stupid ?

Greg Reimer 7376 · 12-20-2008, 11:43 PM

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.

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	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.