Intake Manifold

[LongIsland63SS409]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2461747770&category=34202

Have some questions on the Ebay intake.

Will the aluminum intake manifold match up correctly with my 409 340HP heads without modification?

Considering it's condition with the pitting and bolt hole crack, what can I expect (ballpark) to have it fixed up?

Will the intake offer anymore performance than the stock cast iron manifold now?

I will have to use an adapter plate to continue using my Rochester 4GC. How well do the adapter plates work?

Thanks,
Mike

[SteveD409]

It will require modification to mount on 340 horse heads and then the ports will not match in size, so...power gain?

SteveD

[SSpev]

That intake has small ports just like 348s and lo hp 09s. there shouldn't be a problem bolting it on a 340 09. The pits around the water ports can be fixed with jb weld and filed smooth. The crack is an easy weld. You could probable fix it with JB too. You just can't over torque it. That's most likely how it got cracked. It is good enough and rare enough, I expect it to go high.

Hey SteveD, where in Indiana?

[SSpev]

Auh.. I think you would need a carb plate for the 4gc. HP gain??? The plate would add a little. Intake...bigger runners??? a little more HP. Runner shape... poor. Not good for HP.I dought you will fill the gain. I think I would just use the iron with a spacer. My 2 cents.

[SteveD409]

Sorry, my bad, I looked at it and saw a 380 horse intake. My apologies. This will be fun to watch and see what it goes for.

SteveD

[Fran Preve]

Longisland: Thanks a LOT!. An hour and a half searching thru FIFTY pages of intake & fuel systems on EBAY!. Actually, THNKS A LOT!. Now that I've retired and have nothing to do I can see my new "business" will be selling on Ebay!. Likes already been said, skip the intake and go with your stock one with a 1/2 inch spacer. That said, what's with the $1700 PLUS! bids on Mickey cross rams, not one but TWO?. Sound fishy, I see them regularly at flea markets for $300-400. 2x4 intake bid to $252 and a day to go (reserve not met?)?. I got a better one!. Fuel pumps, rebuilt, 348 HP/409 1962, from $49 to $99!. I got NINE still in boxes, some with AC, what rae THEY worth!. Frankly if they're selling some of the items I saw for the prics I saw I gotta get INTO this!. Seriously, over a hour and a half searching thru this site for 50 pages, not much W stuff though. TWO FREAKIN' GRAND FOR A MICKEY CROSS RAM!.

[SteveD409]

Fran--Just go to the top of the page and click where it says"search"---type in (348,409) be sure to include the (--) and click on search--then you will only get the items for 409s and 348s (plus some other junk for 348 Ferraris).

SteveD

[Fran Preve]

Steve : THANK YOU!, that is a big help!. Going thru 50 pages was very time comsuming. I'm an Ebay newbie but plan to get involved selling big time in the near future.

[wrench]

I've been on Ebay since nearly the start. I remember searching for 409 and only getting three-four hits. Now everybody includes it (409) in the title just for the eye exposure. One guy sells Ford Parking Only signs with 409 in his title! My exclude string is maxed out!

As for parts, I was in the storeroom today, moving things around making more shelf space, tossing stuff (the wife and I share this area). I really need to sell some 409 outright or on ebay to finance my 62 restoration.

I realize most guys looking for parts want to find a bargain, but as a seller, I'm only trying to maximize my dollar investment. I'm not trying to gouge anyone. That's why an auction is the better way to sell it. Let the buyers market drive the price.

I've even bought on ebay. I finally got my right side 409 HP exhaust manifold there and a very nice chrome dual four air cleaner that's at least a 9 on a scale of 10. If there's something you need to complete a car or something you want then simply bid the most you'd pay for it. If someone else wants to bid wildly, then that's his perogative. I recently was in a bidding war for a computer part that got a bit out of hand. We were bidding against each other so fast that I didn't even notice it got to be nearly twice as much for it (used at that!) than a new one cost. I stopped bidding, let the other guy win it, then did a Buy it Now for a NEW one just a few lines down the page. Saved myself $40
and got new to boot.

Cool heads are the only way to handle auctions. I don't think I could handle a guy pushing me to bid like they do at Barrett's.

My last swap meet setup was a disaster. Hauled it all out there and only sold $200 worth of stuff. I really hate haggling. One dude was digging thru a box looking for old Hurst shifter stuff that was given to me by a friend. He gathered up everything he wanted and I priced it at $30. He paid me and promptly said, "I'd have given $50 for it!". I then told him I would have just given to him free if he only asked. He wanted to be the 'winner' I suppose. Another guy kept trying to shove a twenty into my hand for a pair of NOS 63 hood and trunk emblems and would not put them down after I declined his offer. I finally got them from him and threw (literally) into the back of the truck and closed the tailgate and shell cover. He went away mad. He also came back the next morning and gave me the $100 I was asking for the pair. NOS is the best when you can get it. He didn't want repops.

Time to go eat my wife famous enchiladas! The onions are making my eyes water!

[SteveD409]

Fran-Yeah, with my phone line modem it would take all day to run 50 pages!!:mad:

SteveD

[Fran Preve]

Wrench: I hear what your saying, I do a large flea market at Dunkirk every year in May and I'm trying, like you to unload stuff I don't use (now more than ever!). What you sell and how much you get sometimes doesn't make any sense. For the last 3/4 years I've been trying to get rid of my W stuff, everything for $2000. Put a poster up, very few people asking about them. Now I find that maybe I was asking WAY to little!. I started going through Hemmings, asking around, listed everything I had, put prices next to each item added it up, close to $4000!. So I reduced the prices and refigured $3000!. So I REALLY cut the prices, $2400!. Now I find the intake manifolds, single 4 and 2x4 in excellant condition are going for $500 (both). The 690's I figured at $600 are going for $1000. The fuel pumps I figured at $20 are going for $50 plus (and I have 9!). I don't want maximum dollars for everything I have, as a matter of fact I WAS going to sell everything in one large bunch the let whoever bought it sort it all out what was a bargain anad what wasn't. Then let THEM go thru the BS of selling things off in one's and two's, keep what they want or need for themselves and sell off the rest. Point of all this, someone COULD have gotten everything I have for 2k LAST year, now I find, thru Ebay I could get that for a handfull of my parts!. So thanks to Ebay and this site I'll make an extra grand, which now that I've retired I really could use. And now when I do the flea market I'll get guys coming up asking "you still got that 409 stuff?". Some guys on this site seem to think you should sell your stuff really, really cheap...........to them. Problem is, especially those guys, you do them a favor, then see it on Ebay for 2-3-4 times what you sold it to them for!. I like your point, put it on Ebay and sell it to the highest bidder, then at least you can sleep at night.

PS: I usually GIVE parts to my buddies, guys who help or have helped me, or trade this for that. For others, if I KNOW they're going to USE the part it's one price, if I THINK they're going to re-sell it it's a different one. And if you do flea markets, just sell some guy parts for a low price on Friday, then find them marker up double or more at another table Saturday, your attitude will change too.

[wrench]

I had one guy who came by my stall that day and REALLY low ball offer for everything I had. He offered me a whopping $1200! He took my number and over that last year calls me once a month.....and he only wants to build a display engine for the lobby of his business! Yeah, right! He**, I sold the 348 three duece carbs and intake AND a complete 62 BelAir 2 door full trim set for that much at a later date! Both buyers were totally happy to get them at that price, too.

I have a standing offer to anyone who can or will swap body/frame restoration work (but not assembling it) for my complete 409/409 QA engine pan to air filter/water pump to flywheel already built (stock) ready to drop in.

No takers so far. But here's hoping!

I am very surprised when I first built the engine in my car the scarcity of 409 parts. Even plain stock rebuild stuff was nearly impossible to find. Now there seems to be more stuff out there than anybody ever thought. Seems not all 409's got dropped into the local lakes (as the older guys used to say).

[Fran Preve]

I'm following some intake stuff on ebay now. 2x4 intake, nice, bid to $252, no sale. 2x4 intake with carbs, nice but not ready do go, $850, no sale. 2x4 intake, real ratty, $80 dollars so far 6 days left. Here's the point. Once this old stuf is bought and used there's one less to sell. Intakes, heads, blocks, carbs are NEVER going to be reproduced. Stuff that's been laying around collecting dust is now bringing some serious money, now it's being dug out and sold. I like your idea of trading parts for work, seems like a fair way to do it.

[Fran Preve]

Longisland: if that was listed under Ebay number last 3 didgits -219 it has the divider in the plenum milled out, as of 2am Monday it was up to $202, not worth it.

[wrench]

up to $202, not worth it.

I thought the open plenum single 4 bbl intake released in late 62 was the more desirable one? For high end power?

I have one of the regular 62 single 4 bbl aluminum intakes, but not the 3783 carb and air filter. If I use it, I'll probably use one of my extra 3804 carbs on it - just for street use - no racing. Numbers matching is for purists who can afford it - if ya know what I mean (I can't that is).

:cool:

[Fran Preve]

I've never seen a STOCK Chevy intake with the divider removed XCEPT the L-88. But removing the divider made the intake act more like a 180 degree open plenum aftermarket intake. I built a dispaly engine for the plant that had a 2x4 with the plenums opened, it was given to me for that use buy a collector who had no use for a modified intake (as a display engine you couldn't see it). Because there were no aftermarket single 4 intakes I don't doubt someone modified this one for racing. Duel planes are best for every day driving, much better throttle response.

[MK IISS]

Fran: I think Wrench is referring to intake # 3822929 which has an open plenum and was released in/around april '62 as a service package, probably for NASCAR racing.

Richard

[LongIsland63SS409]

I appreiciate all the feedback on the small port intake.

My feeling is the same since manifold will not offer any power diff since the runner design is poor.

I have emailed Edlebrock feedback twice and have not heard back from them. You would think with all the 348/409 engines that they would produce an air gap RPM manifold for the W motor.

Maybe Edlebrock should log onto this site or more W members should send them emails.

Thanks again for the feedback, I'll save my money for now.

Mike

[Fran Preve]

Richard, never heard of it or saw one, Longisland, your RIGHT!. My favorite is the air gap.

[Fran Preve]

Richard: Thinking about it I wonder why Chevy didn't make an open plenum manifold available after this one (if in fact it was). Or an open plenum 2x4 or the Z-11?.

[Impalaguru]

Does anyone know if CPG has made any progress on the 348/ small port 409 aluminum intake he was talking about? That was a while ago.
Ross

[Fran Preve]

Guru: I think it's still up on Ebay, bid to $202 so far. Just checked, it's still there, still $202, 17 hours left. If Richard is right and it IS a special piece with a different part number then it might be worth something. If it's just an ordinary Hi-po intake with the divider milled out the it's worth whatever someone wants to pay. If you want a "race" manifold then it might be worth it. If you want one for street driving I'd pass and wait for one with the divider, a true duel plane. It IS a large port 409 part by the way.

[dq409]

The developing and production cost of casting any part is huge !!
And to be able to keep the price low enough to sell enough to run a high enough production number the sales would have to justify the expense.
With the relative small number of HP 409`s compared with any other production engine, then subtrack the ones that are numbers cars,That will never see an aftermarket part , I don`t think you will ever see any major aftermarket suppliers doing thses kind of parts for our engines. (other then internal)
Look at the cost of Lamars parts.
Even at his prices he would be lucky to break even after the manufacture costs.
I`ve had several talks with Rich his partner with these parts on this very subject and those are the facts we have to live with.
Unless you have very deep pockets that can cover the costs of a large production run and then sit on the parts as they slowly trickle out expect to pay a premium price on small run parts.
Just my thoughts,,,dq

[CDNpontiac409guy]

As DQ said, Guru.
At this point, I have the final drawings, measurements, ect. You know.... the stuff that doesn't cost money:rolleyes: ;)

This Stock race engine/car project has consumed my extra time ( oooooh.... AND money:mad: ).

[Impalaguru]

DQ,
Very true. I guess when you think about it, its kind of amazing that the offy 2x4 intake for the small port heads is still available. I think it would be great to see a new intake but I'm sure the costs would be huge. I heard once that the cost for the dies to make the Show Cars 2x4 air cleaners was like $20,000, and while the part is excellant, they aren't exactly givin' them away. I wish CPG the best if he decides to go ahead with the intake, but I'd love to see the plans at the convention in September!
Ross

[Fran Preve]

I've got the factory blue prints for the W valve cover. Now all we need is a Tiawan company to pop them.

[MK IISS]

Fran: I'm suprised you are not aware of the single 4-bbl open plenum '62 409 intake. Since it was designed for NASCAR super-speedway competition and a single 4-bbl it wasn't popular for street or drag race use. Chevrolet was trying to address the 409s poor NASCAR super-speedway performance.

There were some experimental Z-11 open plenum intakes. For pictures & info go to pg. 130 in Colvin's CBTN.

Richard

[Fran Preve]

If I had CBTN, sorry, never into circle track, especially back then, I think the drag rules prohibited it but NASCAR probably did. If so you would see the same thing done to Pontiacs, Fords and Chryslers, everyone would have done it. But how often would you have seen pictures of a bare manifold. As far as that goes it's like the cowl plenum air induction on the Mystery motor, did it help?. Of course it did. How much?. More than a little, not only cooler air but at 160 mph a very slight boost. Did the other makers have it?. Not until they saw the chevy's then they all did it. Same with the open plenums on stock manifolds, but you I guess had to REALLY be into circle track racing to havae know it or seen it back in '62/'63/'64. Learn something new every day I guess.

[brisbane47]

MKIISS, you are correct on the manifold, the #3822930 camshaft and longer pushrods were from the same development package. There were many small changes made in the 409 NASCAR engines of 1962. TS

[MK IISS]

brisbane47:

What is your estimation of the horsepower of the Ray Fox/Junior Johnson prepared MK II 427? Was it really a lot more powerful then a MK I 427?

Thank you in advance for your reply,
Richard

[brisbane47]

Richard, everyone can manipulate figures to their advantage, but I would say that the MKII with ideal air temperature and density would put out 500-515 hp. You can never attain these conditions on a race track. It is an impressive engine. In answer to the second question, a lot more powerful. See Ya, TS

[Fran Preve]

Brisbane: do NOT take this the wrong way, but it sounds like you may have an answer. First I agree with your estimate on MK II HP, and as you know a GM "test" on a GM dyno is with everything "to the max", air temp, humidity, barometer, gasoline, numbers with the distributor to MBT (the ZL-1 was tested with 114 octane gas!). I have an original cam comparo sent to me by Billy H.. Anyway, you stated you rang out a 380 hp as much as possible, I think what Richard was asking was comparing a MK Is, or better known as the Z-11 motor with a SINGLE four barrel against a MK II. My curiosity (and others) is a W block engine, with the "air gap" style two piece intake, and a SINGLE four barrel ala NASCAR against a Mark II. Was ANY testing done with a MK Is 427 in NASCAR form?. IF so, what carb was used?. The "normal" 409 I assume was run with a large AFB, the Mark II was run with a big Holley. What I would like to see is a comparo between an Mark Is (Z-11) engine with a SINGLE 4 barrel and Holley carb vs a Mark II. This would be and "apples to apples" comparison between the two engines with the heads being the major difference.

One last question: my documentation, and from talking with Fred F, the 2 piece intake on a 409 (summer AFX) was refered to as a "Mark I". The engine used in the Z-11 Impala was refered to as a "Mark Is" (for stroke). Was the Mark II ever refered to as a Mark II and Mark IIs?. This would of course mean there was a 409 version of the Mark II. Until a year or so ago I never heard of such an animal, as far as I ever knew the Mark II was only built, internally and externally, as a 427.

One more last question: did Chevrolet ever release a 409 single 4 barrel intake, as a part or part number, with the center divider milled out (making a poor mans open plenum out of a duel plane)?. I've got a Hot Rod magazine with the parts used to up grade the 1961 409 into the 1962 but I don't believe it mentions the intake which would be a NASCAR piece. My thought was that the open plenum was left up to the engine builder to do, or not. The argument here is that it was a manifold milled from the factory.

[brisbane47]

As far as I know there were no head to head tests performed with the MKII NASCAR engine and a single carburetor divorced type intake on the drag race 409 long stroke engines (427). The MKII was always configured as a 427ci. The manifolfd you are referring to is the #3822929 NASCAR intake. TS

[wrench]

I have a photo of the disputed intake manifold on my website in the Gallery - 409 Speed Parts. It is I believe a factory release.

:cool:

[Fran Preve]

I think that's where MKIISS was coming from, the divorced intake W vs MKII, we discussed this last month. No question the MKII was superior in airflow, but the W was closer than it was made out if equipped with the Mark Is (Z-11) head and manifold and Holley carb. And I think you've verified my contention that there was no MKII and MKIIs (or stroke). From the pictures it seemed as though the NASCAR manifold was simply a 4 barrel intake with the plenum divider milled out, I'm a little surprised it carried a different part number. Thanks for your input. It's nice to hear from someone who was there "hands on".

[MK IISS]

Wrench:

You have a great website.

Intake # 3822929 was cast by Winters with an open plenum. Prior to the 3822929 intake availability Chevrolet offered an open plenum intake which was a modified 3814678 409/380 unit with a milled out plenum.

Richard

[Fran Preve]

MK II: makes sense, the one pictured on Ebay didn't look like an ordinary intake with the divider milled out, looked more like it was cast that way. But at the same time it looked like a duel plane cast without a divider rather than a true 180.

[MK IISS]

Fran:

I've seen both intakes. You can tell by the floor of the plenum which was cast open and which was modified.

I have a question.

Do you have any records which indicate what point in time Chevrolet started development of the MK II ?

Richard

[Fran Preve]

No I don't, good question, maybe Brisbane knows. Dick Kieneth is still around, it wouldn't surprise me if he knew him (he's from Michigan). My best guess would be late '61 or very early '62. If i remember right, and I think I heard it from Kieneth himself, originally he designed it with a port configuration which meant they needed a right and a left. Manufacturing wouldn't go for that and told him to redesign it as a common head (I can't remember ANY production engine made by ANYONE that reqired a left and right head). The earliest castings I've read about were August/September 1962, working backward I would think it hit the drawing board 6 months or so before that. Changing the block to 90 degrees would have been much simpler, the front, back, bottom and sides were the same as the 409. My contention is the MKII was the development engine for the MKIV, they were essentially the same except the MKIV was much larger. My question to Brisbane or anyone would be, when did they begin developing the MKIV?. I have inter-office memorandum that speak about changing the bore/stroke of the MKIV dated last week January/first week February 1964, now I'm ebginning to think that the tooling for the Mark IV was being installed in the plant at that time. Everything pertaining to the block,heads, intake and exhaust would have been new or radically re-worked.
I'm going to start working on engineeers who still work in the plant about this. You'd think I'da done that over the last 20 years when I was working on historical projects there. Oh well. Let me know if you come up with anything on your side.

[MK IISS]

Fran:

Remember when I claimed the MK II during it's initial development stage was pegged at 409 cubic inches? This was based on information given to me by a relative who was a Chevy engineer and also from an article written by Paul Van Valkenburgh who is well known Chevy engineer. I'm not saying any MK II 409s were built, just that in it's early stages of development it was to have the same bore and stroke as the 409 and then was later stroked along with the MK I to 427. This is where the MK IIS story came from.

On June 11th, 1962 Henry Ford II announced that Ford was no longer going to abide by the '57 AMA agreement and was going to re-enter factory backed racing. Not long after that information leaked out about Ford's new 483 cubic inch FE NASCAR engine. Shortly thereafter Bill France and other sanctioning bodies got together and announced a 428 cubic inch limit for '63 competition.

My question to you : How could the MK II be planned from the get-go as a 427 when the rule didn't exist yet?

Richard

[brisbane47]

Good question, I would assume that they had a larger cubic inch in mind as that was the direction that everyone seemed to be heading. The small increase in displacement would have been well within design parameters. The only MKII engines I saw were 427 ci. See Ya, TS

[Fran Preve]

The limit was 427 already, NASCAR was CONSIDERING dropping it to 396 then changed their mind. They also considered dropping the wheelbase down to 114 allowing the GM "A" body and Ford Fairlane. The first mid sized cars began racing in I believe 1967, Ford was still racing their full size in 1966, the famous "banana" car. The 483 Ford was an experimental car, again I'd have to check, but Ford built a 1962 Ford and put a 1961 fastback roof on it for testing purposes, as such it had no displacement limit. The 7 liter maximum was already in effect when Chevrolet was proposing different versions of the MKIV. This NASCAR ruling matched NHRA 427 limit. The experimental Ford was written up in 1962 in Hot Rod. The PROPOSED 396 limit was written about in Motor Trend. Chevrolet had the choice of a 4.094 bore making a 396 or 4.125 bore making a 402. , at the time NASCAR was contemplating a 396 limit and Chevy went with that, then just never changed. A side note, why the change for 1970?. Chevrolet big block engineers were NOT going to let the small block displace more than the BIG BLOCK!. NO WAY!. At 402 the big block was still bigger than small block, albeit 2 cubic inches!.

Brisbane agrees with me on the 427 only displacement for the Mark II so I'll have to still disagree with you on this. To build a 409 version they would have needed different rods and pistons the parts used in the Z-11 and Mystery motor. I don't think they would bother when the MKII was only going to be USED as a 427 race motor, and, probably a MK IV development motor. Maybe at some time in the furture we'll get another opinion going one way or the other. I've seen MKI and MKIs in Chevrolet memorandum, and had it related to me by a Chevrolet engineer, I never heard or read anything but MKII in references to the MKII. Where was the Van Valkenburg article?, maybe I have it somewhere.

[Fran Preve]

Let me add, the 7 liter rule was in effect in 1963, Pontiac, Ford, and Chrysler (besides Chevrolet) all adhered to the 427 limit, no one built an engine larger until 1966 or so (440/428/430). Oh, and the 427 limit came AFTER Ford stopped racing the 430 T-birds. The 427 limit may have been imposed by the manufacturers themselves, much like the 425 hp limit. Ford, Chrysler and GM all had engines rated at 425hp in 1963, then every year they came up with never versions, yet the advertised horsepower never increased. Except for Chevrolet with rated engines at 430 and 435 hp (plus the 450 hp which they quickly pulled back in 1966 then added back in 1970 but that's another story). Can you think of another american manufacturer who advertised a horsepower higher than 425?. Again, NHRA, NASCAR and the manufacturers had a legal or defacto limit of 7 liters, Chevrolet had the CAPABILITY to go to 454 CID from the beginning, but it wasn't on their radar screen in 1962/3/4.

[Fran Preve]

after writing a long response AOL just zip logged me off and I lost everything, it's 3am, I'll do it tomorrow.

[MK IISS]

Fran:

Sorry Fran, but your statement: "The limit was 427 already" is simply not true. Somehow I think you missed my point. However it's not worth arguing about.

For the '59 season NASCAR allowed Ford to race the '59 T-bird with the 430 Lincoln engine even though the car's wheelbase violated the rules because the '59 Galaxie with the 352/300 was not competitive.

Ford boycotted NASCAR starting with the April 7th, 1966 race at Columbia S.C. because NASCAR wouldn't allow them to run their 427 in the Fairlane body. The Ford factory cars sat out most of the summer but re-entered late in the ' 66 season when NASCAR finally allowed the Fairlane.

Richard

[brisbane47]

I am getting a headache! TS

[Fran Preve]

Sorry Richard but I'm right about the cubic inch limit, sometimes I am. Ford wanted to run their Fairlane in NASCAR and for one year it was allowed a 2x4 barrel intake because of the dominence of the Hemi, and one of the last full size Ford was bent so badly that it was refered to the "banana" car, this one of the reasons for the templates. I'd have to go back to some 1966 Hot Rods to see what cars were running in 1966 but the famous Smokey Chevelle was run in 1967 and I know the intermidiates were being run in '67, I'm pretty sure sitting here that they began in 1966.

Motor Trend magazine, January 1964 issue, 4 page article by Max Muhlman, title "1964 Stock Racing Preview" (I'm sending you a copy).
1) "For a while it looked like 1964 would go down as the year of the compacts in stock car racing. But while no sanctioning body lowered it's engine or automobile sizes for the new season, NEITHER DID THEY ALLOW ANY INCREASES, which means FOR THE FIRST TIME, the nations late model stock car circuits won't see bigger-engined automobiles than the year before".
The limit for 1963 was 427, more later.
2) Partial quote next paragraph ..."the 427 Chevy's of 1963 will still be allowed to run - in 1963 bodies."
Great if they had replacement parts!
3) "Horsepower however is expected to be up on all fronts, and no small part of the credit is due to NASCARS original decision to cut back maximum engine size from 7 liters (428 cubic inches) to 6.5 liters (396.5 cubic inches). This rule, along with one that lowered the wheelbase minimum from 116 to 144 inches, WASN'T RECINDED BY NASCAR UNTIL LATE OCTOBER (1963), which meant that serversl manufacturers with plans to go racing in 1964 had already made considerable headway with the smaller engines. ......" It then goes on to explain why (independants costs) and describe a smaller mid size late model class, 114-15 wheel base/396 limit that was being THOUGHT about. Then it goes into interviews with Lee Petty, Buck Baker, John Holman, Smokey Yunick and others.

Engine size got bigger every year until 1963 when NASCAR, AND USAC, AND NHRA put a 427 limit on their maximum engine size. Remember, USAC sponsored many late model races too. No one built an engine LARGER than a 427 before 1963. As I've stated, Ford built an experimental NASCAR late model car, a 1962 Galaxie with a 1961 Starliner roof to see how much difference the notch back roof hurt them, and to a degree this is why they came out with the 1963 and a 1/2 "fastback" roof for the Galaxie. I should also mention that the biggest engine available from Ford AT THE START OF THE YEAR was a tri-power 406, the 427 2x4 engine was released later. The 483 engine you mention was used to power the experimental 1962 car with the 61 roof. This engine was used simply because it was a test of the roof!. Ford had no intention of build and racing this monster engine, it was put in a car for high speed tests.
In 1963 the biggest engines used in PASSENGER cars were: Ford/Mercury 427, Pontiac 421, Dodge/Plymouth 426, and Chevrolet 409. Chevrolet of course came out with the 427's, limited Z-11 and more limited Mystery motor. All sanctioning bodies put a 427/428 limit on engine size in 1962 (for 1963), before that no one was MAKING an engine bigger (except the already mentioned 430 in the Lincoln and T-bird). We could debate whether or not anyone was planning on building a larger than 427 engine back then (for production) but it would be senseless, you don't know and I don't know.

I'm sending you a copy of the article, it explains it pretty clearly, there are others but I'm not going to pick thru my magazine mess just to further prove a point. The FACT is NASCAR had PLANNED on REDUCING the cubic inch displacement in Grand National racing to 396.5 cubic inches and didn't change their mind until October 1963. This is ONE OF BUT NOT THE ONLY reason Chevrolet planned a 396 Mark IV engine (instead of say a 402 with a .032 bigger bore), at this point NASCAR was STILL TALKING ABOUT a smaller class with a 396 limit. All other GM lines had a 400 CID engine in 1966/67 for their intermidiate cars.

In this case your wrong and I'm right, I'm not basing my statements on rememberences, I'm basing it on words written in magazines back in 1962/3/4. Or did Motor Trend make up this article and the interviews?. Anyway mull this over, I'm sending you a copy of the complete article, and more.

As far as the 430 Thunderbird racing in 1959, this was the second year of the new "big" Bird, the T-Bird made a better race car than the Galaxie, no one else built a similar car and there was no cubic inch limit. Why couldn't they race it?. France wanted Ford in racing which was the reason it was allowed to race besides. In 1960 Ford came out with a completely new body style, with a fastback style roof and began racing that dropping the T-bird. France knew that too, be SURE Ford told them the T-bird was only temporary.

Comments welcome....................Fran

[Fran Preve]

More: the progression of changes in development of the Mark IV. Based on inter-office memos.
1) Dated January 13, 1964 - from E.J. Premo to D.H. McPherson

paraphrasing...."attached is a comparison of the Mark IV "396" cubic inch Street High Performance Engine and the "427" cubic inch Service Package Engine. The increased displacement is obtained by increasing the stroke from 3.50 to 3.76 inches, decreasing the connecting rod length from 6.21 to 6.135......".

Interesting here is the INCREASE IN STROKE FROM 3.50!. The bore was 4.250 at this point, for the 396. Also, HAND WRITTEN on this memo is a note from Zora Arkus Duntov: NO MORE! (hand written BIG exclamation point). He sent this note to Mr. F. Frinke and obviously wanted a longer rod, he also included a sketch of the measurements. Copies of this memo went to 6 people, two of which were Duntov and R.L. Keinath.

2) Dated January 24, 1964 - from D.H. McPherson to R.L. Keinath, copies to 30 others, some of whom, Rosenberger, Duntov, Polkinghorne and Duntov.

paraphrasing....."this is to confirm a change in the direction on the Mark IV series of engines"
" In order to provide common tooling on passenger car, truck, high performance and future engines of this configuration, the stroke will be revised from 3.50" to 3.76". This change will be effective immidiately in order to provide manufacturing with sufficiant lead time to meet production".
"In accordence with this change, the bore diameter of the truck engine will be revised to 3-15/16", and the bore diameter of the Passenger engine will be revised to 4-3/32" diameter. All connecting rods will be at a common length of 6.135".

It goes on to say the experimental build program will be revised to reflect these changes. This was the OFFICIAL memorandun stating the direction the Mark IV would move in. There was no mention, in this or any other memo I have that speaks about a TALL DECK truck engine. This is curious because the only difference between this engine and a tall deck truck engine was to provide for a much taller piston with more rings. And it OFFICIALLY cahnge the 396 stroke from 3.50 to 3.76. Until the 454 came out ALL Mark IV's were made with a 3.76 stroke crank. And this memo came from Dick Keinath designer of the heads.

3) Dated February 10, 1964 - from D.H. McPherson to R.L. Keinath, copies to 15 others including Sood, Polkinhorne, Rosenberger (but not Duntov).
"Outline of Special Mark IV Engine features". It goes on to list the differences between a "Street Hi-Perf" engine and a "Service Package" engine, long list, every part. Basically the street engine was what would become the 375 hp 396, part for part, and it's interesting to note than in this and other memos I have the 375 hp is what the high performance engine was rated at then. The Service engine was almost part for part an L-88 engine EXCEPT for iron heads and a gear drive opposite rotation cam (?).

4) Dated February 13th, 1964 - from experimental garage. Speaks of putting a Mark II engine in a 64 Impala body for carb tests.

5) Dated February 24th - to R.L. Keinath - speaks of engine tests of 366 truck engine, both versions of the 396, and the 427 service motors.

What all this means is from January 24th, 1964 to February 24th, 1964 Chevrolet was still coming to terms with how the Mark IV was going to be built, and this is 6 months before MK IV production would have had to be started to make the start of the 1965 model year. It would be nice to have memos before this, and after this, but it does offer some insight.

Comments welcome from Richard, and Brisbane who would maybe know what I'm talking about.

[SS425HP]

Fran, remember, they didn't make the start of the 65 production. I bought a 65 409/400 SS car, and took delivery in January of 65. The BBC came out a little later, and I then traded for one of them. Seems like maybe April or May of 65. Don't have the exact date. I never kept any paper work from any cars I had. ( DAMIT ) On a side note, the 409 was rated at 400 HP, the 396 was rated at 425 HP. I believed then, and still do, that the 09 was quicker. Never ran either one on a track. I do distinctly remember Chevrolet having big time trouble with the first batch of the 7/16 rocker arm nuts. I broke several. I think I bought a couple dozen to carry just in case. Still have about a dozen. Only thing I have ever kept from the old days, except for one item. I still have my P & G Valve Gapper. That thing was the cats meow for setting rocker arm lash. Dial indicator. No way to make a mistake.

Fred

[Fran Preve]

Fred: That was my point, Chevy was still changing things pertaining to the Mark IV, that's why the delay. As it was it was released in January of 1965 (and production began in the fall of 1964). When your starting up a new engine line it takes time to get everything "in sync", and this wasn't going to happen for production to begin in the summer of 1964 for introduction of the 1965 model cars. None the less we built some 61,000 MK IV's for the 1965 model year.

As far as the 375 hp rating is concerned, I'll go over it again. The 409 was rated at 400 hp and 425 hp. The brand new high performance porcupine semi-hemi engine was rated at ?, what?.
Less?. Why was it so special then?. OK, let's say the 425 hp was correct, then the 427, 31 cubic inches bigger should be rated more, right?. So let's say 450 (and in fact they TRIED that for the first month of Corvette production). OK, so the 427 was rated at 425 hp, the same as the 31 cubic inch smaller 396. Hmmmmmm Houston we have a problem. In the meantime we have the SAME engine equipped with a hydraulic cam but similar spec's rated at 375 hp (the Z-16 Chevelle engine). You could go on, the 450 hp 454 was the same as the 425 hp 427, but the 427 SHOULD have been rated at 450 hp so the LS-6 should have been what, 475?. At some point you have to question the horsepower ratings, and you begin with the 425 hp 396, which was rated the way it was because it had to be because of circumstances. Now I'll tell you HOW they did it, and any motor builders out there can agrue about it.

The L-78, L-72 and LS-6 were IDENTICAL (except for the LS-6 having a low rise intake), same cam's, same compression, same intake, basically the same carb but calibrated differently, smae heads, and so on. Also remember, these engine would be rated with the STOCK CAST EXHAUST MANIFOLDS!. This is no small point, the manifolds very very restrictive with the Corvette being the best of the bunch. Now look at the camshaft, it was a mild solid lifter street grind with about .500 lift (I don't have the cam spec's in front of me but they were all the same anyway). A camshaft spec'd like the Chevy's would have an RPM range with about a 55-5800 rpm peak. If you look in Summit under cams you'll see the rpm range the manufacturers list for their cams. Now remember what I said at the start, the horsepower rating was with cast iron manifolds, not tuned tubing headers. If you put on tubing headers you could stretch the range the engine made power, picking up 50 hp wasn't unheard of. But we're NOt talking about "race tuned" we're talking about as installed in a car. NHRA rates the 375 hp at 400 hp, I'll buy that. I've seen dyno tests on both an L-72 and LS-6 COMPLETELY STOCK WITH CAST MANIFOLDS!, and 425 hp and 450 hp was attainable there.

Now where oh where did they get the 425 hp rating from?. Heh, heh, heh, look at the rpm the engine was RATED at. The 425 hp was rated at 6400 rpm in the 1965 Corvette, the 375 hp was rated at a more reasonable 5600 and the engines were identical. Anyone who's had an engine on a dyno knows that the engine would have "nosed over" WAY before 6400 when equipped with cast iron manifolds. When equipped with headers the engine had the heads, intake and carb to pull up there, at that point the cam becomes the limiting factor.

Please, don't comment about how an NHRA blueprinted Stock class engine can put out super horsepower numbers, I know they can. We're talking a production line engine equipped with stock cast iron manifolds. And please take off your Chevy blue glasses and look at what OTHER engines built by OTHER manufacturers were doing, at least do a little comparing.

[Fran Preve]

Geeez, forgot, your EXACTLY right about the P&G valve gapper, it was a great tool for setting valve lash on a solid lifter engine. But that's the bad part about solid lifters in a street engine. Once they started opening up there goes some poer. Now have some be looser than others, same thing. That's where the P&G came in, if you had one. Most guys who bought solid lifter engines didn't know a gapper from a clapper. One reason I didn't mind racing 435 hp Vettes with my well tuned 390 hp. Anyway, ya I remember the P&G, great tool.

[Bungy]

Fred, do you remember when you ordered that 65 409 car? I was wondering what the cutoff date was. My dad ordered a 409/400 in Dec of 64 and got a letter from GM stating they no longer made the 409 but he could get a 396. Nobody told him about the 425 horse version so he went with the 325hp.

[MK IISS]

Fran: Why did Chev. go to the low-rise goofy intake on the LS-6? All the '70 L-78s I've seen also have it. The LS-6 also had a larger exhaust valve then the '69 L-72 and L-78 engines. I had a '69 L-78 Nova and a '70 LS-6 Chevelle. Bought both new, hated the Nova.

Richard

[SS425HP]

Bungy, I ordered it maybe late November in 64. I'm thinking it took 6 weeks to get an ordered car back then. I was due to get off active duty the first week of January, 65, and wanted it for then. It was ready when I got home. Put a trailer hitch on it, hooked the 63 behind it, and left for Hayden Proffitt's shop within a week. I remember this pretty well, because the bank I dealt with wouldn't give me the loan committment I needed to order the car until after I was released from active duty. I was on a program that was definate to be released. Went to the other bank in town, told them what I wanted, and why, and they said sign here. Went right down to the dealership and ordered my new car.
I know the car was ready the first week of January, so must have ordered it near Thanksgiving, 64. Never heard a thing about a new engine being released at that time.
BTW, Fran, I knew about the 425 in the Impala and the 375 being the same motor. Had a 67 Camaro with the 375 in it. Mean Machine. Rated at different RPM, as you stated. Made Corporate happy. Then I got a 69 Camaro with the iron 427 in it. MEANER MACHINE. Put Jardine headers on it. Obnoxiously MEAN MACHINE. Was a double COPO car according to the Camaro guys. Had a 140 MPH Speedo, which I saw at 155 one night. Next day the wife had a blow out on the way shopping with her mother. Guess we stretched the tires pretty bad the night before.
Got off the subject a little. I don't really remember when the announcement came out on the 396 in 65. I know as soon as I heard it, I wanted one. I traded my 409 for the 396 car. WEnt to California in April or May to get a trailer from Hayden, and that was in the 09 car. That probably was in March or April. Ran into ice and snow at Flagstaff coming back. That's about as close as I can come, today, and I have no documentation. Never kept any. Now I wish I had.

Fred

[Fran Preve]

Richard: hood clearance for the Corvette and Camaro. Why did they use it on the Chevelle, and then use a spacer between the carb and the air cleaner?. The ONLY reason is it was part of a "de-proliferation" of the Mark IV engines. By 1969 there had grown to be something like 70 different versions of the engine and it was too much for the manufacturing floor to handle so they just went around and said "What do we have to do to make a common engine?". For example one verion of the 396 (402) for the "A","X", and "F" bodies. And one version of the LS-5 for the "X" and "Y" bodies. Anyway, in 1970 we had half as many (or less) versions of the MK IV. As to why no high rise manifold for the Chevelle?. Only 2 more suffix codes (stick and automatic) but I guess some bean counter nixed it. The "de-proliferation" is in quotes because that's the term they used.

Fred: The announcement came out in Jnuary but not with a big splash. A dealer "in the know" about these things should have known, maybe not all salesmen. I don't know when the first magazine advertisements came out talking about it. Mid year introductions back then caught many people by surprise.

Now i go get a tooth extracted, fun?, WOW!.

[SS425HP]

Hope it's not a wisdom tooth. If it is, write down all you know before you go. Got to save it somehow!!!!!!;)

Good Luck

Fred

[Fran Preve]

Those were gone long ago, cantcha tell?. It was a BIG right upper, now it's sore, but the novacaine hasn't work off. Meanwhile I'm popping Extra Strength Tylonal!.