HOME FORUM RULES CONTACT
     
   
   

Go Back   CLASS RACER FORUM > Class Racer Forums > Stock and Super Stock Tech
Register Photo Gallery FAQ Community Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-20-2008, 09:34 PM   #1
greg fulk
VIP Member
 
greg fulk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: jackson
Posts: 1,165
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Question 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.
__________________
Greg Fulk 308 308X P/SA "ALL AMERICAN"
greg fulk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 09:42 PM   #2
Real Racer
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: stupid ?

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

360 HP 409
Real Racer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 10:44 PM   #3
Dragsinger
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Liberty City [East Texas]
Posts: 1,760
Likes: 5
Liked 99 Times in 60 Posts
Default Re: stupid ?

Greg,

I think the biggest factors are car weight and a poor suspension system.
__________________
Larry Woodfin 471W
Dragsinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 10:48 PM   #4
Dragsinger
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Liberty City [East Texas]
Posts: 1,760
Likes: 5
Liked 99 Times in 60 Posts
Default 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.
__________________
Larry Woodfin 471W
Dragsinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 11:43 PM   #5
Greg Reimer 7376
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Glendora,Calif.
Posts: 1,135
Likes: 172
Liked 704 Times in 218 Posts
Cool 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.
Greg Reimer 7376 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 11:59 PM   #6
Alan Roehrich
Veteran Member
 
Alan Roehrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Murfreesboro TN
Posts: 5,105
Likes: 1,561
Liked 1,787 Times in 408 Posts
Default Re: stupid ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragsinger View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Alan Roehrich
212A G/S
Alan Roehrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2008, 12:53 AM   #7
Real Racer
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: stupid ?

Aubrey Bruneau from division 6 has a 62 bubble top 409 that runs in C or D/S I believe.
Real Racer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2008, 01:26 AM   #8
Greg Reimer 7376
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Glendora,Calif.
Posts: 1,135
Likes: 172
Liked 704 Times in 218 Posts
Cool 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.
Greg Reimer 7376 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2008, 10:51 AM   #9
John Dinkel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pinckney, Michigan
Posts: 507
Likes: 399
Liked 263 Times in 68 Posts
Thumbs up Re: stupid ?

Greg,

Gerry Gostenik from Dearborn Michigan has a beautiful black 61 Bel Air. He runs in G/S
__________________
John Dinkel 3295 STK
John Dinkel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2008, 11:07 AM   #10
Billy Nees
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: On a hilltop in Pa.
Posts: 4,485
Likes: 3,587
Liked 7,682 Times in 1,730 Posts
Default 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?
__________________
Billy Nees 1188 STK, SS

I'm not spending 100K to win 2K
Billy Nees is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.