One simple question

Randy

Well Known Member
Supporting Member 3
#1
I have one simple question. As long as I have had my 409, everyone always mentions that 409's are truck engines. Well, as I tell them, some are and some are not, as we all know.
So, the truck engines, what kind of trucks were they in, I have no idea? So the next time someone mentions it again, I can tell them it was in a blankly blank....
Thanks
 

wristpin

Well Known Member
#3
Well you could tell them Big farm trucks or you could tell them Eisenhower had 409s' specially built for Stalins army trucks and tanks. Ike knew that if the 409's supplied to Stalin broke down or acted up Stalin would have to wait several years. Don and Phil and others on 348-409 could fix his war machine but first they had to get rid of some piss n vinegar.
Or just tell them :finger
 

Carmine

Well Known Member
Supporting Member 7
#7
I hear it on occasion also. For the most part, I don't pay much attention to it. Other times I respond by saying that they also put 283's and 327's into trucks, so what's your point? Actually, I think they are jealous, Carmine.
 

427John

Well Known Member
#10
Most of the comments of them being truck engines probably goes back to the old petersen publication Hot Rod magazines Chevrolet Performance handbook that dates back to I think 1963.They had articles in them that described the design and development of the small block and 348-409 engines ,it sounds from the article as if they are speaking to the guys from chevrolet,in the 348-409 article they describe the percieved need for an engine larger than the ~300 inches they believed the sbc was limited to at the time(1955-56?).They go on to talk about the need for the larger engine to power medium duty trucks and larger and heavier cars that were the trend at the time.I think people remember the remark about the medium duty trucks and don't remember the remark about the larger and heavier cars and say truck engine.
 
#13
I think you hit the nail on the head 427John. Chevrolet needed an engine with more torque in the low rpm range for their heavier cars and the w engine also was a good fit the bill for medium duty trucks. One thing I never understood is why they didn't put the w engine in pick-up trucks especially 3/4 ton models.
 

Iowa 409 Guy

Well Known Member
Supporting Member 10
#14
I think you hit the nail on the head 427John. Chevrolet needed an engine with more torque in the low rpm range for their heavier cars and the w engine also was a good fit the bill for medium duty trucks. One thing I never understood is why they didn't put the w engine in pick-up trucks especially 3/4 ton models.
GMC had a whole series of mini W's with their V-6 they put in pickups and trucks though.
 

427John

Well Known Member
#16
I think you hit the nail on the head 427John. Chevrolet needed an engine with more torque in the low rpm range for their heavier cars and the w engine also was a good fit the bill for medium duty trucks. One thing I never understood is why they didn't put the w engine in pick-up trucks especially 3/4 ton models.
Thats exactly what I plan to do with my stroker when its done ,into my 64 K20.I always wondered that too,they could have built something to compete with the Dodge HPP pickups.
 

Don Jacks

Well Seasoned Member
Supporting Member 3
#18
We rebuilt and modified one while I lived in Va.Fuel line size was 3/8ths.This thing held 15 qts. of oil[stock pan and filter],and weighed 1450 lbs.Most of the v6's weighed right at 750.Lotsa parts from Thunder V12.
 
Last edited:

Skip FIx

Well Known Member
#19
When I was street racing in the 70s most guys had forgotten about 409s -so we would line up races for my "348 truck motor" :) Those BBC Camaros and Chevelles just saw tail lights! Of course a light flywheel and 4.56s on the street helped 60 ft that thing. So did the cheater slick I drove on.
 
Last edited:
Top