Real or Fake '63 409

JBaker

Member
Being new to this board I have read many of the post on here concerning how to tell if a certain 63 Chevy Impala was a real 409 and what constituted it.

Here is something I ran into and did not see a comment concerning this and would like to run it by all of you.

I pulled the 409 engine out of my 63 Impala. Was sold to me under the pretense it was a factory 409 car. Well the engine ended up being a 64 409 that was cast in April of 64 that someone date coded the front stamp with a Jan 63 code!

Anyway after reading and searching I thought the front coil springs would be a good give away but they had been replaced by a TRW spring. I know it was a factory V-8 for sure, but here is what I found.

I purchased two sets of front engine mounts, one being for a 409 one being for a 327. Looking at them the 409 mounts were beefier but the spacing between the ears were less than 1/8 of an inch from the 327 mounts. But when I placed them over the mount bolted to the chassis the 327 mounts fit nicely with less than 1/8 of an inch of slop. The 409 mounts once placed were giving me about 1/4 to 1/2 inch of slop. So apparently the chassis mounts were different from a big block over the small block. Looking at part vendors catalogs, they only show one chassis mount available, and I am assuming you must buy the small block engine mounts in order for these to fit correctly. Anyone else run into this in the past??

JBaker
 

64ss409

Well Known Member
Supporting Member 9
JBaker said:
someone date coded the front stamp with a Jan 63 code!

The 409 mounts once placed were giving me about 1/4 to 1/2 inch of slop.
The stamp pad doesn't indicate the year. What is the stamp no?

I bought a set of mounts from a well known vendor that fit the same way. They were built heavier than the originals, but were way too wide to fit the mount. The sides of these mounts were double thickness. With the double thick side walls and the 1/4" or more too much clearance, they would have required longer mount bolts.

I bought another set from the local parts house that were much cheaper, look cheaper, and were made it Tiawan, :doh but they fit.
Ron
 

models916

Well Known Member
Supporting Member 7
Mounts

Unless you are comparing NOS W mounts to SBC mounts, there is no point. Outside mfg would not step on a GM patent, would have to work around it. Mounts would be different.
 

JBaker

Member
The stamp on the engine is T0103QG Someone had to stamp this to match the body code of 1 D. But the engine was cast in April of 64 and has the 64 Casting number on it.
 

JBaker

Member
Ron: If your casting number is the 422 it would indicated yours is a 1964 casting not a 1963. The 63 castings were:3830814 Yours would have been cast in April of 1964 not 1963. Assembled in Sept 64 and body date coded Oct 64, seems not too far out of range. The numbers that were stamped on my block look pretty good not crooked or different fonts.

JBaker
 

4onthefloor

Well Known Member
Supporting Member 1
Ron that is good info...julian dates are kind of confusing to me...how do you determine if it was cast in 63 or 64 with a Julian ? Yours is a 422 which tells us it's a 64 application...what would an April of 64 julian be ?????
 

JBaker

Member
So Ron: How could it be assembled before it was cast???

This is why I said someone had to restamp the block with the dates to match the body code of 1 D

JBaker
 

4onthefloor

Well Known Member
Supporting Member 1
Clear as mud but very interesting discussion...I have a CFD 814 virgin shortblock, 320 julian with a TI214QB Tonawanda date stamp and a St Louis VIN. ..this is about the spread that would be considered normal for a cast to build cycle for later big blocks...5 months is a long long time and in any other later big block would be considered questionable...but you bought yours new !!! I recall reading that 409 blocks were cast and set outside to "pickle" for a while before machining...don't remember where I read it but it was probably an old Super Chevy with Doug Marion at the helm or maybe even a Late Great monthly...sounds like they MAY have cast and stockpiled blocks for the new model year...since a 9/63 built 64 was early this sounds plausible. So here is a 64 block built before a 63 !!! This is the kind of stuff that makes the correct numbers guys lose sleep !!
 

4onthefloor

Well Known Member
Supporting Member 1
More mud...Colvins book says the 814 was used in 63 and some 64 applications...also says 422 was used in some 63 applications....not sure how accurate this is....he also states that all blocks had straight line broaching and I don't believe this is true for the 409...he also says nothing about the julian date codes on them !
 

JBaker

Member
Now you have it! That's what I've been saying all along. Someone has restamped the the front code T0103QG ( Jan of 1963) to match the build code of 1 D but failed to notice that the block was a 1964 block, not a 1963. I'm sure some of the 63's may have had the 64 casting block, but it would have probably been near the end of the 63 run.

JBaker
 
Top