stupid ?
 

Ok here I go again...but why is their no 61-64 chevy "big" cars running stock or SS ? I know captin Jack has a 60 wagon but it's the only one I know of.

Re: stupid ?
 

http://www.dragracecentral.com/DRCSt...r2008#indextop

360 HP 409

Re: stupid ?
 

Greg,

I think the biggest factors are car weight and a poor suspension system.

Re: stupid ?
 

also, all the small block 1961 - 1964 engine combinations for those car will use very small carburetors. Of course, the 409 uses a larger carburetor but that engine has limited potential in stocker form.

Re: stupid ?
 

Many moons ago when I was young and crazy,I bracket raced a red 62 Impala SS two door hardtop with a 409 with a pair of quads. The engine was a stock piece made up of whatever parts I could find 30 plus years ago.It had a NOS Chevy first-design camshaft, a Lakewood scattershield,a Muncie 4 speed with the 2.52 first gear,4:88's, and the design limitations of those cars showed itself pretty rapidly. Rear end destruction and drive line failure was not too uncommon.I put a one-piece driveshaft in it,massaging the frame tunnel as necessary ,and installed a 12 bolt. It stayed together pretty well after that, but never went any quicker than 12.60's@109. It was a riot on the street, but it would have been out to lunch as a stocker. The frame is too narrow, the suspension basically did not work, body roll on launch was extreme,but that doesn't mean improvement didn't exist. What works on a Chevelle basically worked on these cars,but size and weight don't help. Did anybody ever try one of these with a 327/300 horse engine?The #459 intake and the 461 heads wouldn't hurt, and the AFB would be an improvement over the 4-jet,or is the laws of physics regarding size,mass, and inertia just too much to overcome? It would be fun to see that G/S '61however.

Re: stupid ?
 

Actually, the 409-425 has plenty of potential, at least by the numbers. The problem is you have a big heavy car, with a very limited supply of parts, that also must run a manual transmission. Any way you look at it, 409 stuff is very expensive and hard to find. The only real mechanical drawback I see is piston weight, I know from experience that 409 pistons are like lead filled trash cans. The transmission problem can be solved with a Jericho. You can put a one piece drive shaft in fairly easily. You can even swap in a 12 bolt, albeit with some difficulty. The rear suspension could be set up like Alf Wiebe does the Chevelle stuff. But you still have a really big, heavy, A, B, or C stick car that has a very rare and expensive engine. The "cool factor" would be outstanding, but I'm not real sure that'd outweigh the expense and difficulty.

Re: stupid ?
 

Aubrey Bruneau from division 6 has a 62 bubble top 409 that runs in C or D/S I believe.

Re: stupid ?
 

In retrospect,I remember going to the 1980 Winternationals and watchingCal Method go to the final round in Stock with a T/SA '61 Chevy wagon,283 and all. Also about that same time,I had a friend in Noo Joisey that had a '61 Impala hardtop with a 348/250 horse engine and a 4 speed that ran O/S, and it went 13.0's at around 103. That engine wouldn't have needed a rev limiter. It WAS a rev limiter. One of the 409's I built had .060" over TRW pistons, just like OEM,and they weighed 1025 grams with pins. This was minus rings.The other problem with a 409 was the irregular exhaust ports.They didn't flow nearly like the intake ports. Also,the intake manifold had square turns, and no two runners flowed the same. They were an interesting motor, and I had fun for a lot of years with it. I still have the engine from my Impala,carbs to pan. I would like to put it in a 64 or 65 Chevelle and build the car Chevrolet didn't allow themselves to build. Now that heads and intakes are being reproduced by Edelbrock, it might be a real fun thing.

Re: stupid ?
 

Greg,

Gerry Gostenik from Dearborn Michigan has a beautiful black 61 Bel Air. He runs in G/S

Re: stupid ?
 

I've always wanted to do a 61 bubbletop with a 348. Big 4GC, big valves, enough cam, decentheads and oversquare bore & stroke at 250 hp should work. Has anybody got one that I can borrow?

Re: stupid ?
 

If I still had some W motor stuff, I'd be keeping it to myself. I was a fool for letting it get away. It's too damned expensive and too damned hard to find now. I'd probably be too scared to race it, unless I'd gathered up more stuff.

Re: stupid ?
 

In the mid 60's. My brothers 63 Super Sport 327/300 with a 4 speed and 4:88 gear, 7" recap slicks, no headers but a nicely done set of fenderwell cutouts driven to the track (PID) ran 14.22's. No competition for the Jenkins preped Vette running the same class. A friend's 62 or 63 Catilina factory 389 tri-power 4 speed car also ran 14.20's.

Re: stupid ?
 

Maybe I am stupid, however I am building a 61 Impala 2dr hardtop for super stock.

Car is allmost done. One peice drive shaft, 4 link Ford 9". G Force trans.

Jim Davis

Re: stupid ?
 

Doesn't sound stupid to me. All of the hi po 409's ran a 4 speed. The 348 might work pretty well with an automatic,with the available torque, a powerglide might be the hot set up. Could you imagine what a nasty legal 348 would do to a metric 200?If that set up gets approved as a turboglide replacement, it might just work pretty well.Also,check if the 340 horse 409 heads and intake are legally allowable updated replacement parts for the earlier 348 stuff. Also, I knew of someone who tried a 348 and the factory aluminum intake for the hi po motor was allowed. Now,good luck finding it.

Re: stupid ?
 

I am going to start out with a big block to sort out me and the car.

Once I get that done then I am going to try either 360 HP (single 4 Bl) or

409 HP (dual 4 Bl) depending on the HP they make. If that don't work out I can

go to small blocks or GT and run lots of combinations.

First thing I have to do is make the car work, which is next.

Jim Davis

Re: stupid ?
 

Jim, I would definitely be looking at a 348 for SS more so that Stock.

Re: stupid ?
 

Seems to me that Herman Chapman did this years ago.I remember a Super Stock and Drag Illustrated issue in about 1976 where he did that with a 348 250 horse combo.It was pretty wild for its time. Now, who has a stack of old Super Stock magazines?

Re: stupid ?
 

I see a lot of these X frame cars in the old magazines. What did they use for rear suspension? Did anyone make a bolt on traction device?

Re: stupid ?
 

This is from memory, haven't had one of those cars in years, but I think this is correct: They had a three link, one upper and two lowers. Think of the later model cars, A and B body, with one upper control arm left off. Back in the day, a lot of people went to a salvage yard, and cut the control arm bracket off the frame and rearend housing of a wreck, and put the second upper control arm on. Don't think NHRA would really like that. Off hand, I do not know what the aftermarket offers for it.

Re: stupid ?
 

I flowed some 256 casting number heads years ago researching a '61 305 hp 348 and the numbers showed them to be competitive against a 461 small block head. The question was always what the 75 degree block surface would do to the flow.

Re: stupid ?
 

I would think that the valve would see it as a 15* valve angle.

Re: stupid ?
 

I remember a '61 convertible with 250 HP 348 fit right at the top of the 15 lb. class (was F/S then, later H/S) with a 4-speed. Was a very competetive car for Little Stock Elim (D/S and lower). Hooked up pretty good with a 7 in. tire with all that weight hanging off the *** end too. Guy was from around Melborne, FL. His name was Fred Hines I believe. He later got a 235 HP 273 Baracuda called "Brand X Eliminater". That car was not so competetive.

I'm not really old. Just have a good memory (for things 40 years old and older). I had a '57 220 HP 210 four door hardtop that ran that class. 3306 lbs. shipping weight in a 3300 lb. class.

My home track was Amelia Earhart field in Hialeah, FL. His was Valcaria Dragstrip midstate Fla. Both tracks were old airports, now long gone. Never got to run him. We drove our cars to the track back then
and to drive to Valcaria with a 5.13 gear would be like driving all the way up the east coast now.

Re: stupid ?
 

I remember a 1959 Impala Convert in the last year of the 7" tires (1971). It was a "Puke" green rusty old rag back then with a 283 FI 250 HP P/G combo for O/SA. It was out of NOO JOSEY and it flat flew. It ran 13.30's at Suffolk Raceway (Little guy Nationals) when some of the Div. 1 and Div. 2 killer cars ran 13.50's. Remember this was 1971 when springs and cam had to check as per OEM spec. I think it had a T/K engine. Oh well.....I cant remember everything. Im getting old.....lol.

Re: stupid ?
 

With the lifting ot the Year rule on SS/GT couldn't one do one as a GT car? And hasn't NHRA allowed the use of fiberglass replacement parts for the rare aluminum stuff? HMMMMMMM?

Re: stupid ?
 

As far as I know IHRA allows the fiberglass parts to replace the rare alum. (63-64 Plymouth, Dodge) but NHRA turned down the request the last time I heard?????

Re: stupid ?
 

Terry ,You are correct. Except pure stock does not allow fiberglass replacement for allum. We had this isue earlier this year on a pure stocker.Maybe i'll see you at MIR this year.

Re: stupid ?
 

It seems that the only way to get one of these 348/250 engines to really work would be to build a sheet metal intake.The OEM part is way too restrictive. The trick intake would eliminate a lot of the breathing problems that the engine has. The 4-jet on these engines was larger than the early 220 horse 283,and it was the same as the 327/250, and the 65-66 283/220. There are some really good roller cams out there for 409's,some new technology wouldn't hurt.This set up would really be interesting,I haven't explored what class it would fit,what is the factored horsepower,and what does the car weigh?This gives us all something a little different to toss around during the off season.It's by no means stupid.

Re: stupid ?
 

Well Terry , You're not that far gone, if you remember all that.
Now I'm going to have to tell the "Rest of The Story"

Joe Santangelo and I built that car in ' 71 with the drivetrain out of his '61 J/S 283 / 245 'Vette. The 69 Chevelle 350 /255 cars had just come out ,and we had to find a way to hide from them.
I found two 59 convertibles in my hometown that were both the same "puke green " color. One was a 348, BTW, and the other a 283 2bbl. I switched all the good parts ,including the top, to the 283 car, which had fewer power options on it. We put the rear end center section and the Henry's Axles , the Vitar aluminum PG , and the Lee Crupi built long block from the Vette, right into the 59 . We bolted on a 62 327 / 360 fuelie unit which was a legal superceded part at that time. I cut about a 5" hole in the radiator support and ran a clothes dryer hose right to it from the fuelie unit .
Might have had to change the headers and gear ratio
We built the whole car in a week, and I know you're going to say, it looked like it. By the time we went to Suffolk with it , I had put some new paint on it, so it wasn't all that bad. You might have seen it before that at Delmar,too.
Anyway, the thing fell at 15.02 in O/SA and it did fly, right away. The 56's and 57 220 cars were the bad boys at that time, and our convert could run away and hide from them. At The Little Guys , it ran a 13.42 on a 13.64 ( Val Hedworth ) National Record.
I'd have to say,that FI deal was the smoothest leaving car I' d ever driven for a long time after that.
In 1972, NHRA put us all in S/S and that was the beginning of the end for this saga. The 57's picked up about 4-5 tenths with a flat tappet cam and a TM1 manifold. We couldn't gain anything from a manifold,(we didn't have one) and the cam was only worth a couple tenths at first.
I ended up swithing the drivetrain to another X frame deal, but that's another story.

I could tell you about when we took the 59 up to Epping for the Grand American series, but I think I'll let Dave Ribeiro tell this one

MY

Re: stupid ?
 

Neat story Mark. Back then you couldn't add and subtract weight to change classes. You had to build a whole different car. Allowing weight changes (from factory shipping weight) was definately one of the good rule changes made. We didn't have to run ugly body styles any more (four doors) to make the top of a class.

I was at the Div. 2 points meet in Suffolk in '71 (had a white '69 Corvette F/SA) but don't remember the '61 convertible. That was a 1,000 mile tow from South Miami (2 days) back in the days before interstate hwys.

I believe the 350/255 was a mid year thing. Not available at the start of the year. Not many people knew about it at first. But it didn't take long. And it didn't take long to realize how bogus the HP rating was and start adding HP to it, I do remember the Nova's ran J/S & J/SA with it at first.

Re: stupid ?
 

jim davis, you should post some pics of your 61. that is one of the finest built 61's I have ever seen .

Re: stupid ?
 

Jim thanks for the kind words about my car.
I'll see if I can post a picture.

Jim Davis