409?
Racer
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 476
Likes: 34
From: Cedar Grove N.J.
Racer
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 477
Likes: 15
From: Long Beach Ca
IMHO, excessive engine weight wasn't the reason the 409 was not available in the 62, 63 and 64 corvette. The 409 weighs about the same as a 427 at around 650 lbs. Chevy had just come out with several variations of their new 327 and at a top rated 375 hp was just 5 hp less then the single four 409, which was rated at 380 hp. Maybe John Z could give us the definitive answer. I've always wondered about this....
Melting Slicks
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,882
Likes: 2,178
From: Chicopee MA.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 9,151
Likes: 481
From: "You may all go to Hell- and I will go to Texas- Davy Crockett
St. Jude Donor '12
Melting Slicks
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,892
Likes: 168
From: Middletown Ohio
2016 C1 of Year Finalist
409
There is a guy around Cincinnati who has a black 62 Chevy with a 409 bus engine and a strange washing machine motor alternator.
He might know why they were not used on Corvettes.
Can you post some pictures???
He might know why they were not used on Corvettes.
Can you post some pictures???
Last edited by ohiovet; Apr 25, 2014 at 10:00 AM.
Team Owner
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 26,118
Likes: 1,874
From: Greenville, Indiana
I'd question the return on investment it would take to put that low volume engine in a low volume car for starters. What's the payback?
The second thing I'd question would be whether there'd be any gain in performace as relating to a "sports car"?
Your run of the mill, factory stock engines were not that steller of a performer. They did make a lot of noise though when the throttle was opened.
Yes, I know some professionally prepared 409's were very, very quick.
The second thing I'd question would be whether there'd be any gain in performace as relating to a "sports car"?
Your run of the mill, factory stock engines were not that steller of a performer. They did make a lot of noise though when the throttle was opened.
Yes, I know some professionally prepared 409's were very, very quick.
Racer
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 477
Likes: 15
From: Long Beach Ca
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Expensive Corvettes Ever Sold on Bring A Trailer
Brett Foote
10 Things Every Corvette Owner Needs (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
8 Most "Only Corvette Owners Understand" Quirks and Problems
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Reasons the C6 Z06 is Still A Performance Benchmark After 20 Years
Joe Kucinski
How Much Horsepower Every Corvette Engine "LOST" in 1972
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 DOs and DON'Ts for Protecting Your Convertible Top!
Michael S. Palmer
Top 10 Most Explosive Corvettes Ever Made: Power-to-Weight Ratio Ranked!
Joe Kucinski
150 hp to 1,250 hp: Every Corvette Generation Compared by the Specs That Matter
Joe Kucinski
8 Coolest Corvette Pace Cars (and Replicas) of All Time
Verdad Gallardo
Drifting
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,711
Likes: 179
From: Hightstown NJ
Melting Slicks
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,892
Likes: 168
From: Middletown Ohio
2016 C1 of Year Finalist
We like to give him grief about it.
The owner is a member of this forum, I hope he chimes in......
Le Mans Master
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,662
Likes: 2,344
From: Lake Minnetonka, Mn
2018 C1 of Year Finalist
IMHO, excessive engine weight wasn't the reason the 409 was not available in the 62, 63 and 64 corvette. The 409 weighs about the same as a 427 at around 650 lbs. Chevy had just come out with several variations of their new 327 and at a top rated 375 hp was just 5 hp less then the single four 409, which was rated at 380 hp. Maybe John Z could give us the definitive answer. I've always wondered about this....
The Cobras did all there winning with a light SB engine and never won an international event with a 427. As a practical matter, they never sponsored a Factory 427--period. Unlike its predictable 289 brethren, the 427 Cobra was a pig to drive.
Melting Slicks
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,225
Likes: 44
From: Penticton B.C. Canada
Instructor
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 155
Likes: 1
From: Meridianville AL
Hey guys I love the 409 discussion. I am putting one in my 64 and have a thread on it here. I'm not sure how to put the link up but tomorrow I will post some pics of the motor I'm just about to drop it in the car for mockup. I'd love to see some pics of 409's in vettes if any one has any.
Race Director
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 14,632
Likes: 4,683
From: Mustang OK
2026 Corvette of the Year Finalist - Modified
2025 c1 of the Year - Modified Winner
2024 C1 of the Year Finalist - Modified
2023 C1 of the Year Finalist - Modified
2015 C1 of the Year Finalist
And how about an all aluminum 409, built into a 509. This is one my machinist recently built for a customer. Should weigh close to the same as a SB.
Race Director
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 14,632
Likes: 4,683
From: Mustang OK
2026 Corvette of the Year Finalist - Modified
2025 c1 of the Year - Modified Winner
2024 C1 of the Year Finalist - Modified
2023 C1 of the Year Finalist - Modified
2015 C1 of the Year Finalist
We have here what distresses me about some of the writer's knowledge (or better, LACK of knowledge).
Roger above posted a link to the history of Chevy big blocks ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Big-Block_engine ). When you go to the link, then scroll down to the Z11 section, DO NOT take the information as gospel, because some of it is totally incorrect! First, the writer states that the 427 Z11 engines were all aluminum. WRONG! The were cast iron just the same as any other 409 engine. Only the 3-piece intake was alum (this is well documented from Chevy records). What is NOT sufficiently documented is the actual number of Z11 cars that were built. Yes, it APPEARS that 50 whole Z11 engines were built, but it is NOT well documented that all 50 engines were installed in cars. Thus, the actual number of Z11 cars may be less than 50.
Oh ya, and the quoted stroke (3.95) is wrong---------------it was 3.65. The only other alum parts on those cars was the forward sheet metal/bumpers.
So, you can't always believe what you hear, and only half of what you see.
The bad thing about this is that when this kind of information is printed for all the world to see/read, and then when someone reads it, they take it as gospel and it just continues to perpetuate itself. I just hate it when these writers don't do their homework and get the facts straight.
Roger above posted a link to the history of Chevy big blocks ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Big-Block_engine ). When you go to the link, then scroll down to the Z11 section, DO NOT take the information as gospel, because some of it is totally incorrect! First, the writer states that the 427 Z11 engines were all aluminum. WRONG! The were cast iron just the same as any other 409 engine. Only the 3-piece intake was alum (this is well documented from Chevy records). What is NOT sufficiently documented is the actual number of Z11 cars that were built. Yes, it APPEARS that 50 whole Z11 engines were built, but it is NOT well documented that all 50 engines were installed in cars. Thus, the actual number of Z11 cars may be less than 50.
Oh ya, and the quoted stroke (3.95) is wrong---------------it was 3.65. The only other alum parts on those cars was the forward sheet metal/bumpers.
So, you can't always believe what you hear, and only half of what you see.
The bad thing about this is that when this kind of information is printed for all the world to see/read, and then when someone reads it, they take it as gospel and it just continues to perpetuate itself. I just hate it when these writers don't do their homework and get the facts straight.
Drifting
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,711
Likes: 179
From: Hightstown NJ
We have here what distresses me about some of the writer's knowledge (or better, LACK of knowledge).
Roger above posted a link to the history of Chevy big blocks ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Big-Block_engine ). When you go to the link, then scroll down to the Z11 section, DO NOT take the information as gospel, because some of it is totally incorrect! First, the writer states that the 427 Z11 engines were all aluminum. WRONG! The were cast iron just the same as any other 409 engine. Only the 3-piece intake was alum (this is well documented from Chevy records). What is NOT sufficiently documented is the actual number of Z11 cars that were built. Yes, it APPEARS that 50 whole Z11 engines were built, but it is NOT well documented that all 50 engines were installed in cars. Thus, the actual number of Z11 cars may be less than 50.
Oh ya, and the quoted stroke (3.95) is wrong---------------it was 3.65. The only other alum parts on those cars was the forward sheet metal/bumpers.
So, you can't always believe what you hear, and only half of what you see.
The bad thing about this is that when this kind of information is printed for all the world to see/read, and then when someone reads it, they take it as gospel and it just continues to perpetuate itself. I just hate it when these writers don't do their homework and get the facts straight.
Roger above posted a link to the history of Chevy big blocks ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Big-Block_engine ). When you go to the link, then scroll down to the Z11 section, DO NOT take the information as gospel, because some of it is totally incorrect! First, the writer states that the 427 Z11 engines were all aluminum. WRONG! The were cast iron just the same as any other 409 engine. Only the 3-piece intake was alum (this is well documented from Chevy records). What is NOT sufficiently documented is the actual number of Z11 cars that were built. Yes, it APPEARS that 50 whole Z11 engines were built, but it is NOT well documented that all 50 engines were installed in cars. Thus, the actual number of Z11 cars may be less than 50.
Oh ya, and the quoted stroke (3.95) is wrong---------------it was 3.65. The only other alum parts on those cars was the forward sheet metal/bumpers.
So, you can't always believe what you hear, and only half of what you see.
The bad thing about this is that when this kind of information is printed for all the world to see/read, and then when someone reads it, they take it as gospel and it just continues to perpetuate itself. I just hate it when these writers don't do their homework and get the facts straight.
Too many magazine writers today are just out of puberty and their research consists of reading what was already printed in other magazines.
Verne
Melting Slicks
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,892
Likes: 168
From: Middletown Ohio
2016 C1 of Year Finalist
Ken Kayers Big Block books.
Ken Kayser is in the process of writing a book (s) on Chevrolet big block engines. I'm not sure if it will include the "W" engines or begins with the 396 porcupine head big blocks.
But it should be interesting
But it should be interesting
Le Mans Master
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,662
Likes: 2,344
From: Lake Minnetonka, Mn
2018 C1 of Year Finalist
We have here what distresses me about some of the writer's knowledge (or better, LACK of knowledge).
Roger above posted a link to the history of Chevy big blocks ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Big-Block_engine ). When you go to the link, then scroll down to the Z11 section, DO NOT take the information as gospel, because some of it is totally incorrect! First, the writer states that the 427 Z11 engines were all aluminum. WRONG! The were cast iron just the same as any other 409 engine. Only the 3-piece intake was alum (this is well documented from Chevy records). What is NOT sufficiently documented is the actual number of Z11 cars that were built. Yes, it APPEARS that 50 whole Z11 engines were built, but it is NOT well documented that all 50 engines were installed in cars. Thus, the actual number of Z11 cars may be less than 50.
Oh ya, and the quoted stroke (3.95) is wrong---------------it was 3.65. The only other alum parts on those cars was the forward sheet metal/bumpers.
So, you can't always believe what you hear, and only half of what you see.
The bad thing about this is that when this kind of information is printed for all the world to see/read, and then when someone reads it, they take it as gospel and it just continues to perpetuate itself. I just hate it when these writers don't do their homework and get the facts straight.
Roger above posted a link to the history of Chevy big blocks ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Big-Block_engine ). When you go to the link, then scroll down to the Z11 section, DO NOT take the information as gospel, because some of it is totally incorrect! First, the writer states that the 427 Z11 engines were all aluminum. WRONG! The were cast iron just the same as any other 409 engine. Only the 3-piece intake was alum (this is well documented from Chevy records). What is NOT sufficiently documented is the actual number of Z11 cars that were built. Yes, it APPEARS that 50 whole Z11 engines were built, but it is NOT well documented that all 50 engines were installed in cars. Thus, the actual number of Z11 cars may be less than 50.
Oh ya, and the quoted stroke (3.95) is wrong---------------it was 3.65. The only other alum parts on those cars was the forward sheet metal/bumpers.
So, you can't always believe what you hear, and only half of what you see.
The bad thing about this is that when this kind of information is printed for all the world to see/read, and then when someone reads it, they take it as gospel and it just continues to perpetuate itself. I just hate it when these writers don't do their homework and get the facts straight.
