Nikke
Active Member
I think this is the one http://www.autotraderclassics.com/c...let-Impala-472468.xhtml?conversationId=191487
61 Impala Sport Coupe
- Thread starter Nikke
- Start date
That car has been for sale for many years. The WZ code on the data tag is interesting. The bigger problem would be explaining the stamped '61 casting number on a suspected '62 block as mentioned in the ad. Anything is possible, but that Impala will need some bulletproof documentation to be legit.LeoLeo the one that Nikke has posted is the one I saw on Auto Trader Classics, would love to know more about this car!Pat
mac1
Well Known Member
This 61 was owned by a guy in Orange county a few years ago. http://www.autotraderclassics.com/classic-car/1961-Chevrolet-Impala-416469.xhtml
Sorry to say he was killed in his older corvette roughly 5 years ago. A large truck rear ended him at a signal. The person who owns it now bought the car from his widow. I havnt seen it around for a few years. The picture below was taken about 5 years ago shortly after he bought the car. In the auto desciption pic, everything looks good except the vin number which would have made it an early production car.
Sorry to say he was killed in his older corvette roughly 5 years ago. A large truck rear ended him at a signal. The person who owns it now bought the car from his widow. I havnt seen it around for a few years. The picture below was taken about 5 years ago shortly after he bought the car. In the auto desciption pic, everything looks good except the vin number which would have made it an early production car.
The car looks real, except for the red/gray interior, which was not offered as far as I know. Either red/white or gray. The tags indicate a GM special engineering project. In late June 61, the 068 block was being cast, but it wouldn't have an X cast on it, but could have been stamped. I see no reason why the engine plant would grind off the 068 casting numbers and stamp the 623 numbers. That was only done in the very first few weeks of production in Nov/Dec 60 due to a mistake in the numbers in the mold. If there is an X cast on the front of the block then it should be a late 62 (after about April 62) and should also have julian date casting.
The final thing that makes me call bogus on the engine is the broach marks. The longitudinal broach marks are a feature of the small block and the Mark IV big blocks. I have never seen them on a W block.....only the circular mill marks. I don't think the W block could be set up on the big broach machine due to the angle of the deck, thus the circular milling machine marks. Those are probably the reproduction broach marks put there by an uninformed restamper use to doing Corvette engines.
If there was a 409 409 (or a 380 409) built in late 61, I would think it would be an 068 block with 690 heads and the stamped assembly code would likely be QB (or QA) as it was in 62.
Not that unusual for the engine assembly line to be in the process of converting to next model year production, especially if the parts were already in production and available over the counter.
The first 409 out of the Los Angeles asembly plant was the first week of January 61.This cars vin # is 11837L153392. That would put a production date of late 1960? That would lay to rest any thought of it being a real 409 car as the 409's didnt come out until later in 1961.
Here are a couple more pictures of the engine I had stored on my computer.
How did you come up with the assembly date? Wasn't it on the trim tag or do you have a reference listing the end of month VIN numbers by assembly plants like is available for the 55-57's?
Looks like a SB fan shroud and incorrect generator.
mac1
Well Known Member
Cecil, I didn't know the 409's were released that early. I always read they were released late in 1961 production year, sometime when the first SS's appeared
The vin # L 153392 would indicate to me an earlier build date, sometime before January 1st 61. In my mind, the dates didn't add up.
The vin # L 153392 would indicate to me an earlier build date, sometime before January 1st 61. In my mind, the dates didn't add up.
Cecil, I didn't know the 409's were released that early. I always read they were released late in 1961 production year, sometime when the first SS's appeared
The vin # L 153392 would indicate to me an earlier build date, sometime before January 1st 61. In my mind, the dates didn't add up.
I agree, that VIN was probably built the last week of December 1960.
Mr.1961
Well Known Member
That's 110% correct. This black beauty was NOT born a 409 car.
Mr.1961
Well Known Member
I bought it on ebay in March and its still in the States.
I really like this Ace.
Mr.1961
Well Known Member
There has been a 61 on auto trader for some time that has all documentation for 409/409! looks to be real!
I thought the 61 409's were only available in 360hp version?
GM references dated 6-8-61 show the Q, with QA and QB suffix codes added for late 61. That would seem to support, along with written magazine articles from the day, that the QA 380 hp version was built late in the year as RPO 580 and the QB engine was built under RPO 587 although production records don't show any RPO 587's built unless they are the 10 COPO's. The 690 heads and 068 block were available in late May to June and would have been installed in very late production still as RPO 580. Total 409 production for 61 RPO 580 shows two different part numbers , with 115 engines under the first version part number and 150 under the second part number for a total of 265. I don't know for sure what changes were made to the engine to cause a change in part number or when it ocurred in production, but it seems doubtful that the second version was the 380 hp since no 61 QA stamped engines have been documented as far as I know . They might be out there mistakenly assumed to be early 62 068 blocks, but they would have June/July 61 casting and assembly dates. More research is needed.
The 380hp was visually the same as the 360 hp, so GM probably continued to call it 360 hp so they could announce the higher HP numbers for the new 62 lineup just as they did with the FH code 348 after March, 60 which was, in reality the 350hp of 61 but continued to be rated at 335 hp for the rest of 60 production.
Records show that there were 10 COPO W engines built for production in 61 with a different part number than the other W engines, although the part number isn't the same as the part number shown for the RPO 587, without the Parts List there is no way to determine what their configuration actually was, but these could possibly be the 2x4 version of the 409 before it was officially added as RPO 587......purely conjecture.
As a matter of interest, there were also 34 COPO Powerglide W engines built. Could be those 61 348's with powerglide like Dan (Tripower) has when, supposedly the 348 wasn't available with PG except with the 305hp.
The 380hp was visually the same as the 360 hp, so GM probably continued to call it 360 hp so they could announce the higher HP numbers for the new 62 lineup just as they did with the FH code 348 after March, 60 which was, in reality the 350hp of 61 but continued to be rated at 335 hp for the rest of 60 production.
Records show that there were 10 COPO W engines built for production in 61 with a different part number than the other W engines, although the part number isn't the same as the part number shown for the RPO 587, without the Parts List there is no way to determine what their configuration actually was, but these could possibly be the 2x4 version of the 409 before it was officially added as RPO 587......purely conjecture.
As a matter of interest, there were also 34 COPO Powerglide W engines built. Could be those 61 348's with powerglide like Dan (Tripower) has when, supposedly the 348 wasn't available with PG except with the 305hp.
"The 380hp was visually the same as the 360 hp,"
Cecil,
Not quite, the 409/360 was visually the same as the 348/340 except for the silver valve covers. The 409/380 used the new heads with the raised ports and the redesigned intake.
The statement that you made about there being two batches of '61 409 motors totaling 265 is in line with what Fran told me and his records indecated.
Cecil,
Not quite, the 409/360 was visually the same as the 348/340 except for the silver valve covers. The 409/380 used the new heads with the raised ports and the redesigned intake.
The statement that you made about there being two batches of '61 409 motors totaling 265 is in line with what Fran told me and his records indecated.
Tommy,
I was referring to the general public's perception. I don't think the typical buyer in 61 would notice the different intake design, as I believe that would be the main difference visually.
The mystery I can't solve is the different part numbers for the different engine assemblies. Somewhere there are/were Parts List sheets which listed the different components which made up a specific assembly. I believe that would be the key to asnwer a lot of questions.
Cecil,
I see what you are saying. We have also heard that Chevrolet produced the 142 vehicles with the original style 409 (623) motors, at some point production was stopped because of the problems that were being experenced. The "new" style 409 became available in late June I beleive, that is over the parts counter and of course the new style 409 was in the '62 cars. It would be interesting to know the build date of the last factory built '61 409. I assume there was a time when the 409 was not available, from when to when??????
I see what you are saying. We have also heard that Chevrolet produced the 142 vehicles with the original style 409 (623) motors, at some point production was stopped because of the problems that were being experenced. The "new" style 409 became available in late June I beleive, that is over the parts counter and of course the new style 409 was in the '62 cars. It would be interesting to know the build date of the last factory built '61 409. I assume there was a time when the 409 was not available, from when to when??????
"Total 409 production for 61 RPO 580 shows two different part numbers , with 115 engines under the first version part number and 150 under the second part number for a total of 265". That would amount to 14 months to produce 265 engines.
. Apparently some of these engines were sold over the parts counters too. leo
. Apparently some of these engines were sold over the parts counters too. leo
Those production dates include all W engines. The 409 was added in October and the earliest 623 block I have heard of was cast November 7, 1960. That makes roughly 9 months of 409 production. and I'm guessing the demand went up month by month after the first 409 cars were introduced in Jan, 61 peaking in the last few months. Including the shortblocks totals 349. If the rate were linear, that would be 38.3 per month, but it wasn't linear so early cars/engines should be few and rare while later production should be more prevalent."Total 409 production for 61 RPO 580 shows two different part numbers , with 115 engines under the first version part number and 150 under the second part number for a total of 265". That would amount to 14 months to produce 265 engines.
That is the total number of complete 409 engines shipped. It may have included over the counter service, but there were another 84 "Half Motor, RPO 580"'s (shortblocks). I have to wonder what happened to all of them? I'm sure a lot of them were destroyed in racing and probably more than we know still waiting to be discovered.