewhere with this, and I would like a feel for the info.

[fatride]

1961 Chevrolet Impala SS
Two door hardtop
409 CI
11.25 to 1 comp
Single four barrel
Four speed manual
With 3.36 gear
15.31@ 92.24 mph.
With 4.56 gear
14.02@ 98.14 mph.

[Quickshift409]

Grumpy

1963 Biscayne 409/425 with street tires, 13.80 at 104 MPH.
This is with a 4:56 gear.

QS409

[Fran Preve]

I watched a STOCK restored 1962 409/409 on street tires running mid 14's at a Muscle Car Showdown at Quaker City (Ohio) in 1986. This was not a restored car but one that was in exceptional condition, all stock, street tires. Curiously I've been reviewing some of my Hot Rod magazines from 1962-63 and from the 409 cars running at various tracks around the country mid to high 13's were predominent in "race" tune (headers/open exhaust and slicks), good one's low 13's, names anywhere from low 13's to mid 12's. If anyone has old issues, remember the 409's also ran in A and B stock.

The key to what you asked was "normal street trim, stock tires".
What gears?. Back in a minute.

[Fran Preve]

Go to the 348-409 home page (first page up), over on the right hand side, second item in, "articles", there you'll find magazine articles from back then with times and description of the cars.

Times are real close to Grumpy, with both sets of gears. The key here, and I'm assuming from your description CLOSED exhaust, is the STOCK tires. Narrow it further, when you say "stock tires" do you mean special soft compound tires (Atlas Bucron i.e.), or stock 8.00 x 14 blackwall rayons or nylons?. And specify the gear ratio. 3.36?, 3.70?, or nutso 4.56's?. Gears are a "torque booster", higher gear ratio's (numerically) add to the torque at the rear wheels, great at the track with tires that hook, but your looking at blowing off a stock normal street tire. So when you say, "what will it turn" a lot of things come into play.

[tripowerguy]

When I bought my 58 315HP in 58, I had 3:55 gears and a close ratio 3 speed trans. I took it down to a muffler shop and had him put cut outs on the exhausts just below the cast iron headers right were the crossover pipe was. I took it out to San Gabriel drag strip and turned 14.80's and 94 mph on the 7.50 bias ply tires that Chevrolet put on the car. I'm not sure of the brand. I had to feather foot it out of the hole and hated the vacuum throttle linkage becuse it wouldn't close the carbs fast enough. It wasn't long after that, that they made you put scatter shields on the bell housing. I tore the engine down and Nicholson balanced it and did the heads. I put it back together with Hedman headers which were somewhat like block huggers today with 2 dump tubes per side. With 4:56 gears and a set of 8.00 14 Good Year recaps that had been siped it ran 14.20's and 100 mph the first time out. I finally got in the 13.90's and best of 102 mph at Pomona. :cool: Roy

[SS425HP]

Roy, you just reminded me!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cut outs. We used 3" pipe nipples, about 6" long. Welded them onto exhaust pipe right where the bend was back to the muffler. Screw on caps. We were high tech, buddy. Top of the line! Now, if you were really a bad a**, you put 3 1/2" nipples on. That was our " headers ". When I bought my 63 409, I bought actual headers, fender well type. A big step up. They sure worked good, though, compared to the old style.
Another story. Friend had a 58 Impala HT, with the 280 in it. Raced it a lot. Won some. Heard about Ether. Good stuff. POWER. He went to a truck stop and bought about a dozen ether pellets. The kind used to start deisel trucks in cold weather. Went to the track, and when he was sure no one was looking, slipped them into the gas tank. Now, he was gonna win big. Lots of power with this ether in the tank. Well, the car QUIT at half track. Quit a dozen times on the way home, too. He threw the intact pellets in the tank. Didn't open them and pour the ether in. The pellets got sucked onto the pick up, and shut the fuel off! He had to remove the tank to get them out. They don't dissolve. And, I'm sure that if he had opened them, the ether would have evaporated before doing any good at all, if ether would help at all. Don't really think it would. Probably blow it up from detonation. So, maybe he got lucky. Sure was funny, though, looking back on it!:D We weren't very good chemists.

Fred

[tripowerguy]

The thing that is frustrating is that the 58 Bel Air that I have now is a 30 over 348 with 9 1/2 compression and had a Comp Cam 268h now a Crane solid lifter. With the Comp Cam the best I could do is about the same as I did with a bone stock 315 Biscayne. I'm running great headers, a killer exhaust system and 8 inch wide radial tires. Is it the lack of compression, poor gasoline or what? Also I forgot to mention that I have ported the heads and have Comp dual springs. I know that in the old days it was more fun because there was tons of 57 270's, 348's and hotrods running on the street. You could get a street race any night of the week at Bob's Big Boy in Glendale or at the Taco stand in Azusa. It seemed like there was a lot of hot cars out there. The stockers didn't stand a chance when they came up against good strip racer. I beat a C gaser on the Glendale Freeway one night and he didn't believe that I was stock. I saw him at Pomona a couple of weeks later and he was pulling better et's than me with slicks, so I didn't race him at the strip. Ah it is great to wax nostalgic.:) Roy

[SS425HP]

this picture was on a roll of film I just had developed. Was probably taken at a Good Guys at Indy. Have no idea, really. Looks pretty good. Any ideas whos car this is???????????

Fred

[SS425HP]

uh oh. Better try this again

[walkerheaders]

i sure do enjoy the pictures and stories you guys tell. gosh, what a fine 62. i took the picture and enlarged it trying to be clever and read the guys name on the window. it blew up into a blurrr. since you scanned the original you may be able to do just that. no matter, keep 'em coming. thanx

[grumpy]

Ok I said I was going somewhere with this.

And, you ask a lot of good questions about "stock trim and tires and gears". But the consesus seems to be high 13's t0 low 15's in "street trim".

I have a 1999 Camaro SS Z-28, no horsepower mods except an optional exhaust system that was a factory option. I haven't dragged in 30 years and drove it 13.6 on the tires it came with without checking or adjusting air pressures.

The car has PS, PB, PW, T tops leathers, AC, weighs in at 3600 lbs scale weight with me in it. Rear wheel dyno at 311 HP. Doesn't overheat in traffic, pleasure on a long trip.

Some with a little tweaking have gotten it down to 13.4 high 12's with headers and tires.

And the automatics (perish forbid) are faster than the 6-speeds.

So the question is:

Are we better or worse off now with our "muscle cars"?

[fatride]

Grump, no question about it, with todays computor tech, engineers can run an engine in real time without ever building it! They can make changes to cylinder head port sizes quench area combustion chamber shape etc. while the engine is in a simulated run. I wonder if the 348/409 would have ever made it off the drawling board today! The problem I see is that todays engines and cars have no soul. Body styles and engines are designed on the computor. When our cars were made a group of idea men would sit around and hash out shapes and trim pieces all coming from inside their head not from a computor. Computor designed cars may be slick but when I look at the cars from 51 to around 72 I can get a chubby! There is a reason todays cars are referred too as jelly bean cars. Good question!
:cheers

[tripowerguy]

Grumpy everything you say is true but would I rather have your Camaro or my 58, I'll take my 58. Can you pull in to a drive-in and get out and have a bunch of people come over and want you to lift the hood? I absolutely agree that with computors, fuel injection and new engine designs that we can have a car that gets 20 mpg and still can get 100 mph in the 1/4. The times with these old cars were with tires that were not even remotely made for traction. My cousin had a 59 that had a 305hp in 1963 that ran H stock and he was able to run slicks then and he was able to get 13.03 et with 101mph. He would run it up to 5000 and sidestep the clutch :eek: Not only were these cars fast for their time but the times were fun then. Mainly because it was all heads up racing and everyone was amatuer from AA fuel to E stock. In 1965 NHRA paid the top eliminator $1000 at the nationals. Also there was 5 drag strips within 50 miles of my house. These old cars remind us of how good it can be without government regs and how much fun life can be if someone isn't trying to make a fortune at it like Wally Parks did with NHRA. Jim Brissette lived next door to my mother and father-in-law , he won B fuel dragster at the Nationals in 1965, he got a Craftsman tool box and $500. He laid carpet during the week and he could race every weekend with out a Kenworth and 6 paid employees. He had a pickup and a 2 wheel trailer for his rail. :) Roy

[grumpy]

Now let's stir the pot some more.

If a 425-409 does the 1\4 at 104 MPH
and
my 99 Camaro does the 1/4 at 104 MPH

and we weigh approximately the same

do we have the same horsepower???

[fatride]

MPH is a real indicator of HP for sure! But I wonder is aerodynamics plays into this?? It takes more HP to push a barn door through the air than it does a needle! All thing considered I would say same HP. :scratch

[SS425HP]

To me, the 409 car is letting loose more HPs. Has way more wind resistance, and giving the same MPH. Your late Camaro is a slick car compared to our boats.

Fred

[Fran Preve]

Apples and oranges: To turn 104 with that 409 it's got stiff really undriveable gears, an open exharst and is basically set up to race more than drive on the street. A STREET 409, well turned, even with cheater slicks would be doing good to do a 14 flat. That Camaro will blow it's doors off, have basically bolt on parts, be FULLY street drivable, have AIR CONDITIONING, which is nice, plus a load of power accessories, and if it only gets 20 mpg I sugeest shifting into overdrive, my 1995 got 25+ at a steady 70 mph, that 409 had better have 3.70's or lower (numerical) if it wants to cruise at 70 +, and then it would be LUCKY to get 10 mpg. If it was running in the 13's it had 4.56's, and the engine was turning about 3700 RPM at 70 (4.56x27" tire diameter). The first time I rode in an '09 with 56's the guy was cruising and I asked him when he was going to shift, he said it was in 4th!).

Rather pull in to drive in with 1958 or new car, well yes, in the summer way cool. But it's not a car I would drive every day, or in the rain, or heaven forbid in the SNOW!. Those cars are for keeping spiffed up, driving in nice weather on summer evenings. The new car does everything well, but is something anyone can buy, and has absolutely NO "panasche".

Now the thing to do is, put disc brakes and a new suspension under that '63. Put on a 605 steering box, duel master cylinder, then drop in a 383 with TPI, 700r4, add on air, 3.55's in the back, 235x60x15's front, 255x60's rear and you got the best of both worlds, probably run high 13's to boot!.

I'm remembering constant flats, skinny bias ply tires, will it stop brakes, changing the plugs on race day, replacing the points at 10,000 miles, and body's that rusted out in 5 years up here in the north. Air conditioning?, rare, cost a LOT back then!, that's why it's rare to find a car from back then with it today.

It's an endless discussion. Given the choice of spending $10,000 for a "toy" or $10,000 for a decent (and that's all it would be is decent) W block Chevy, the old car makes a lot of sense.

As far as some of the times claimed by guys here, let's just say I just reviewed Hot Rod Magazine from 1960 thru 1963, amazing how many of you remember cars that would win Stock Eliminator at half the track in the country, driven by you or a buddy. Unless your "buddy' had a name like Nicolsen, or Sanders, or Strickler.

All of which misses the point, other than the Camaro/Firebird, what car has Chevy made in the last 10 years that would run in the 14's, let alone the 13's?. Take away those cars and let's go back 25 years!. Those "thrilling years" lasted from maybe 1960 to 1972. And that's the shame.

[fatride]

I thought my 60 Impala was pretty quick at 14.6 et @ 92 mph untill I read that in the late 50s and early 60s they were tuning in time slips of mid 13s?? :confused:

[tripowerguy]

This is from August 12, 1961 Drag News. Fontana Ca, Super Stock, Prince-Nicholson 14.02 102.78mph. Pomona Super Stock, Hayden Proffit, Pontiac, 13.14et 111.11 mph. Atco, New Jersey T. Lacotta Chev. 14.72 et 94.04 mph. Cordova, Ill. SS, H. Andregg Chev. 14.85 et 95.23mph. These are copied out of the magazine Drag News that used to be the best source for drag racing data back then. I agree with Fran that driving one of the early cars every day would not make sense unless you didn't drive very far. When I retired from the Fire Dept. I got a job that was 30 miles away, there was no way I could afford the gas unless I bought a 4 cyl. car. As I stated earlier, without making the car strickly for drag racing you didn't win if there was any real competion out there. That would mean that you compromised your every day driving to accomodate you racing. I would like to put a Richmond 5 speed in my 58 along with a 454 crank and better heads. I already have air conditioning. I could do that for less money than a new Comaro but that would have to be cash money not payments over 5 years. I think that we could all modify our X framed cars to be more efficient and therefore a better driver. Money is always the controlling factor.:bang Roy

[grumpy]

Lets not get away from the premis (sp?)

Street car not race car

Street car in street trim. Your daily driver. Mine was a 340HP 409. I street raced it. and track raced it for fun. Drove it to the track. Drove it home.

Yours might have been a 425-409. But it WAS YOUR STREET RIDE. Might have been your only car. Mine was.

Not talking nostalglia (sp?) value. Not talking drive in value of old car today (how old are the people in the drive in?).

Comparing a 63 car in 63 with a 99 car in 99.

Which "muscle car" are we better off with?

Which has more HP?

I'm not taking sides here. I owned both.

Just some snowed in day discussion.

[MK IISS]

Not street stock but NHRA legal stock. A comparison between a 409 and a Z-11 427. Two different cars but prepared by the same people and driven by the same driver, Dave Strickler, in the same year.

A/S winner at the '63 Winter Nationals-'62 409 12.38 @ 115.68

A/FX winner at the '63 Nationals '63 427 12.17 @ 118.11

It would be nice to see a street stock comparison between a '63 409/425 and a Z-11 427 but I don't think there is one we can refer to.

Richard

[MK IISS]

Jim: Sorry, I too got of your original premis. I was typing the same time you were only much slower. Ignore my post.

Richard

[grumpy]

Sorry, can't ignore good information like that.

[64ss409]

Jim
I got these timing slips out of my console.

The car is a 340hp, was my daily driver, raced on Sunday, but not street tires. 4:11 gears in the summer, back to the 3:36's for the rest of the year. I drove it to the track, opened the headers and put on the 7 inch grooved slicks. Street tires would have been a little slower.

Ron

[MK IISS]

1963 CAR LIFE road test

1963 SS 409/340 p.glide 3.36 gear 4120# Test Weight
15.2/90mph top speed: 124mph @ 5400



1967 CAR LIFE road test

1967 SS 427/385 3-spd Hydro 3.07 gear 4280# Test Weight
15.75/86.5mph top speed: 125mph @ 5200

taken from a Brooklands book: CHEVROLET IMPALA AND SS 1958-1971 ISBN 1 870642 287

Richard

[Fran Preve]

Fatride:ROTFLMAO!. What Richard said, a 1962 409, driven by arguably the best driver in the country, set up by arguably the best 409 man in the country (Jigg's Jenkins), turned a best of 12.38 in 1963, which is only 2 tenths slower than their Z-11 (?). At my track, going into 1963 or best (who wasa GOOD!) could run high 12's, with a towed to the track 1962 Biscayne. Anyway, it was fun then and it's fun now, that never changes.

[grumpy]

They weighed that much???:

[grumpy]

Note the plate that I got at random. At the time it had 3x2 bbl 4 spped 409

6W 4409

[dq409]

Fran, With my fat butt in my `62 it weighs in at just under 4000 lbs.
I drive it on the street and with dot stickies.

Even with the problems I had last year it turned low 13`s.

Now that I have figured out what was going on this year I should be into the 12`s no problem !

A `62 Impala is more of a big brick then the wedge of that Camaro.

I`d say MORE HP !!

But i would agree on the more streetability of the Camaro.
But like the others have stated,,,,,, which one will draw the crowd at the drive-in?,,,,dq

[MK IISS]

Jim:

I'm not positive but I think test weight includes all their test equipment and driver and/or passenger. One picture shows two people in the car.

Richard

[grumpy]

and their suit cases and their toolboxes and.....

[Quickshift409]

These are my thoughts on the 63 in 63 and 99 in 99. I do believe there were a lot more fast cars on the street in 63 than in 99. I could name 5 or 6 friends who owned factory cars in 63 that would turn in the 14, 15, and even 13 second bracket. You would be hard pressed to find factory cars in 99 that run that well. Also if you compare dollars per horsepower I think it was cheaper in the 60's. There is no doubt you can't beat technology, but it is expensive. After all. airplanes are faster now days.

QS409

[tripowerguy]

Grumpy I appologize for not staying with the subject in my earlier posts. My 64 409 bone stock, no cut outs, through the mufflers turned 14.63 et with 96 mph. It was a 340hp and was my daily driver. And I would take it any day over a 99 Camaro if they were in new condition. It had more leg room, more passenger room and more trunk room. It didn't have the brakes, fuel injection or a computor but that is all technology that wasn't available then. In 1955 when we moved to California we came across the southwest without air conditioning. Today if someone told me I had to do that I would tell him he was crazy. Are we better off today, no, because we don't have as many choices in our power options for our cars and if we did we couldn't afford it.:) Roy

[grumpy]

$3600 in 1963 for a 425-409 SS Impala is about $19,800 in 1999 which would have purchased a Z-28 Camaro capable of 13.6 at about 100 MPH. So I have to disagree, the cost is about the same.

So I have to say $$$ is a push.

I will agree about the options. Then you were in RPO heaven and could "BUILD" a car the way you wanted it. Really BUILD it.

Options availability goes to yesteryear.

Tuneability is another thing. I can plug in a "thingy" and race tune the Camaro, race it, replug, detune it and drive it home.

Ability to tune has to go to today.

[Fran Preve]

One word......RWD. Today's cars are all FWD, and therein lies the rub. If a new Impala goes 15 flat with a cat back exhaust and air intake, what would it do with rear wheel drive?. Take that 3.8 blower motor, diddle a LITTLE, and a RWD'er would got bottom 14's easily. And still ahve all the benefits of today's technology. In 2002 you had NO choices if you wanted a RWD Chevy, Camaro, Corvette, or pick up truck/SUV. I made my choice, for that $19,000 I bought a Blazer 2 door Xtreme (in school bus yelleo). I dropped it another 2 inches (as low as you can go without scrapping the spoiler), added 15x7 &15x8 Torque Thrust D's, and have a RWD 2 door that's basically shape looking, BUT SLOW!. No engine options, and you wouldn't want to TRY souping it up with engine mods!.

Todays cars are too complex to "soup up", just look in the engine compartment!. Imagine buying by ORDER a 1964/64 Malibu with a 300hp 327 and 4 speed new. Want to soup it up?. EASY!, and cheap!. Now imagine it would ONLY be a 4 door sedan!, like today. NOT!. If you want a 2 door Chevy correct me if I'm wrong, but as a passenger car it's a Monte Carlo, or nothing.

Kids today vs us back then. We had gear heads who bought every kind of car, Ford, Chevy, Mopar, full size, mid size, a different one every couple of years. Today they have ????. ZERO!. I'll be going out on amateur night most every week this summer, racing with kids, and older guys getting their "fix" with all sorts of different cars. Back then cars mattered to us in our late teen's early twenties, all kids were into cars to some degree. Kids today don't care nearly as much, and that's just the way it is, sad, sad, sad, but true.

[Bungy]

Jim, What plug in "thingy" are you talking about? Between all the newer fuel injected, computerized cars I've owned or delt with and the older non-computerized cars I've messed with. The older ones are far easier to "tune"
Also, What percentage of your income in 63 could buy a 409 Impala and what percentage of your income in 99 could buy a 99 Camaro. (based on average incomes) I'd guess the 99 percentage would be alot higher.

[grumpy]

Fran,

No offense, but you gotta get out more.

The Import Drag scene is thriving. Bolt on mods are a huge business. Computer tuning is also big business.

My son has an Extreme also (By the way want to sell the stock wheels, need them for for spare race tires ). Plenty of bolt ons available, headers, rockers, cams, exhausts, suspensions, brakes, electronics, etc.

There are several shops around here that drop in small block chevys into S10s on a regular basis.

If you got the six cyl, you can add the 4.11 rear, and the truck would fly.

I really can't agree with you on this one.

Unfortunately, it the import scene now for them where it was the domestics scene for us. But who is to blame for that. Didn't Chevy decide to place its emphasis on trucks???

[Fran Preve]

Jim: yeah, the "turner' scene is growing, but it depends a lot where you are, down south, CA, HUGE, but around here is not so large. I can understand kids tossing a LOT of money on their Honda's just to get them to run in the 15's. Yes, I know some go a lot quicker, but mostly the "tuner" scene is big rims, spoilers and ground effects, "boom' boxes, etc and chassis but not as much engine mods. A friend of mine is involed in the scene in Las Vegas and calls me an ol' fogy.

As far as modifying my V-6, one of the magazines responded to a guy asking what to do, he was refered to an recent article in another mag about that, they did much of what you said and picked it up to 280 hp. Please, if your going to pull a Blazer Xtreme motor all apart and do this your a FAR better man than I will EVER be!. First of all it's a new car, I'd have to wait until I get 36,000 on it, and second it's a new car, taking it apart isn't the problem, it's getting it all back together that's the problem!, and running right!.

As far as a V-8 is concerned, I've seen it done on a new one, but it was stripped of half the smog goop, dropping a V-8 in an S-10 is a piece of cake (relatively) but when I added up all the parts needed to do it right I came up with a grand. Which isn't bad, but that's without doing the air over which putting a serpentine belt set up on it.

If anyone reading this post (or Jim's), please, open the hood of a new Blazer or S-10 truck and tell me, "ya LETS!", or "feggedaboutit". That goes for a Camaro with an LS-1 motor (or Lt-1). Just a cam change and headers, not fun at all.

Jim I'd suggest a carb spacer, 180 thermostat, free flowing air intake and 3" cat back exhaust and then the 4.10's (Xtremes come with 3.42's and posi). With that you might get into the 14's. Open the motor, change the cam and rockers, maybe another 2 tenths. Stick with the easy bolt ons.

[grumpy]

Fran,

I hate to say this,

but we are in to road racing,

We go to Summit Point, Virginia International Raceway, Carolina Motorsportspark, Beaverun (think that's probably closest to you).

Truck power is not the problem right now. It won't stop. That's why we need more stock wheels, so we can get some bigger front brakes in there.

But I am stealing my own thread here.

SLP will provide and install street legal parts for the extreme and keep it under warrantee. They are the ones who did the tier one conversion of the Camaro to SS tirm.

[JIMS409]

Just to chime in with da' Grump here on this one... My wife's '02 Z-28 convertible gets more looks and thumbs-up than you can imagine (from all age groups).

In fact, when we park it to walk through a car show it's like a magnet! The '63 gets pretty much the same attention from...Old duffer's like some of us.

AND...it romp's like hell! Last production LS1 for Camaro and has (small block) LS-6 block, intake & exhaust manifolds. Has the A-4 tranny and 3:23 Zexel-Torsen ASR. I have always said that nothing sounds as good as an '09 with DQ's or a Goat with 3-ducks. Now I must add that that aluminum small block with sequential FI and K&N may even go to the "top."

Took Doug Marion for a "top-down" ride last summer and he said "wow" first "wild" ride in a LS-1 Camaro.:eek:

(Most) 5.0 tang's respect it and leave it alone but on the odd occaision that I drive it, well let's say...it can be a blast!

Bottom line...this thing is capable of 13's out of the box and voila' she has her toy and I have mine. (Still love my 4-spd.) ;)