Mystery MKII was 409 [Archive] - 348-409.com Info Exchange

Fran Preve

05-13-2005, 02:16 AM

Truck engines were pea soup green.
Smokey painted his engines gold (at least all the one's I saw at his shop were.

The Mystery motor was a 427, period, end of conversation. I showed Richard the sheet I got from Fred Frinke back in 1986 showing this. Fred was vince Piggins right hand man back then, Billy Howell was a dyno operator back then, quote whatever you want Richard.

Mark I was the 409 with two piece intake and heads.
Mark Is was the Z11 engine, the small s stood for stroke
MarkII was the Mystery motor, there was NO Mark IIs, ALL internal Chevrolet documents I have designate the Mystery motor as a Mark II, NONE, not ONE uses the term Mark IIs. Nor has any Chevrolet engineer I ever talked too.
Mark III was a "paper" engine.
Mark IV we all know.

You guys have to understand, a week ago Richard and I sat down (with 425SS) and went over all this in Florida.

Richard after you saw my photos of the Mystery motor I restored for Chevrolet in pieces you'd think maybe I knew whereof I spoke.

MK IISS

05-13-2005, 07:31 AM

Fran: Believe what you want. I have direct quotes from the people involved. You have nothing but an unsigned piece of paper that does not have any letterhead. This so called "proof" has "MK II 427 4.31 X 3.65 Mystery Motor" typed on it. I can type that on a piece of paper and say "this is the final word".

We all know the MK II ended up as a 427 anyway. This is all your "proof" claims...it does not go into how the engine started... which was 409 cubic inches.

Let me repeat: this is all your piece of paper indicates...the MK II ended up as a 427. It does not indicate how the engine started out or how many cubic inches the first prototypes had.

The "427 rule" was not conceived until the summer of 1962 and not put into effect until November 4, 1962. It is ludicrous to claim the MK II started out... from the get-go as a 427....that is.... unless... Chevrolet had a crystal ball in the engineering room.

Fran: How does a photo of a MK II engine being prepared as a display engine have anything to do with any of this? This makes about as much sense as claiming a repainted valve cover is "final proof....the final word" that it was that color when new. I could paint one pink and then claim it was the original color.

With all due respect...it is good thing you are not an attorney. You would get laughed out of the court room.

This is what Bill Howell said: "I had MK IIs running originally as 409s...."

I know, I know....Mr Keinath had a dream...he heard a voice while he was asleep in early 1962......." BUILD IT....BUILD IT ! ! ... a 427......it's a magic number even though no one has come up with a 7 liter rule yet."... the voice said...."and they will come." Come to Daytona that is.

MK IISS

05-13-2005, 10:51 AM

"The Mk (Mark) engine designations were first implemented by Duntov. Although the new engine taking shape on the drawing board had the same displacement as the W-409 V-8, Duntov called the new engine the Mk. By default, the W-engine series became the Mk I, and this set a precedent that has followed to this day."

Dick Keinath (actual words of the man who designed the MK II)

MK IISS

05-14-2005, 08:48 AM

Bob:

I'm sorry for all this. Gee whiz I thought I had found some interesting info on the MK II that I could share with everone. I backed this info up with quotes from engineers and personnel who were involved with designing and development of the MK II. This...along with a reference that would enable anyone to look this information up so you could all decide for youself. I have also demonstrated how the chronological time line does not work with the claim the MK II started out as a 427 because the "427 rule" didn't even exist yet when the MK II was first designed. As a result it is not my info that is being disputed. It the men who designed and worked with the engine. So I'm done with this. It's impossible to reason with someone who comes to illogical conclusions and is hellbent on re-writting history.

walkerheaders

05-14-2005, 01:20 PM

I would imagine your adressing a different Bob..........however, this one says.....rock on richard....i for 1 am very interested. dont let anybody push any of your buttons. if your right and you know it..........so be it.
I do know very well what your saying, i posted a simple story once.....telling of how my father helped the factory to decide to use 4 headgaskets on the high compression Ws.
my father got paid for his idea....and that was that. END OF STORY.
the story turned into WW3.
my father also came up with the vacuum resevoir on the early 3-2 setups. he got paid for that one too.
my father helped pioneer the use of propane in the US Park police cars.
anyway richard keep up the good detective work...we like it. Bob

Fran Preve

05-14-2005, 01:37 PM

Richard: except the paper was signed on the bottom by the man who wrote it, Fred Frienke. For those who want to see go to the web site here that shows the Hot Rod magazine article on the 1962 409 service package, it shows Fred standing with Vince Piggin's, Fred was Vince Piggins right hand man. He retired in the early 90's and I had a chance to sit down with him when he visited the Tonawnada plant back around 1990. I had a whole series of questions fofr him and he kindly replyed with written notes a short time later. This was about the Mark IV because the W wasn't at the top of my list (back then). I also talked with Dick Kieneth on the Chevrolet "ty line", a GM direct phone system they had. And I discussed the Mystery/Mark IV head with him. I know what was was sritten, and I have that too, and it odesn't always jibe with facts and/or logic.

To begin: the "mystery' motor was based on a 409 block except it had 90 degree head banks. It was SURELY tested as a 409, simply because the crank and rods would install bolt in, except for custom pistons, and that was a simple thing for Chevrolet to make up. WAS a mystery motor built as a 409?. Absolutely, BUT IT WAS NEVER DESIGNATED AS A MARK II!. The ONLY designation Chevrolet used for the Mystery motor was Mark II. And Richrad find me ANYTHING from Chevrolet designating it as a Mark II AND a Mark IIs. Tell me/us YOUR source for BOTH designations, if you can. For that matter they could have built a Mystery motor as a 348 because the cranks interchanged. They COULD have built ANY cubic inch combination for that matter.

There was NO "Mark" motor, not designated by Chevrolet or Duntov or anyone. Duntov used the "Mark I" designation on the 409 with the special heads and two piece intake. It was the FIRST itteration of the 409, it was "special", developed for RACING USE ONLY!. So the Mark I was the first engine, the SECOND engine was the SAME AS the Mark I except it was stroked to 427 cubic inches, hence the designation Mark Is, or "stroked" Mark I.

As to WHEN Gm, and the other manufacturers along with NASCAR and NHRA came up with the 427 cubic inch limit I would have to do some research to find that out. I DO know, and sent you information, as to the change to 396 cubic inches, (I believe for 1964) for an engine size for the new intermidiate size cars ALL the manufacturers were developing. Then you get into why's and wherefores for the 400 cubic inch limit GM placed on the intermidiates. No matter, Chevrolet had multiple cubic inches set for the W block engine FROM IT'S INCEPTION!. These ranged from the W-1, which was a 307, the original cubic inch to start with up to the W-8 which was a 454 engine. Inbetween was the W-2 (a 327), and a the W-3 the 348 engine. All this is based on the BORE SPACING off the big block Chevrolet engine (ALL of them) which was 4.84 inches. No matter, with that bore spacing Chevrolet could build almost ANY realistic cubic inch displacement based on bore and stroke. The W could go to 454 because it had a 4.310 bore with no problem. As far as the STROKE was concerned the block was not designed to handle much more than 3.75 (Do the math for me someone, 4.310 bore and 3.75 stroke, what's the cubic inch displacement?. I'm lazy.

There was NO Mark II and Mark IIs, Chevrolet designated the Mark II as that and that only. I'm not saying they COULDN'T built a 409 Mystery motor, of course they could, the argument here is was the first Mystery motor ever DESIGNATED as a Mark II as a 409. No, it never was. :cuss

Richard won't admit when he's wrong, I will, this time he is and I'm not. And Richard you know how much internal documentation I have, someday you'll be up here and we can go over EVERYTHING. Next.

Fran Preve

05-14-2005, 01:55 PM

Dick Kineath and the Mystery motor head. To begin........................................

General Motors put out a request for proposels for NEW big block engines to replace the first big blocks which were designed in the 40's and early 50's. Each car line was to come up with them for the early 60's. What was designed back then was crude compared to what was developed thru out the 50's. Thumb nails:
Cadillac: designed in the mid 40's, changed about 1964
Olds: designed in the mid 40's, changed about the same year
Buick: designed in the very early 50's (first built in 1953), re-designed and released in 1967
Pontiac: designed in the early 50's and a SLIGHT redesign released in 1967
Chevrolet: designed in the early 50's and COMPLETELY redesigned for release in 1965. This "new" Chevrolet big block quote "went in a new direction" in February 1964, this "new direction' was a COMPLETE redesign that used the basic Mystery motor architecture but MUCH heavier, for use in medium duty trucks. This was the princilple reason why the motor came out in 1965, the tooling was much different.

During the time the W block was in production, particularly the 348, 96% of ALL production went into passenger cars, from the very start the W was NOT designated as a "truck" engine. Subsequent production proved that out. FYI, Tonawanda was the ONLY engine plant for the big block. And "Summeries of Engines built and shipped" per model year are the figures I use. These are the ONLY official Chevrolet numbers, they are beyond dispute. Just like the records from assembly plants for the numbers of cars and options produced year by year.

All GM big blocks were COMPLETELY redesigned with the exception of Pontiac. Now, the "Mystery heads". next

Fran Preve

05-14-2005, 02:21 PM

A YOUNG, and I specify YOUNG Chevrolet engineer, Dick Kieneth (and I'm SURE I've spelled that wrong from time to time) came up with an idea, CANT THE VALVES TOWARDS THE PORT!. WOW, WHAT AN IDEA!. Frankly, it was a geat idea for a racing engine but not worth the extra work it caused the manufacturing guys. Honestly, if you got the engineering group together from back then, all of them, and gave them the option of "turning back the clock" they'd build a straight wedge instead. But Duntov had the ear of Ed Cole and he wanted this new canted valve design.

As orignially put on paper Dick had the intake ports individual as opposed to siamesed which was a MUCH better design for racing. But that required two different heads, a left and a right and NO mass produced American V-8 ever had or ever would have two individual heads, the cost was prohibitive from a manufacturing stand point and was changed to a common head. No pictures of a non-siamesed Mystery head have ever surfaced and ALL photos of Mystery motors show and intake that looks almost identical to a Mark IV intake which of course had siamesed ports. Did they ever build a individual port head?. I've seen EXPERIMENTAL double over head valve engines designed by Olds, Buick and Chevrolet (and probably Pontiac), what they built EXPERIMENTALLY is open (just as the 409 Mystery). Nonetheless, every photo of a mystery show a siamesed port head. But try and convince Richard that!. So if Kieneth says he origially designed it as an individual port head he's telling you the truth, but in the same breath he'll say that manufacturing shot him down.

Duntov wanted the original Mystery engine, but with a longer that 6.135 rod. It was smaller, and lighter, it's that simple. Chevrolet wanted a much heavier engine that could be put into heavy duty trucks. A common engine?, or two different?. You know who won! Then too, they were developing aluminum heads at the time and i suppose Duntov was calmed down when he found out the new, heavier engine could be lightened up with aluminum heads, considerably. And there was talk of an aluminum block, maybe, down the road.

As a matter of FACT Chevrolet had the L-88 down on paper as early as early in 1964 but with iron heads. Sure, it was HEAVY, but even so it was quite an engine (for the time). As things turned out the aluminum heads didn't have the bugs worked out until 1968 (but they were testing them in 1966/67).

But then, what do I know, Richard is the "expert". And other so called experts don't have all the documentation i have, and if I sat down with Dick Kieneth today he might tell a slightly different story, if his memory was "jogged'. To bad that won't happen.

MK IISS

05-14-2005, 04:28 PM

All the information I have shown are not my opinions. They are quotes of the individuals who were involved with the development of the engine. I gave a reference source so they can be verified. The NASCAR 7 liter rule is a matter of documented NASCAR history. Hey !!.... don't take my word for it....look it up. How many times do I have to say this?

The "proof"....a piece a paper with the MK II specs at 427 cubic inches is not signed. It has a typed name on it. A typed name is not a signature. This complete lacking of the ability to understand the difference between a typed name and a signature kinda says it all. The same goes for stating opinions and actually believing they are facts.

I don't claim to be an expert on anything. Just passing on historical information, which is backed up by references and documented facts...not opinions.

Just so you may better understand, Fran. This is a quote: "We did continuous development work on the MK II from the time it came off the drawing board in 1962 until we started development work on the Mk IV. I had the the MKIIs running originally as 409s...."

Key words here, Fran......."MK IIs running originally as 409s"

another example: "It then became the MK IIS, because of the longer stroke," Keinath said... Key words here again, Fran: "MKIIS, because of the longer stroke"

An example of a fact: The 7 liter rule was first implemented on November 4, 1962. This is an historical NASCAR fact....and as I said before, don't take my word for it look it up. Page 190... Forty Years of NASCAR Racing...ISBN 0-9621580-1-1

Starting to catch on yet, Fran?

This is an opinion: There never was a MK IIS (an opinion is simply a belief not based on a certainty...key word here, Fran...."a belief"....not substantiated)

Another helpful hint, Fran. Claiming you talked to so & so and he told me this.......
This is called hear-say information....not proof of anything.

One other point. A common ploy (a/k/a a SMOKE SCREEN) used by people who can't prove their case is to bring up a whole bunch of other information that has nothing to do directly with the subject at hand. An example of this would be early iron head L88, other engine history, etc., etc., etc., etc., most of your last two posts.

Fran Preve

05-14-2005, 09:36 PM

Richard there's a big difference between MK IIs and MK II's, one means there was a Mark II stroke (the 427 race motor), the other means there was more than one Mark II, as in different versions. Curiously your statement that NASCAR put the cubic inch limit at 427 in November 1962, when did NHRA put THEIR limit at 427?. When did they first build a Mystery motor?, do YOUR sources provide that date?. And. curiously, both Ford and Mopar had 426's to race in February 1963, a short 2 omths later than your date (and the Pontiac 421). Could it be the 427 (7 liter) limit was a done deal BEFORE November 1962 but only made official on that date?. And an "artists rendering" of a 1962 Ford with a fastback roof is even MORE disputeable than my letter from Vinve Piggins second in command stating the progression of big block engines. That photo was obviously doctored on a computer well after 1962. No matter, Ford developed a fastback roofline for the 1963 Ford in time for it to be used at Daytona.

There is no dispute that there were two versions of the "Z-11" engine, the Mark I which was the 409 version released for use in the summer of 1962 at the NHRA Summernationals and the Mark IIs which was the engine used in the Z-11 package. And that engine is listed in Chevrolet documents variously as "MK IIS, MK IIs and MK II (s). I never read a document from back then nor ever saw an article about there being a Mark IIs, or Mark IIS, or MARK II(s), only as a Mark II. But if it makes you happy go ahead and claim there was a Mark II and a Mark IIs, no skin off MY teeth. And at least I actually TALKED to Kieneth!. which of course to you is hearsay because I didn't tape record it.

The point is, and what you keep missing, is the Mark II was ALWAYS refered to as a Mark II back in the '60's, you'll never see it refered to as a Mark IIs. It was released for racing as the Mark II, not the Mark II stroke. If your trying to be historically ACCURATE use the terminology Chevrolet used back then, Mark II. I said throughout my missives that there was most ceratinly 409 versions of the Mark II engine, simply because the crank and rods were drop in and all they needed was a different piston than the 427 version. And actually they could use the SAME piston with a different piston pin location. And the difference in rod length between a Z-11 motor and a 409 was?. How much Richard?. Clue, the difference in stroke was .150 (3.500 vs 3.650), but the rods weren't exactly that much in diffrence. They could raise or lower the pin height by .125 with no big deal. If your going to call the Mystery motor a Mark IIs, then don't call it anything BUT a Mark IIs, after all it would HAVE to be if there WAS a Mark II which was based on a 409 (which no one back then ever heard of).

By the way, any document YOU'LL ever see, EVER!, will be a copy of the original. And anything you've ever read, EVER, was based on someone's "memory", or "recollection". And every book you've ever read (with the exception of Paul Van Valkenburgs) was written by someone who doesn't/didn't know squat about the way things were, and/or were engineers. Fast Chevy's is a pewrfect example of what I'm talking about. No one EVER put all these guys from "the day" together in one room and picked their collective brains, and now THAT can never be done.

Did they build a 409 version of the Mark II mystery motor?. Yes they did. Did they call it the Mark II and the 427 version a Mark IIs, no. But be mule headed, I'm not going to argue with you about it any more.

I broke my replies down into segments to try and explain the progression of the Mark IV. Go to : corvetterepair@yahoo.com, the guy who runs it was very interested in a 1964 version of a 427 version of the L-88. But your right Richard, in my simplified explaination of the growth of the Mark II into the Mark IV I could have/should have left it out, all of it really.

This ends my replies to this discussion/topic.

MK IISS

05-14-2005, 11:19 PM

I'm growing very tired of all this, loosing interest, want to put it to rest and move on. As I've said several times now...I was only sharing information on the MK II I found interesting. This information is made up of quotes from the gentlemen working with the new MK II and some historical NASCAR information.

I really don't care if Mr Preve accepts any of it. I bet no one else cares either.

MK IISS

05-15-2005, 07:22 AM

I agree, no need to be sorry. I thought "the other 409 engine" part was kind of interesting though. The "S" label was dropped later anyway.......after the engine was fully developed. It was simply an "in house" term or label used for a period of time during the engine's development.

In addition all W engines are MK Is (oh, oh, there's that pesky confussing "s" again.) The small s.... in this case.... means the plural or more than one or.....in this particular case more than one MK I engine. To continue... the 348, 409 and Z11 427 are all MK I engines. Now again you don't have to take my word for it. These are the words of Dick Keinath. By "words" I mean quote. A "quote" means: to repeat the actual words spoken by another individual. Again....in this particular case the words of Dick Keinath: "...by default the W-series became the MK I "....

Tom Kochtanek

05-15-2005, 08:12 PM

I really get jazzed about the history behind these engines, and behind X frames as well, and I really appreciate both of your knowledge bases with respect to these early engine developments. I wish we had unimpeachable documented evidence that we could all agree upon, but until that occurs (which I suspect it may not, given the records GM kept...) all we have to go on are these pieces of evidence that may or may not be gospel. I'm glad you guys have access to such information, and continue to explore and uncover new evidence. It's fun reading about these, noting the sources, and so forth, but not worth the tar and feathers that sometimes accompany these discussions :) :) :).

I will continue to read and to take in the details that everyone has to offer, try to make some sense of things, and make my own deductions. I recognize that there are differences of opinion, and that's what makes things "spirited" around here. At some point we need to agree to disagree and move on. We've done this before and everyone seems to heal OK :).

Being an academic, I sit in the middle of a lot of similar on campus face-to-face discussions (in this case about learning theory and technology implementations) with some national and internationally famous theorists and practitioners. We almost never agree on anything, but the discussions are really interesting, and generally worth having. Well, sometimes :).

Some of my very capable colleagues can discuss the merits of such and such all day long and are capable of crafting elegent solutions to problems that don't exist and situations that will never be. They use big words like "heremeneutics" and "integration". I can follow most of what they are getting at, but prefer simpler terms. I like to make stuff work (technology stuff), and try to render complex things easy to understand. That's my gift. That's why I pride myself as a teacher of and mentor to graduate students. Some of my colleagues can't make squat, but they feel they have a solid theoretical base on which to make claims and provide evidence.

Fran has a gift, and certainly Richard has one as well. We all do. I truly appreciate these shreds of evidence/knowledge, as they add to our understanding of the underpinnings of things "W", which is important to most of us. Let's keep these discussions informative, which they have been, and subsequently we can make our own conclusions out of the available content.

I just want to get my 409 stroker running properly, and I promise not to use big words in describing the experience :). BTW, all hermeneutics means is "to interpret". Seems relevant in this case :). Why don't they just say that???

Cheers!
TomK

MK IISS

05-15-2005, 09:15 PM

Fran: In case you are still reading this stuff. (no doubt everyone else is sick of it) I never said: "NASCAR put the cubic inch limit at 427 in November".

So you didn't like Ford's press release photo of their 1962 Star Lift Top? You think it's an "artist's rendering". It most likely is. So what? That is absolutely, in no way, any kind of proof that Ford didn't have some of the tops made. If you look at a '62 Ford consumer sales brochure you will note all the illustrations of the cars are "artist's renderings". During that time period Chevrolet's were also.

The truth is NASCAR allowed the Starlift top in one race. Fred Lorenzen won the Atlanta 500 on June 10, 1962 with his '62 Ford which had a Star Lift top. Don't take my word for it....look it up.... it's part of NASCAR's documented history.

real61ss

05-15-2005, 10:08 PM

"The truth is NASCAR allowed the Starlift top in one race. Fred Lorenzen won the Atlanta 500 on June 10, 1962 with his '62 Ford which had a Star Lift top. Don't take my word for it....look it up.... it's part of NASCAR's documented history."

Richard,
Are you sure about this? I'm not saying you're wrong, I never heard it called a Starlift top until you called it that. I do know that Ford grafted a 61 Starliner top on a 62 Galaxie and wanted to run it but I thought NASCAR never allowed them to race it. Fred Lorenzen did win the spring race in Atlanta in 62 but I'm thinking he was driving a "square back" Galaxie.
The Atlanta race was on June 10. 62, at the Charlotte race in May of 62, Ford tried to race these Starliner topped cars and were not allowed to run them. The 59 -64 edition of Stock Car Racing says; "Stacy and Lorenzen, stable mates on the Holman-Moody team were forced to drive Fords set up for dirt tracks when NASCAR outlawed the new "fastback" sloped roofs which Ford unveiled for the 600. Sactioning NASCAR said the roofs were not in mass production and did not conform to "stock" car racing"
:dunno

SS425HP

05-15-2005, 10:20 PM

What's really funny about all this today, is find me a carburated, rear wheel drive car to match any legal NASCAR "car" today. We have 4 door cars running as 2 doors, and they all have to meet the same templates. Cookie Cutter cars, basically. And, this is progress. Almost the same as in NHRA Pro Stock. Find me a factory car with 2 4bbls, rear wheel drive, And in the body styles we see running. Stock???????????????? Sure has changed the meaning of that word.

MK IISS

05-15-2005, 10:53 PM

Tommy: I will never argue with you about NASCAR. You were involved I wasn't. I'm basing my opinion on some of my NASCAR record books and it is from memory at this moment. I can't get to the books now because they are in a storage facility. I sold my house, renting one while I have another built or possibly move to Largo.

I can tell you this though. The '62 Starlift top did exist. In 1962 my girlfriend's father was the general manager of our local Ford store. The Ford dealership had a small brochure on the Starlift top. In my opinion the '61 Starliner grafted on top story is not correct or maybe a better explaination is the '61 top was Ford's first attempt and the Starlift top was their second attempt. Both outlawed by NASCAR.

If you go to www.62ford.com click on Galaxie Registry...scroll down to BETTER IDEAS in the left margin. The photo this website has is the same photo, as I remember it, that was part of Ford's press release on the top. I think it is a real photo of a lady in a convertible that Ford doctored by air brushing the top on. The text of the information seems quite close to my NASCAR info but I can't prove it now. As I remember it, NASCAR discovered that the convertible's side windows would not roll up completely into the Starlift top's side openings. One of the reasons NASCAR decided it wasn't really going to be sold to consumers as Ford claimed.

If you have the time please go to the web site and let me know what you think.

wrench

05-15-2005, 11:22 PM

If you go to www.62ford.com click on Galaxie Registry...scroll down to BETTER IDEAS in the left margin. The photo this website has is the same photo, as I remember it, that was part of Ford's press release on the top.

In the paragraph below that one on the site, there's yet another kind of top on a Ford. :rofl :rofl :rofl

I do remember these tops being discussed in the article about those special Ford engines in the sixties. Looks like they were trying to mimic the 62 BelAir Sport Coupe.

:cool:

brisbane47

05-15-2005, 11:53 PM

After reading all the posts in this section, it seems the right time to ask if any of you were present when the MKII was first delivered to the race shops. I was there and worked directly with Rex White and his mechanic Louie C. If there ever were a 409 CI MKII, no one ever saw it outside of engineering. The so called "Mystery Engine" came to us as a 427 CI engine. As far as the "MKIIs", it was never referred to as such. No one gave a "RAT'S A--" about all of that anyway. Ray Fox, Rex White, (supported out of the Rathmann shop in Melbourne) and Smokey (after much whining) got the MKII engines. At the conclusion of the 63 Daytona all support was withdrawn from GM on the MKII program. No matter what you read, the main problem was in the valve area, mainly the valve springs were not capable of endurance racing at that time and for that application. It is really interesting to hear people who were not involved argue about something they never put a hand on. Brisbane 47

Fran Preve

05-16-2005, 01:24 AM

Thank you very much Hitman, exactly the point I was trying to make but Richard couldn't grasp, the Mark II was the ONLY designation used by Chevrolet and adding the "s" for stroke is not correct.

The Mark I was a designation for an engine that saw the light of day in the summer of 1962, both by drag racers and by oval track racers. The PARTS to make one were sold over the counter but the engines were never built as complete engines by the factory. To differenciate this engine from the 427 version, which was EXACTLY the same they added the small s to signify "stroke" or stroked version. This was the engine used in the Z-11 which was the RPO designation for the ENTIRE packaaage, NOT the engine. Everyone calls it the "Z-11' engine but inside Chevrolet it was a Mark Is.

And guess what, wrong again Richard (thanks Real), that 1961 roof on the 1962 body was never allowed to race in NASCAR competition simply because as Real saysa it was a "one off". Somewhere I have a picture and article on this car (not a cobbled up photo) where Ford was using this "test car" to see how much a fastback roof line worked on the squareback body. And I believe it was powered by a 482 cubic inch engine, not because Ford wanted to run that big an engine but more because they wanted to get higher speeds for test data without stretching a modified FE motor (I believe the 482 was based on a Lincoln motor).

As to what Richard said about a November statement from NASCAR aabout a 427 or 7 liter limit you go back and see what he said, My statement is they didn't just drop that limit on everyone in Novemeber of 1962, it was under discussion before that and with NHRA too. The only manufacturer with a motor bigger that 427 at the time was Lincoln so placing that limit was no problem for anyone racing.

Tom K: good attitude to take, listen to ALL sides and make up your own mind, ask some questions if you want too. Richard thinks he's the only "expert' out here, at time I do too. It's nice when people like Brisbane (who was there) and Real61 (who was there) kick in their two cents. I speak almost all the time on drag racing.my main interest.

MK IISS

05-16-2005, 05:26 AM

As I said before, at least a half-dozen times, I was only passing on the quotes (words spoken) of the men involved with the designing, developing and testing the MKII during the early days of it's development. These quotes indicate the engine started out as a 409 and it was referred to as a MKIIS for a period of time after the 427 crank was installed. I also said the "S" label was later dropped. I also gave references where, if so inclined, a person could look this material up and decide for themselves if the information was correct.

The comments made about the MK IIs durability, who was there with Rex White, Ray Fox, Smokey and any other person who may have been in one of the outhouses at Daytona in early 1963 have nothing to do with the subject I originally posted.

Fran: I did NOT say "NASCAR put the cubic inch limit at 427 in November". It would be helpful if you learned to read. What I said was: the rule was first implemented in November 4th, 1962. This was the date of the first race of the 1963 season. Implement and announce do not mean the same thing...not even close.

As for the Starlift top, I still believe it existed. I guess you say no but the 62ford.com website says it did. I'm no longer sure the top was used at the Atlanta race in 1962. Tommy says he believes it wasn't..the website says it was.

I said this before and I will repeat it again. I do not claim or even consider myself to be an expert on any of this stuff. Only reported information I discovered and a reference to look it up for yourself.

As brisbane 47 indicated, no one gives a rats a** about this stuff anyway.

walkerheaders

05-16-2005, 06:30 AM

As brisbane 47 indicated, no one gives a rats a** about this stuff anyway.

sure we care, keep up the good work........but without doing battle amongst yourselves. i, for one find this very interesting. (unlike the 10 second 283). i like to hear stories about the factory involvement. I was not paying attention at the time,....i was a kid in 63.........but i'll NEVER forget riding in my dad's 63 aluminum nose plymouth....or my uncle Tom Snedens 63 aluminum nose dodge. or all the hemi cars and funny cars they had after the super/stockers.

real61ss

05-16-2005, 06:48 AM

As for the Starlift top; I checked the website that Richard referred to and the website says that the top was allowed to run the Atlanta race. To be honest, I thought that the top was on the Holman Moody cars when they showed up for practice at Atlanta and NASCAR wouldn't let them run them. Only last night when I pulled the Stock Car Racing books out and read through them did I find that according to this book, it was Charlotte, not Atlanta that all of this occured. I have seen a picture somewhere of the Lorenzen car with the top installed, may have been in an old Hot Rod magazine, I'm not sure and it really doesn't matter, I should have stayed out of this. To those of you that think these two (Richard & Fran) are getting mad at each other; not to worry, these two old goats are two much alike to get along, both of them are great guys with a lot of knowledge. Let'm go at it, we can learn from listening. I like reading what they write, they both amaze me with their knowledge.
:hug

brisbane47

05-16-2005, 12:04 PM

MKIISS and Walkerheaders, My statement was: "No one GAVE a RAT'S A-- about all of that anyway." Meaning that at the time we did not care about numbers, paint, where it came from, or what they called it!! All that mattered was that we finally had an engine to compete on the long tracks even though we all could guess that it would be short lived. As far as the history of the MKII, all information that can be gathered that pretains to the history and time line of the MKII is important as far as history is concerned. It was a wonderful piece of iron that was pushed into service a little too quickly. On the other hand, it sure did P--- off the Ford tribe!!! I hope this clarifies my position on this engine, I could not have wished to be at a better place, at a better time. Brisbane47

Fran Preve

05-16-2005, 03:49 PM

Richard: go back to what I said about seeing this car (1962 Ford with a 1961 roof) in a magazine, and I think Real is right it was Hot Rod but I haven't bothered to go thru mine to see what issue it was. I did NOT say it didn't exist, but it did race, it was a "test" vehicle (which may have shown up at a race but obviously wouldn't have been allowed to race). Agin, in the article in HR it was a TEST vehicle.

Tell ya what, you back off on calling the Mark II a Mark IIs and I'll grant you that in early 1962 when BOTH the Mark I and Mark II were under developement (I'm talking January/February/March) they would have been called the Mark I and II. Inside Chevrolet engineering the engine developed for the Z-11 would have been designated the Mark Is because of the increased stroke. The Mark II COULD have been being developed as a 409 in the VERY early days, then termed the Mark IIs, INTERNALLY, and for a VERY SHORT TIME, but by early summer when the Mark Is was developed for the Z-11 package to be released late in the fall the Mark II would have been stroked to the same cubic inches, and in fact, the connecting rods I saw at Smokey's shop in 1989 at his auction had the SAME 0- part number as the Z-11 engine used. I was there with a guy who restored Z-11's.

The point is, what Brisbane said, no one ever refered to the Mark II engine seen at Daytona, as a "Mark IIs". You keep refering to it as a Mark IIs, and I'm only saying that that term is inaccurate (unless your refering to explicit use inside Chevrolet during early development.

I'm sorry, explain to me what the difference is between "implement" and "annouce" is?. If they implemented it they would have had to announce it, so they either announced it AND implemented it at the same time. Or they announced it BEFORE November and then implemented it in November. Of course they COULD have implemented it in November then announced it at a later date, that doesn't make much sense tho'. I guess. I guess my question to you would be, when did they announce it?. Did they announce it BEFORE they implemented it?.

PS: I NEVER would have guessed the 1st race of 1963 was November 1962 and then the second race of 1963 being the Daytona 500, my bad.

Fran Preve

05-16-2005, 04:10 PM

For those of you following this convoluted topic, keep in mind the time frames for all of this. The Mark I, or 409 with two piece intake/special heads, was in use in July of 1962, which means TEST parts were being developed during the late winter of 61/62. Chrevrolet would have been doing dyno runs in the spring and parts would have been being produced for distribution by May or June. The parts were in racers hands by July (limited basis).

The Mystery motor was on paper in very late 1961 or VERY early 1962. To test the "theroy" of the canted valves test parts would have been cast, including blocks and heads at the same time the "Z-11" parts were, it couldn't have been any other way. during the summer of 1962 the "mystery" motor would have been running on dynos, and, as I've said, been considered the replacement for the W block motor. The engines released for the 1963 Daytona 500 were "rushed" into use because the 409 simple couldn't cut it on the long tracks. And besides, what a GREAT way to "durability" test them!.

It would be nice if everything GM engineers did was well thought out, as it turned out there were some soft spots in the Mark II which showed up at the track (and didn't on the dyno?). Nonetheless, by late summer/early fall of 1962 the Mark II was being run on Chevy dyno's. The Mark Is was being built for the RPO Z-11 for NHRA use, and when both were first seen in January/February 1963 both had been undergoing dyno tests for up to 6 months, and been on paper for a year.

Anyway, the spring, summer and fall was a wild time for the engineers in Chevrolets motor department. And the engines were the Mark I & Mark Is, and Mark II. Did Dick Kieneth refer to the Mark II as Mark II and Mark IIs, probably, but that would have been dropped early on.

General Motors requested propsels for new big block engines from all the divisions, to replace engines designed in the 40's and early 50's. Chevrolets propsel was the Mark II, an engine with a 90 degree block angle and canted valves. From first proposel to the final Mark IV version it underwent many changes, but the BASIC architecture stayed the same.

real61ss

05-16-2005, 05:09 PM

Well, I've been check'n and now I'm really confused about this 62 Ford thing. I found this on one of the racing web sites.

"As speedways became more common on the NASCAR circuit and manufacturers began to increase their involvement, teams began the first work on "aero-friendly" cars.

For example, the 1960-61 Starliner was noted for its aerodynamic roofline. In 1962, Fred Lorenzen ran a 1962 Galaxy with the 1961 Ford roof and won the Atlanta 500. It was the only race in which the car appeared."

:dunno :dunno :dunno

MK IISS

05-16-2005, 05:24 PM

Fran: This is what I said way back early in the thread....I was referring to the "S" after the MK II (MK IIS)

"It was simply an in house term or label used for a period of time during the engine's development."

Now I think this is quite clear that I was NOT claiming....I repeat...NOT CLAIMING...the completed engines, such as the ones sent to the race teams at Daytona, were ever called a MK IIS. All the writtings and stories, such as the one in HOT ROD magazine refer to the engine simply as a MK II.

Take it or leave it. As Brisbane would say: I don't give a rat's a**

MK IISS

05-16-2005, 05:46 PM

Tommy:

I too, have found two Ford websites that claim the Holman Moody cars at the Atlanta race were running the new top...but it doesn't say '61 top it refers to the Starlift top. If you do a yahoo or google search you have to spell Starlift as one word. Nothing comes up under Star Lift. But I think this info may be incorrect, which means my NASCAR history book I have packed away, somewhere, is wrong about this. I don't think it's makes sense that NASCAR would outlaw the top a few weeks earlier at Charlotte and then allow it at Atlanta. We have a NASCAR store in my area that has diecast cars. A while back the guy had a Fred Lorenzen replica of his '62 Ford with the Starlift top. The wording on the back of the box claimed the car won the Atlanta race.

The only other possibilty is there were two different tops. The '61 (cut off) top, which was rejected at Charlotte and Ford's second attempt, the Starlift deal, which was allowed the one race only. This seems a little too far out though...can't believe it happened this way.

chevymusclecars

05-16-2005, 06:13 PM

Try this web site it says that the car that the 62 car that won the Atlanta 500 has a 61 roof.

http://www.stg.thatsracin.com/mld/thatsracin/sports/special_packages/under_the_hood/9751157.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Fran Preve

05-16-2005, 08:54 PM

Was it aNASCAR or was it a USAC race?. NASCAR was the main stock car sanctioning body but I think USAC sanctioned stock cars too.

This just muddies up the water, and it's only a thought, but ALL Fords had the same roofline while Chevy had two, the very common Impala roof and the not so common (but still common) Bel Air roof line. Could someone at Ford cry about that and try and get them to let them put a 1961 roof on a 1962 body?. If I were a sanctioning body I would say "Chevy sells the Bel Air body to anyone who wants one so you have to do that too, put it in PRODUCTION". It's only a thought, but the fact Chevy ran two body styles had to rub Ford the wrong way.

MK IISS

05-16-2005, 09:21 PM

The race in question was the Atlanta 500 which was the 24th NASCAR race for the 1962 season. The race was shortened to a little over 300 miles due to rain. The race winner was not announced until five hours later due to a problem with the score (laps) cards.

As far as I know the top Chevrolet teams only ran the BelAir Spt Cp in NASCAR competition in 1962. At least all the '62 race photos show only that body style.

oil4kids

05-16-2005, 10:53 PM

Richard, Fran MKIISS and others

thanks for one of the greatest info threads on the web!

really great reading!

Tom Kochtanek

05-17-2005, 09:18 AM

I too enjoy the back and forth asynchronous discussions this group has been having on this topic (well, several topics, including the Ford roof lines!). It's been quite spirited and certainly informative :).

Mark, are you the one who won that GM document on Ebay? Looks like a great report to have on hand :).

Best,
TomK

brisbane47

05-17-2005, 05:45 PM

MKIISS, You are correct on the 1962 body, all the major players used the Bel Air Sport Coupe body in 1962. In some of my pictures I have two that were taken of Rex White and Ned Jarrett at Daytona 1962 with their Jim Rathmann sponsored Bel Air Coupes. Now, if I can just find them............. Brisbane47

oil4kids

05-17-2005, 10:19 PM

Tom

I had that document since 1965- do you want me to do a copy with high resolution ?

Fran Preve

05-18-2005, 01:14 AM

It's the Chevrolet engineers presentation book for the SAE explaining how the Mark IV was developed and it's salient engineering features. I've probably got it somewhere, I know I've got the one for the W block engine. It lays the whole program out.

Aerodynamically Chevrolet and Pontiac had aerodynamic roofs thru 1962 (except in Pontiac didn't have the "Bel Air" style roof in 62 I don't think.

Ford ran the T-bird body in 1959 with the 430 Lincoln motor, the square back roof drag was offset by the bigger motor. Then in 1960 Ford used the Starliner body (and in 1961). Both years were the hign point for Ford aerodynamically. In 1962 Ford didn't have a "fastback" type roof in production so attempted to get around the rules by puting a 1961 roof on a 1962 body but it wasn't production and had to be cobbled up at any rate, NASCAR wouldn't let them run it (?).

1963 was Fords year as they came out with the "fastback" roof line for the full size Ford and Falcon. This was a situation where they needed aerodynamicas and came up with a solution that sold like hot cakes. While Chevy's and Pontiac's roofline wasn't a true "notchback" (like the 1962 Ford) they weren't as good as the Fprd fastback roof.

I should mention that Plymouth had a true fastback roof in 1959/60/61 but lost it in 1962 and only had a true notchback in 1963. In 1964 they changed the backlite and made it better.

Look at the body styles and how long each manufacturer used them to get an idea of who had the best roofline and for how long. The true fastback was very much needed at high speed tracks, but at what expense?. At the very, very beginning of NASCAR and NHRA the manufacturers weren't into building "special" body style just used for racing, that would come down the road.

Those first years, 1959 to 1963 were VERY exciting as far as stock car racing went, and keep in mind, during those years the cars WERE stock cars!. As in STOCK cars!. Driving them at 150-160mph had to take really, really big gonads!. And in tee shirts no less!.

MK IISS

05-18-2005, 07:37 AM

Tuesday I spent quite a bit of time doing research on the '61 Ford top deal. Looked at books at the library and went to a large book store in the Tampa Bay area. I found several articles on the Atlanta race that claim the '61 style top was used, plus other write-ups on the race that did not mention anything about the top. I did not find any photos of Lorenzen's winning car. So I guess we may never know for sure one way or the other. I did come to the conclusion you can NOT determine anything by an article that does include a picture. I found that race reports often use the same photo of the winners car over and over again for different races. In other words it is simply a file photo.

I do know this for certain. Even though auto journalists refer to the top as a "61 top" it was not a top cut off a '61 Ford. The top was a replica of the '61 top made of fiberglass with a Ford part number. There is a website I mentioned in an earlier post,www.62ford.com/registry/better_ideas.asp scroll down to starlift

Tom Kochtanek

05-18-2005, 08:26 AM

I always wondered why/how those last few "thin pillared aerodynamic tops" made it to those 1962 Belair Sport Coupes (I recall Tommy and Wrench and some others just hate that word "bubbletop") in that last production run. Soemone had mentioned that they might have been left over from 1961 production and Chevy, being the frugal folks they were, just put them on a few thousand cars to get rid of them. Or was it driven by performance expectations? Or a combination of the two?

Fran/Richard/etal, do any of you have any jist on this topic (just for the Chevy line)?

After my first car (1961 BelAir) I then had a 1961 Pontiac StarChief, and I always thought the 1961 Ventura/Catalina/Bonneville in two door trim with slimline top had a great look. I think Tommy will agree with me. Fran is correct, as I recall, that the top didn't make it into Pontiac's 1962 lineup. My older brother had a 1962 Pontiac Grand Prix, black over white, with buckets and console. Very nice car, great lines (for a big car) but not a "bubbletop" (oops, there's that word again!).

I have been tracking 1961 Pontiac 2 doors with the slim "C" pillar for a bit, and they are pricey, just like the 1962 BA Sport Coupe. I think the ultimate would be to find or clone a 1961 Super Duty Pontiac 2 door. I've seen a 1963 SD clone and it went for high dollars (on Ebay about a month ago).

Tommy, how would one of those look next to your collection of 1961 Impala SS cars? All you would need would be the Ford to accompany them :).

Cheers,
TomK

real61ss

05-18-2005, 08:59 AM

Richard,

I have also been doing some checking and have found about the same as you, references to Lorenzen winning the race but no actual photo's of the car. I believe it was the Atlanta race, this is the first time that I've found some thing that I feel is incorrect in the books, 40 Years of Stock Car Racing. For the most part, these books are made up of actual newspaper clippings from the time. That is not the case with the 62 Ford with the "funny top". This section of the book is not a newspaper article, just a section written by the author and I believe it's incorrect, .
I did find a site on the internet that offered a video of the 62 Atlanta race for 25 dollars, I guess buying that might answer the question.
I guess the reason that I always thought it was a 61 top welded on a 62 car was; this was a regular thing to do back then, NASCAR also had the convertible division and the guys would just cut the top off to run that division, then weld it back on to run the regular races. In fact, if I remember correctly, NASCAR allowed you to run one regular race with the top off after competing in a convertible so it was not uncommon to see a convertible or two running in a regular race. Another reason I thought it was a metal top was; NASCAR didn't allow fiberglass body parts and perhaps this is one of the reasons they outlawed it.
Anyway, it's been fun talking about it, brings back lots of memorys. The guy who I worked for back then, Worth McMillion, is still a close friend and might could answer my questions but he's in his eighties now and he's hard to talk to, after being around race cars all his life, he can't hear and he won't won't wear a hearing aid.
While we're talking about Starliners, mine is complete and is going to it's first show this weekend, a statewide AACA show, I plan to take it to Hershey this fall.

Fran,

You're correct, in 62 the cars were pretty much still stock but it didn't last much longer. It all started changing when Ford came out with the new chassis design in 65, most all of the race cars started using their front end stuff then, no matter what make of car it was. We took delivery of a new 62 Pontiac in the early spring of 1962, by the time the car was completed, it was early summer, the first race was Daytona in July of 62. Didn't make the race, motor seized up on the qualifing lap. But anyway, the car was pretty much stock, we started with a brand new car, took the body off the frame, rewelded all the welds, narrowed the rear frame rails for tire clearance, sent the rear to Holman Moody and had floaters installed and we used floater hubs on the front. the body was put back on the frame and the roll bars were welded in, used the bench seat, just took the back off the passenger side. Actually used the 3 speed transmission with the column shifter. Actually, the first race we went to was Charlotte but they didn't even let us through inspection, in those days, Pontiac was in their heyday and you had to know somebody to get one of the SD motors, as I said, I worked for Worth McMillion, an indenpendant racer and he had taken a 30 day leave of absence from work and went out to Highland Indiana and worked for Ray Nichols to learn how to set up the car during the winter, he ordered this 62 Pontiac and it came in about the time he got back from working for Nichols but Pontiac wouldn't sell him a motor so he decided he would embarrass them by taking the car to a race with the little stock (2 barrel carb and single exhaust) motor. It worked, NASCAR wouldn't let us even take the car on the track but the Pontiac guys were impressed with the appearance of the car and the following week, a SD motor was delivered to his shop. I think NASCAR's chief inspector, Norris Friel may have helped also as he and Worth seemed to get along pretty good........
I'm sorry, long and boring story, you gotta remember, I was a 18 year old kid then, just out of high school and happen to live just down the road from a race shop. Not many people are so lucky as to have grown upin the sixties, much less near a race shop. I will always be indebted to Worth, he changed my life forever. Like I said, this stirs the memory. Sorry for rambling......
:cheers

MK IISS

05-18-2005, 09:19 AM

Tommy: I always enjoy your posts with the NASCAR history. Please do more. I believe the cars that were raced with the top on/top off were referred to as "zipper cars".

SS425HP

05-18-2005, 10:21 AM

Hey, guys, I enjoy the heck out of all this stuff you are posting. Very interesting. Even the give and take. We didn't get much NASCAR coverage here in Ohio. Just if and when ABC sports decided to show it. Daytona was always a delayed broadcast. to you guys that lived it, bring on more. To the others that might think this is nasty at times, I have had lunch with Fran and Richard several times. Always gentlemen. I cherish their friendship. Both truly nice fellows. They might seem to go for the jugular, but they ARE friends.
Point of this post is, keep up the good work. This is all very interesting to me. Didn't remember the top deal Ford pulled. Have heard of other stuff that was done. Those were the days, my friends. Has gotten way too high tech. Heck, they spend $100,000.00 to find 3 horsepower, today.

Love these posts. Please keep them coming so us other old guys can learn what went on in NASCAR that we never heard about.

Fred

brisbane47

05-18-2005, 11:47 AM

Norris Friel: Now there is a name that brings back a LOT of memories, good and bad, from the 61/63 time frame. He had his hands full with the smokey clan so we were able to do a few modifications to the independent (test) car entered under the name of Tommy Irwin. Mr. Friel had smokey bring the engine, and nearly everything else to the garage in a box so he could look at it before it went together!! I managed to get a much larger cubic inch engine past him after we destroyed the initial engine on purpose in practice. If you were not a "big" name they did not pull every valve, check every spring, and go over the engine completely. I had it in a crate so they could check the bore and stroke on two cylinders, which made them happy..There were a lot of things going on like that during that time frame, no P&G or anything like that. The engine used a Crower cam which gave up during the practice session and ended what chance I had to compete in the 500 in 62. I do remember getting chewed out when I qualified for the Grand National License for not following their "so many laps at X speed" and so on. After all, what do short track people know?? Get it up to temperature--and nail it... I did get it up to 161.5 With Rex White right behind me, which was unheard of for a Chevrolet at that time. Pontiacs were going that fast, so I suppose it was a good thing that it did blow up or Mr. Friel would have been all over us. Funny you should mention his name, It kind of opened up another memory. Thanks, brisbane47

Ronnie Russell

05-18-2005, 12:43 PM

Should Tommy and brisbane47 ever get together for a few days and write a book about their 1961 to 1965 NASCAR experiences, please let me know. I want to be the first customer.

real61ss

05-18-2005, 02:12 PM

Hitman,

You just brought up another another name from the past; Tommy Irvin. Another race shop that was fairly close to where I grew up, about 40 miles from us was Monroe Shook. Monroe Shook owned the 61 Chevrolet that Emanuel Zervakis drove on the GN circuit and Tommy Irvin took over when Emanuel went back to running the modified's. Wonder what ever happened to him.

Sounds like you were involved with a much more competive team than I was, we were just having fun. Worth, myself and the other guys who helped all worked regular jobs and worked on the race car at night. We tried to make at least one race a month, sometimes two. Monroe Shook owned a trucking company, Shooks Transfer, that's who delivered the Pontiac SD motor to us.

I always thought a lot of Mr. Freil, he looked out for me more than once. I was just a back packer trying to make enough money to get back home on. I was racing at Martinsville, guess it was 65 and I only had enough money to buy one set of tires, most of us independants either bought used tires from the factory teams or on short tracks like Martinsville, we ran recaps. So, I bought 4 recaps from the Goodyear truck, after the first practice, the NASCAR inspector measures one of my tires and it's too wide so they take it away from me. I started the car and pulled it out in the infield. Mr. Freil who is the Tech Director comes over to my car and says, hey boy, why have you got the car out here? I explain that they just took one of my tires and I don't have enough money to buy another and I can't afford to let them anymore of them or I won't be able to load the damn thing on the trailer to go home!!! You gotta remember, I'm a kid that just turned 21 and I don't know what to do. Mr. Freil told me to come with him and we went over to the Goodyear truck and he made Ross Hudgins take the other 3 recaps off my car and give me 4 new Goodyears and wouldn't let him charge me for them. You had to know Norris Freil to understand just what a character he was. Tuff, Tuff old man but really was a good guy. Also one of the few times I had 4 new tires at the same time!!!!!!
Well enough of that........

brisbane47

05-18-2005, 03:24 PM

I wasn't too much older than that when I fell into the undercover operation at Jim Rathmann's shop in Melbourne. I mostly worked with Rex White and Louie, but also spent a lot of time on the dyno at smokeys and down by the river at the Ray Fox facility. That was a good time for a Super Modified driver from Michigan.. Right place, right time.. And Generous Motors paid for it!!! See ya, brisbane47

MK IISS

05-18-2005, 04:01 PM

I just received an email from a good friend who lives here in North Florida. Chris is a retired Ford dealer from Canada. During a period of about 10 years we went to a lot of NASCAR races and I think both Atlanta races, spring and fall, for at least 5 yrs in a row. He brought up a few good points about Atlanta. Atlanta was always known as a "Ford Track". Ford had a plant near by and the majority of the fans that went to the Atanta race were Ford fans. Atlanta even had a special covered seating area known as "The Ford Section" . There were always new Ford cars on display and Ford factory executives at the race. Many times members of the Ford family were even there. I can remember even when a GM car, such as Pontiac, was the offical NASCAR pace car of the year...at Atlanta it was always a Ford pacecar. In other words Ford spent a lot of money there.

His point is that if NASCAR would have given Ford a special concession to the rules, allowing them to run the '61 style top, it would have been at Atlanta. You might say: "what about the rules?" NASCAR is well known for breaking it's own rules if there is money involved. A good example is the 1963 season. A lot of fans, in 1963, bought tickets just to see that Chevrolet (Junior Johnson) run.

MK IISS

05-18-2005, 04:23 PM

Nutts, I almost forgot. My friend Chris told me that two summers ago he went to an NASCAR autograph signing promotion in N. Carolina. There were several current and retired drivers there including Junior Johnson. The '63 cloned Impala was also there. Johnson had a long line at his table because so many Chevy fans were asking him questions about his 1963 Impala. Chris overheard Johnson tell some of his fans that he did not use the "Mystery Motor" in all the races he drove in. On some of the dirt short track races he ran a 427 version of the 409. He indicated this was because they wanted to save the MK II for the larger tracks because they were running out of parts. I'm not claiming this is true...just passing the info on.

real61ss

05-18-2005, 06:20 PM

"On some of the dirt short track races he ran a 427 version of the 409. He indicated this was because they wanted to save the MK II for the larger tracks because they were running out of parts. I'm not claiming this is true...just passing the info on."

Richard,

I'd say this is true. After Daytona, the fans wanted to see the Chevrolets run, promoters were paying lots of "deal money" for them to just show up so the guys were doing whatever it took to keep them running. I believe that Jr. kept the short track cars in N. Wilksboro while Ray Fox kept the speedway cars at his shop.
I do remember being at Hillsbrough N.C. in 63 (9/10 mile dirt) and looking at the motor in Jr.'s car and it had the Mystery motor in it but that was early in the season. I remember it having a Holly carb on it which struck me as odd because we ran the Carter on the Pontiac's.
It's no way the fans would have known what motor was in the cars, heck, most of them back then, didn't know the difference in the motors. As for that, not many people know the difference now, just this small group here.

Fran Preve

05-19-2005, 12:30 AM

Tom: I agree on the 1961 Pontiac, I liked them too, still do, but 1960/1961 Pontiac's are getting up there in price.

Real: I agree it makes sense that they would run the "Z-11" motor at times for the reasons given (short tracks).

Tom: I'm sure using the bubble top for racing was thought of but they advertised that body style from day one in the Bel Air body style so that wasn't the ONLY reason. Something like 10,000 were built in 1962, and most I've seen were 6's and 283's. Logical, it was a "low line" hardtop. I've heard the number 600 tossed around for 409's, that seems high to me. The Bel Air hardtop cost about $100 less (sticker) than an Impala hardtop, not very much considering the Impala had the all new convertible like roof line. And the NADA shipping weight was within 50 lbs so the term "lighter weight" isn't factually true. The Bel Air was fractionally light with better aerodynamics so the engineers would prefer that body style, especially for NASCAR racing.

Just hacking the top off a hardtop to race it then welding it back on seems like a lot of work. How would lopping off the roof affect body rigidity?. I'd wonder if it was worth it. It would seem there was internal bracing on a convertible that wouldn't be there on a hardtop. Then again they could weld in all the extra bracing, couldn't hurt (except for weight) to have a more rigid hardtop body (when the roof was on). When did they stop racing convertibles in Grand National racing?. The class was dropped, when?.

MK IISS

05-19-2005, 04:53 AM

I believe the convertible division was so popular because the fans could actually see the driver...see what it took to steer a race car. 1961 may have been the last year.

In addition, if it is true Junior Johnson raced his '63 Chevrolet in some of the races with a 427 based on the 409 engine design, the correct term or label in describing the engine would be a MK I 427 not a "Z11". I know, I'm splitting hairs here but it is the truth... and the actual term that should be used because "Z11' was an RPO code for a total package. And yes...this is my opinion which I have every right to express. I also base my opinion on this : "By default the W-engine series became the Mk I." Not my words but the words of some guy named Dick Keinath. More importantly I do not base my opinion on a piece of paper that is not on letterhead without a signature that could have been typed by anyone.

Also...if Junior was runnin' a 427 based on the 409 engine it was most likely a 427 by Junior..not a 427 by Chevrolet. In other words a homebuilt engine. He may have built a 427 out of a 409/400, retaining the 409 heads and intake. He may not have used the Z11 type head....probably didn't need to. A 409/400 with a 427 crank would be a pretty stout engine for a short track on dirt. I'm aware this is conjecture....not proven.

Fran Preve

05-19-2005, 01:35 PM

Notice I put quotes around "Z-11", hmmmmm, why did I do that?. And the W engine was NEVER termed a "Mark I", or a "Mark" for that matter. The Mark I term came into play to describe the special head and 2 piece intake version of the W block, this was a Zora Duntov term, not a Dick Kieneth term.

Jr. probably made up 427's using the readily available 3.650 stroke crank and rods used in the quote "Z-11" 427 engine. The heads and intake as well as the crank and rods were available to racers, and others, over the counter. After all, we know there were single four barrel intakes for the drag race engine, and they were used on Mark I 409's late in the season in 1962, why not just add the 3.650 crank and rods to one of those 409's and you have a 427. But then what do I know. :dunno

I don't care what Dick Kieneth wrote 20 years after the fact, I base my statements on internal Chevy documents from the 60's, and conversations with engineers OTHER than Dick Keineth who were involved in the W and Mark IV projects back then. A couple of posters on this topic seem to agree with what I've said. :cool:

If the convertible division was dropped in 1961 why would they "lop off the top" of a 1962 or 63 car and build a "zipper" (?) car?. :dunno

:bow if it's OK with you I'll continue to refer to the Mark Is engine as a quote "Z-11" engine. I THOUGHT it was obvious when I put the term in quotes when describing the engine most would see I refering to the engine ALONE and not the whole package.

brisbane47

05-19-2005, 01:53 PM

I left the NASCAR program after the 63 500 at Daytona when GM pulled the plug on us, but I would bet that whoever had the MKII kept them for the long tracks. Knowing Junior, I am sure he had put together some kind of engine from a combination of parts that included the longer stroke crank. I would have liked to stay around, but going with Ford was not a good option at the time. When I took over the Angel's Aviation sports car team it was a whole new world!! A lot of fun, really strange people, with more money than good sense, but a different type car and tracks to drive on. It was good for a couple of years, but Open Wheel short track cars got the best of me. haha. I wish I had some input on what happened to the MKII after the 500, but I had a family to feed. See ya all, brisbane47

MK IISS

05-19-2005, 04:41 PM

Fran: Here's the deal. We are both on the same page here about the MK I stuff. I agree with you completely that the the W engine was not referred to as a Mk I engine during it's development....while it was being built. The developmental stages were referred to as Mk this & that. It wouldn't be so confusing if Duntov had used the term Stage I, Stage II, etc like Chrysler did. However after the MK II came and went, and the MK IV arrived.... the W engines, as a group, were labeled MK I engines. It would be clearer if Mr. Keinath would have said "after the fact" instead of "by default". This MK I label on the W engines, as a whole group, was not coined by me or automotive journalists..but by Chevrolet.

Ronnie Russell

05-19-2005, 07:38 PM

I have seen the terms,---Mark I Mark Is Mark II Mark IIs and Mark IV mentioned in this section of the Forum. So what was a Mark III ? Did they just skip Mark III ? Or was it some highly secret project? What was a Mark III?

MK IISS

05-19-2005, 08:00 PM

Ronnie: Fran has more information on the MK III project than I do but I do know this. During the summer of 1963 ( it may have been later) Chevrolet engineers were looking at a different engine possibility which had greater cylinder bore centers for a much larger displacement engine. The project was short lived and abandoned. Not quite sure why except they probably decided to go with the MK IV. The reason Chevrolet assigned a number to the project was because they had a plan to purchase the Packard V-8 tooling, after Packard went out of business, and redesign the engine. That's all I know. I don't know if you ever saw one of the packard V-8s but it was quite a large heavy engine. I believe it was only 352 cubic inches but could have been expanded to much more.

Ronnie Russell

05-19-2005, 11:13 PM

Thanks Richard. I have never heard of MK III. Your explaination souds logical, but I think I will use my imagination and pretend it was a top secret G M conspiracy to unleash 409 Chevy II on the world.

MK IISS

05-20-2005, 12:04 AM

Ronnie: You are welcome but as I said, Fran Preve probably has other information on the MK III project. The bulk of my info on the MK III is from another source who is a retired Chevrolet engineer who refuses to get involved in any internet discussions. Much of the Chevrolet info I have learnered over the years is from him. This is why I've said many times that I am not an expert on any of this stuff. However I have a friend that is.

Ronnie Russell

05-20-2005, 12:58 AM

Richard, I have no doubts of your explaination. My comment was made in jest. My humor may not fit this thread. Thanks for your info. on the MK III, for I had never heard anything about it before.

Fran Preve

05-20-2005, 01:00 AM

Ronnie: Richard told you what I would have, the Mark III exsited on paper only, just as Richard said it involved buying Packard's V-8 tooling. It was a short lived discussion and I'm surprised they threw a Mark III moniker on it. As a side note the Mark V was basically a rehab of the Mark IV, they added a cooling passage on the head that should have been on the original which caused problems with cylinder head interchange between the Mark IV and Mark V. Changes to the crankshaft flange caused more problems and required a special "kit" to retrofit Mark V's into Mark IV trucks (and cars). The Mark VI is also called the L-18 and was even more refined and different (that's what they make now as 496's). Also they caused quite a problem when the eliminated the mechanical fuel pump boss on the Mark V, a REALLY stupid move!.It would have cost an extra million dollars for the machines and they had to fit them into the machine floor. They couldn't make up their mind so finally left it off. This created serious problems with the marine industry because they wanted and needed mechanical fuel pumps, and when retrofitting a Mark V where a Mark IV was you needed to switch to an electric fuel pump. How stupid was it?. On the 90 degree V-6, which was also used as a marine engine, they simply locked out the machines that machined the fuel pump for non-marine applications, they could make them both ways.

Richard: I respect ALMOST everything you say, and agree, MOST of the time, but where I DON'T agree I have to be true to myself, sometimes you show me where I'm wr-wr-wro-I can't say it, other times I have to hold my ground. In the case of the Mark discussion I'll have to disagree. I have NO records in my internal documentation or from any engineers I'VE talked to for anything but a 409 w/ two peice intake/heads (Mark I), 427 (Mark Is), Mark II, Mark III, and Mark IV. I have nothing anywhere that shows a W block being refered to as a "Mark", from 1956 thru 1964, nor have I ever read in any magazine from that time refering to anything but those. Both you and I know that most books written from the mid 80's on contain many mistakes, provable mistakes. It's my understanding Duntov threw the "Mark I" designation on the 409 with special parts. Trust me Richard, I would REALLY like to have something that speaks of the W as a "Mark" so I could name the book I'm writing "MARK- a History of Chevy's Big Block Engines from 1958 to 1975".

Anyway............................................ .......................Fran

MK IISS

05-20-2005, 07:11 AM

Mr. Duntov sure liked the word "Mark" or "Mk". He labeled a lot of stuff with the term. I can remember back in the 60s there were some over the counter camshafts (dealer/owner installed...not regular production) for the W engines that were Mk this... Mk that....whatever. It's just labels or words anyway...not worth loosing a friendship over.

MK IISS

05-20-2005, 12:53 PM

Ronnie: You said: "My humor may not fit this thread."

It could have used some humor a long time ago.

Fran Preve

05-22-2005, 11:23 PM

Then there's the guy at the flea market yesterday who said he heard some 409 stuff "from an engineer at the Tonawanda plant that helped design it". He was supposedly in a building near the enterence. Needless to say I went absolutely BALLISTIC. Needless to say NO design work on ANY engine went on at Tonawanda!. Now I regret not tearing off to confront this sob.

Richard: Things are murky from back then, no one ever cared enough to sit all these guys down together and thrash out who did what and when, now all we can do is piece things together from old records and the memories of the few that are left. And a few educated guess's. But evidently there are a few out there that enjoy our little "battles" (disagreements?) and it's neat when someone who was into it back then throws in their two cents. In the end maybe we all learn something.

BTW, at the flea market tody one of the guys we were with was selling old Hudson club magazines, I glommed up on 4 issues pertaining to their early 1950-54 NASCAR days. What a hoot that was, NASCAR from 1950 to 1963.

SS425HP

05-22-2005, 11:45 PM

Fran and Richard, the only problem is that people that don't know you, and don't know that you are friends, don't understand the "battles". It's fun to have met you both, had lunch with you both, and shared in the stories with you both.
I had planned on cancelling my trip to Florida, then remembered you were going down, and we could all three get together again. So I went. Glad of it.
BTW, I have met, through this web site, many precious friends. We have shared some good times and some bad times, thanks to this web site. WOW, what a neat thing.
Thanks to Bob for putting this thing on, and keeping it running. :bow

Fred

MK IISS

05-23-2005, 02:14 AM

Bob has been very quiet lately...... I hope he is feeling ok.

I'm trying to buy a video of the '62 Atlanta race race to determine if Ford was really allowed to race the '61 style top or not. The web is full of conflicting info on this. The four volume set of books that Tommy and I have.... FORTY YEARS OF STOCK CAR RACING by Greg Fielden is probably the best source of historical NASCAR racing info available, but is unclear on this. The 4 volume set is out of print now but still available on the used book market for about $100.00. Mr. Fielden wrote a 5th volume, RUMBLIN' RAGTOPS, also out of print, which is in the $200.00 range on the used market. RUMBLIN RAGTOPS covers the first to the last NASCAR convertible division race.

Searching out NASCAR information I discovered the famous Ford 427, released for the 1963 Daytona 500, was not really a 427 cube engine. Ford just labeled it a "427". It was actually 425 cubic inches...424.964 to be exact. Ford's first 427 was the 1966 428 which was actually 426.543 cubic inches.

bobs409

05-23-2005, 07:22 AM

I'm still kickin' Richard. I'm just letting you guys "hash" this thing out and keeping way out of the discussion. :D

Fran Preve

05-23-2005, 05:19 PM

Fred: seeing you and Richard was the high point of my trip and was VERY glad we could all get together. I'm only sorry Richard lives so far north, we'll be back down in the fall for a longer time and we can do it all again, maybe take in the Daytona flea together?. Anyway, thanks for arranging to be there when I was.

chevymusclecars

05-23-2005, 06:22 PM

I was looking around on the internet to see if there was anything that really showed the 62 Ford with the 61 roof could be confirmed and found this, looks pretty convincing to me. This is taken from the Nascar site under history section III.

"As the "superspeedway boom" era continued, manufacturers began to pay more attention to aerodynamics. The 1963 Ford Fastback Galaxy was used in the manufacturer's literature and was advertised as a race car. The 1960-61 Starliner had what was actually an effectively aerodynamic roofline. In fact, with the 1962 car a pretty boxy proposition, Fred Lorenzen ran a 1962 Galaxy with a 1961 Ford roof in a one-shot deal for the Atlanta 500 -- and won the race in the car's only appearance."

http://www.nascar.com/2002/kyn/history/evolution/02/06/stockcar3/index.html

MK IISS

05-23-2005, 07:10 PM

Thank you chevymusclecars. I think this pretty much clinches it along with the www.62ford.com/registry/better_ideas.asp description of the Starlift top.

Fran Preve

05-24-2005, 03:59 PM

I guess that settles it!. But after reading the NASCAR article I'll dispute (as usual) the statement about using the T-Bird. The T-Bird was offered with a 430 Lincoln engine and 3 speed transmission, and not just for NASCAR racing, more than a few were sold. Also I believe the T-Bird had a coil spring rear suspension which may have been better than leaf springs. Also the T-Bird or Galaxie (if it had been used) would have been a one year only car, the 1960 Starliner was a done deal by 1959. Frankly smooozing the T-Bird and 430 by NASCAR for one year only should have been an easy task for Ford.

PS: Atlanta may have had a Ford assembly plant, but didn't Chevy have one there too?.

MK IISS

05-24-2005, 07:52 PM

Fran: I'm not quite sure what you disagree with about the '59 T-Bird info on NASCAR's website. I always thought Ford elected to run the T-Bird in '59 because the top engine in the Galaxie was the 300 horse 352 which was not a high perf. engine. The 352 couldn't compete with the competition such as the 320 horse 348. I realize the 350 horse 430 Lincoln engine wasn't a high performance engine either but it did have more horsepower.

I don't know if GM had a plant near Atlanta but I do know during the time I attended the Atlanta races ( at least ten) there were many Ford employees there. This included factory workers and "big shots" from Michigan. During pre-race functions Ford executives were often introduced. I can remember one year Edsel Ford II was there. There was always Ford stuff on display everywhere. So, even though it was conjecture on my part, I thought maybe Ford may have put pressure on NASCAR to allow the '61 style top for this one race. Just a guess.

I also came across this information on the so called "'61 top" This is from the book CHARLOTTE MOTOR SPEEDWAY, ISBN # 0-7603-0751-2.... "Stacy (Nelson Stacy was one of the Holman-Moody team drivers) had been ticketed to drive a Ford Galaxie with a new 'fastback' roof. The sleek roofline was a new aerodynamic feature fresh from Dearborn designed specifically for the high-banked superspeedways." In my opinion this is additional proof that the top was not a roof cut off a '61 Ford and welded upon a '62 Galaxie.

Fran Preve

05-25-2005, 12:43 AM

They seemed to imply that the T-Bird was used because it was lower and sleeker (and it was in relative terms) but it was more because of the 430 Lincoln engine that was available in the T-Bird. As you say, the biggest engine available in the Galaxie was the 300hp/352, but in the article they bypassed the 430 Lincoln powerplant as the BIGGEST reason.

I didn't mean to imply that there WASN'T a big Ford presence at Atlanta, I only wondered if Chevrolet had a presence too. Not as big maybe but a presence nonetheless. Of course I don't KNOW if GM had assembly plants in the Atlanta area.

And I don't disagree Ford would apply pressure on NASCAR to use the fastback 1962 at this one race, but the other teams would have screamed bloody murder once they saw it!. Look what Ford did when they saw the "mystery motor" at the 1963 Daytona 500.

walkerheaders

05-26-2005, 11:41 AM

here's 1 for ya.

Ronnie Russell

05-26-2005, 05:44 PM

Whats the matter. Bob, cant get the front wheels off the ground? Howd you push the front bumper in? Pushing Fords? Just kidding!! Great looking car, I love it!!! Is this a current car, or one from the archives?

Ronnie Russell

05-26-2005, 06:51 PM

After looking closer, it appears to be a very old picture. you are just a big old "tease" Bob..

Fran Preve

05-26-2005, 09:41 PM

Notice too it's a 1965 Chevelle and probably built well past 1965. Could it REALLY have been a Mark II?. Why not, it was well after they were being raced on NASCAR tracks so a few were still floating around. And the Mark II bolted in anywhere a 409 could go (same basic block).

Side note: I live next to a now defunct Chevy dealership (closed). Back in 1964 the parts manager bought a new 1964 Chevelle Malibu with a 327 and 4 speed. The dealership was noted for selling performance parts for both boats and cars (I live on an island afterall!). In 1966 he dropped a 427 in it and turned it into a race car called "Would You Believe". There probably weren't very many nearly new Malibu's with new Mark IV engines in 1966.

real61ss

05-26-2005, 09:58 PM

"I live next to a now defunct Chevy dealership (closed). "

Well darn, I think they were still open last summer when I was there. I hate to see the little dealerships close. :(

Fran Preve

05-28-2005, 12:53 AM

No Tommy that was the old dealership, storage only, they moved to the BIG dealership you went by when you turned on Whitehaven. THAT dealership, Fucillo, is one of the largest SELLING dealers in NY State (last year). The lease on the old lot and store ran out in February and now it sits empty. I should buy it and start a restoration business specializing in W blocks. I bet I'd make a MILLION!.

You guys have to appreciate this, when I bought my house in 1986 it was next to a small Chevrolet dealership on a small island in the middle of the Niagara River. Get this, I have a deer crossing sign in front of my house (and a small herd at times in the back yard). It took me 10 minutes from my front door to that Tonawanda engine plant where I worked (I used to go home for dinner). And I wouldn't buy a car from THAT dealership on a BET!.

But before 1979 it was owned by a family that was into boat racing and high performance cars so the dealership usually could get, or had, hi performance cars and car parts and had performance oriented workers. And it was probably one of the smallest dealers in the country (at that time).

I had a problem with buying a house next to a Chevy dealer, my wife didn't, so................................................ .........................

oil4kids

05-29-2005, 08:52 PM

That MarkII Chevelle Looks like a 1964SS with a 1965 Grill

Fran Preve

05-31-2005, 12:28 AM

Yeah, the grill does seem to be set back too far.

Rich64SS

05-31-2005, 12:53 PM

I was looking around on the internet to see if there was anything that really showed the 62 Ford with the 61 roof could be confirmed and found this, looks pretty convincing to me. This is taken from the Nascar site under history section III.

July '05 issue of Mustang & Fords magazine (yea, I read ALL car mags. I program for a distributor and get all my mags free) has an article entitled "First On Race Day" chronicling the history of Ford in NASCAR. The section on 1962 states that Lorenzen's June Atlanta victory came in a '62 Galaxie convertible with an 'optional' bolt-on hardtop that coincidentally looked exactly like the '61 Starliner's roof, they called the car a Starlift Galaxie. It also said that although deemed legal the morning of the race, by sunset the Starlift roof option was ruled illegal.

There is also a picture of Lorenzen kneeling in front of his #28 Starlift with Nelson Stacy's #29 Starlift right behind it.