# BIG BLOCK 409 QUESTION



## Jd's64impala (Jun 15, 2003)

HERES MY QUESTION i would like to but a 409 in my 64 ss but a 454 is more common to come buy and i know a guy that has a set of 409 heads so will the 409 heads bolt up to a 454 block :dunno:


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

No


----------



## Jd's64impala (Jun 15, 2003)

so those heads will only cross with the 348's and 409's


----------



## RO Sleepy (Jan 5, 2005)

yes i believe 348 and 409 heads will interchange


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

348 and 409 cylinder heads are completly different than other Chevy heads.


----------



## Jd's64impala (Jun 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ragtop Ted_@Dec 27 2008, 09:38 PM~12539487
> *348 and 409 cylinder heads are completly different than other Chevy heads.
> *



yea i like the shape of them but wasnt sure if they would bolt to a 454


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

> _Originally posted by Jd's64impala_@Dec 27 2008, 07:22 PM~12539830
> *yea i like the shape of them but wasnt sure if they would bolt to a 454
> *


I like the look of them also. They are called w motors because of that look. :biggrin:


----------



## racerboy (Jul 22, 2007)

a 409 would be more "correct" for that year.

there were several varients of the 409 head. check the casting #'s with a publication called "chevrolet by the numbers"

with a small amount of modification, a 396 crank will work in a 409, giving you about 480CI


----------



## Jd's64impala (Jun 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by racerboy_@Dec 28 2008, 12:31 AM~12541131
> *a 409 would be more "correct" for that year.
> 
> there were several varients of the 409 head. check the casting #'s with a publication called "chevrolet by the numbers"
> ...



what kind of horse power could you get out of that :0


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

> _Originally posted by Jd's64impala_@Dec 28 2008, 03:42 PM~12545524
> *what kind of horse power could you get out of that :0
> *


A lot.


----------



## pink63impala (Aug 5, 2004)

depends on what else is done to the engine,anywhere from 425hp and up

the 409 block has an x casted on it above the water pump outlets


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

http://www.348-409.com/


----------



## Jd's64impala (Jun 15, 2003)

like i said i like the look of the heads on them so i guess i would need to find me a 348 or 409 so i can get that look but im not holding my breath


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

> _Originally posted by Jd's64impala_@Dec 29 2008, 05:58 PM~12554396
> *like i said i like the look of the heads on them so i guess i would need to find me a 348 or 409 so i can get that look but im not holding my breath
> *


Get the casting numbers off the heads and post them. :biggrin:


----------



## Jd's64impala (Jun 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ragtop Ted_@Dec 29 2008, 09:10 PM~12554493
> *Get the casting numbers off the heads and post them.  :biggrin:
> *



i didnt buy them so i dont know the casting numbers


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

> _Originally posted by Jd's64impala_@Dec 29 2008, 09:11 PM~12556521
> *i didnt buy them so i dont know the casting numbers
> *


----------



## JasonJ (Aug 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Jd's64impala_@Dec 29 2008, 08:58 PM~12554396
> *like i said i like the look of the heads on them so i guess i would need to find me a 348 or 409 so i can get that look but im not holding my breath
> *


I had one for sale on here about a month ago. :dunno:

http://www.layitlow.com/forums/index.php?s...opic=443280&hl=


----------



## Jd's64impala (Jun 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by JasonJ_@Dec 30 2008, 09:54 AM~12559080
> *I had one for sale on here about a month ago. :dunno:
> 
> http://www.layitlow.com/forums/index.php?s...opic=443280&hl=
> *



dont know how i missed that do you still got it if so please pm me the info and cost


----------



## JasonJ (Aug 20, 2002)

No, its in Phoenix now.... but ive got another one, way nicer, still in the car though.... gotta get the car out from where its at right now first.


----------



## racerboy (Jul 22, 2007)

> _Originally posted by Jd's64impala_@Dec 28 2008, 04:42 PM~12545524
> *what kind of horse power could you get out of that :0
> *


honestly, the w motors were not built for high HP. remember, they were originaly truck motors. the 409 was only in production from june of 61 till half way thru 65. it is the shortest production run of any modern day chevy motor. the major drawback is the head design. the bottom of the heads are flat, with small valve pockets. therefore, all compression mods must be done with the piston shape.

still, they are fuckin cool!


----------



## Guest (Jan 4, 2009)

> _Originally posted by racerboy_@Dec 27 2008, 09:31 PM~12541131
> *a 409 would be more "correct" for that year.
> 
> there were several varients of the 409 head. check the casting #'s with a publication called "chevrolet by the numbers"
> ...



A stock bore with a 454 crank gives it 474 inches


----------



## Guest (Jan 4, 2009)

> _Originally posted by racerboy_@Jan 3 2009, 11:40 PM~12599251
> *honestly, the w motors were not built for high HP. remember, they were originaly truck motors. the 409 was only in production from june of 61 till half way thru 65. it is the shortest production run of any modern day chevy motor. the major drawback is the head design. the bottom of the heads are flat, with small valve pockets. therefore, all compression mods must be done with the piston shape.
> 
> still, they are fuckin cool!
> *


The high performance ones were built for high performance. There was no drawback to them.


----------



## racerboy (Jul 22, 2007)

> _Originally posted by DIPPINIT_@Jan 4 2009, 01:04 AM~12599451
> *The high performance ones were built for high performance. There was no drawback to them.
> *


 but not reliable performance.. if it was such a great design, then why did gm bail on the 409 after 4 only years? because they were not durable high horsepower engines.


----------



## racerboy (Jul 22, 2007)

and the head design WAS a drawback. if a flat bottomed head was so great, why arent all heads built that way today? because flat heads limit the manner in which engineers could efficiently control combustion. there is better flame propagation in a traditional style head.


----------



## Jd's64impala (Jun 15, 2003)

makes sense but why is these moters wanted so bad


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

> _Originally posted by Jd's64impala_@Jan 4 2009, 09:53 AM~12601045
> *makes sense but why is these moters wanted so bad
> *


They dominated racing in their day. Most Chevys came with small blocks. The w motors are hard to find.


----------



## jayoldschool (Jan 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Ragtop Ted_@Jan 4 2009, 02:11 PM~12601563
> *They dominated racing in their day.  Most Chevys came with small blocks.  The w motors are hard to find.
> *


The dominating days of the W weren't very long. The new big block "mystery" motor won the 1963 Daytona 500, a full two years before the 396 was available to the public half way through the 1965 model year.

That said, I wish my 65 had a 409 :biggrin:


----------



## Guest (Jan 4, 2009)

> _Originally posted by racerboy+Jan 4 2009, 12:43 AM~12599727-->
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes overall the 396 big block was better, biut the 409 was not bad, people just don't know how to use them.


----------



## JasonJ (Aug 20, 2002)

Dang B.... your 409 is JUNK! Time to swap it for a tree-fitty. :biggrin:


----------



## Jd's64impala (Jun 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jayoldschool_@Jan 4 2009, 04:08 PM~12602368
> *The dominating days of the W weren't very long.  The new big block "mystery" motor won the 1963 Daytona 500, a full two years before the 396 was available to the public half way through the 1965 model year.
> 
> That said, I wish my 65 had a 409 :biggrin:
> *


 so the mystery moter whas the 396?

isnt it easyier to get the 454 rather then the 396?


----------



## Guest (Jan 5, 2009)

> _Originally posted by JasonJ_@Jan 4 2009, 04:14 PM~12603938
> *Dang B.... your 409 is JUNK! Time to swap it for a tree-fitty.  :biggrin:
> *



I don't think he is saying that. I think he actually has a 409. I know someone from Brown Sensations does. 

They are better engines than people give credit though. I can explain, but it would be a lot of typing


----------



## Guest (Jan 5, 2009)

> _Originally posted by Jd's64impala_@Jan 4 2009, 04:19 PM~12603978
> *so the mystery moter whas the 396?
> 
> isnt it easyier to get the 454 rather then the 396?
> *


The Mystery motor was the Z11 which was a 427 CI 409. 

They made more 454's than 296. Depends what you want. Of course the bigger then engine the more potential power, maybe,


----------



## Jd's64impala (Jun 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by DIPPINIT_@Jan 4 2009, 07:28 PM~12604062
> *I don't think he is saying that. I think he actually has a 409. I know someone from Brown Sensations does.
> 
> They are better engines than people give credit though. I can explain, but it would be a lot of typing
> *



what tthe hell you got time go ahead an explain it to me


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

http://www.348-409.com/forum/index.php?s=


----------



## jayoldschool (Jan 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by DIPPINIT_@Jan 4 2009, 07:30 PM~12604083
> *The  Mystery motor was the Z11 which was a 427 CI 409.
> 
> 
> *


Not true. It was a new design, and not based on the 409.

From Popular Hot Rodding (see second paragraph)



> *The legend began on the high banks of Daytona in February of 1963. A handful of Chevrolets arrived for the Daytona 500 with something mysterious under the hood. While Ford and Chrysler expected to compete against Chevrolet's venerable W head 409, the Bow Tie guys had a big surprise waiting for them. As Junior Johnson's Chevy thundered around the track at speeds in excess of 160 mph, every soul in the paddock, pits, and stands knew that was no W block. Hot on Junior's heels was Johnny Rutherford, in another Chevy. The Chevrolets of Ray Fox, Smokey Yunick, and Bubber Farr all ran with power unmatched by the 409, and Ford and Chrysler cried foul. [Tiny Lund eventually won the race in a Ford. In fact, the top five finishers were Fords. The highest finishing "mystery motor" was Johnny Rutherford, who finished Ninth, four laps down.-ed.] What was this mystery motor Chevrolet was running?
> 
> Inside Chevrolet Engineering it was called the Mark II, a 427ci V-8 that shared no bloodline with the 409, dubbed Mark I. The word "Mark" is derived from the European tradition, which uses it to designate succeeding phases of a design. Instead, this was a totally new design, beginning in the summer of 1962, when Chevrolet Engineering's Dick Keinath started work on a replacement for the W block. Dick used the same bore centers (4.84 inches) as the W block, so to differentiate the engines in the minds of those working on both, the planned successor was dubbed Mark II. It was this big-bore, short-stroke 427 powerhouse that tore up Daytona's banks.
> 
> ...


----------



## Guest (Jan 5, 2009)

> _Originally posted by jayoldschool_@Jan 4 2009, 05:37 PM~12604834
> *Not true.  It was a new design, and not based on the 409.
> 
> From Popular Hot Rodding (see second paragraph)
> *


OK, thought the Z1! was mystery motor. I couldn't remember

:biggrin:


----------



## Jd's64impala (Jun 15, 2003)

so they didnt make the 348-409 after 1965


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

> _Originally posted by Jd's64impala_@Jan 5 2009, 06:38 AM~12609581
> *so they didnt make the 348-409 after 1965
> *


The new big block was available in 1965. They did have a few 409's left, so they were avaliable in 1965. Yes 65 was the last year.


----------



## Guest (Jan 5, 2009)

> _Originally posted by Ragtop Ted_@Jan 5 2009, 06:40 AM~12609589
> *The new big block was available in 1965.  They did have a few 409's left, so they were avaliable in 1965.  Yes 65 was the last year.
> *


Don't underplay the situation Theo, show em your 409 :biggrin:


----------



## jayoldschool (Jan 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Ragtop Ted_@Jan 5 2009, 09:40 AM~12609589
> *The new big block was available in 1965.  They did have a few 409's left, so they were avaliable in 1965.  Yes 65 was the last year.
> *


I think I have both dealer brochures for 65: the early one with the 409, and the late one with the 396.
:biggrin:


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

> _Originally posted by DIPPINIT_@Jan 5 2009, 03:20 PM~12613550
> *Don't underplay the situation Theo, show em your 409 :biggrin:
> *


As soon as its done. :biggrin:


----------



## racerboy (Jul 22, 2007)

> _Originally posted by DIPPINIT_@Jan 4 2009, 05:28 PM~12604062
> *I don't think he is saying that. I think he actually has a 409. I know someone from Brown Sensations does.
> 
> They are better engines than people give credit though. I can explain, but it would be a lot of typing
> *


im the one with the 409  

they are good engines; its just that there are better ones. they are sought after because of their rarity. dont get me wrong, i love my 409, but if i were gonna go after some serious power, i would rethink my options. 

high rpm running were usually the reasons for their failure. there were specific reasons, but i cant remember them.


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2009)

Large bore made the pistons heavy. 4.31 equivelant to a 454 .060 over pistom weighesw 900 grams verses 600 for 454. Short stroke was faster reving. They didn't need high rpms to producs power. People were used to small blocks.


----------



## racerboy (Jul 22, 2007)

true they didnt NEED high rpms, but it didnt stop people from doing it.. 

and yes, an oversquare motor reves higher than a stroker.

hmmmm...makes you wonder what a .60 over 400 with a 350 crank would do. its usually the other way around tho, so ive never heard of it being done.

ive heard of going that route on early harleys.. early cranks in 74 cu pan and shovel motoers... dropped the cu down to about 68. mostly done by the flat track dudes waaay back a looong time ago...


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2009)

> _Originally posted by racerboy_@Jan 9 2009, 02:30 PM~12654756
> *true they didnt NEED high rpms, but it didnt stop people from doing it..
> 
> and yes, an oversquare motor reves higher than a stroker.
> ...



a 350 with a 400 is a 383. a 350 with a 400 crank is a 377.

To me it doesn't make sense to stroke or de stroke in a small block. Why not use a 400 with a 400 and have a 406??


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2009)

> _Originally posted by racerboy_@Jan 9 2009, 02:30 PM~12654756
> *true they didnt NEED high rpms, but it didnt stop people from doing it..
> 
> and yes, an oversquare motor reves higher than a stroker.
> ...



Next time I go to Santa Barbars, I would liek to see your car. I have a member who lives in SB :biggrin:


----------



## racerboy (Jul 22, 2007)

> _Originally posted by DIPPINIT_@Jan 9 2009, 03:35 PM~12654802
> *a 350 with a 400 is a 383. a 350 with a 400 crank is a 377.
> 
> To me it doesn't make sense to stroke or de stroke in a small block. Why not use a 400 with a 400 and have a 406??
> *



??? 

a 350 with a 400 is a 383.. what is a 377?

de stroking allows faster revving. it doesnt necessarily give you more HP, it just gets you to peak HP faster.

as for a 400 crank in a 350, it allows more cubes within the confines of the original configuration. a long stroke engine provides alot more torque than a short stroke. horespower doesnt necessarily go up because the size of the combustion chamber doesnt go up in proportion.

yea, hit me up when you are in town! :biggrin:


----------



## JasonJ (Aug 20, 2002)

Im building a 357 with a 204 crank, bored .100 over with a big bump stick, titanium piston rings, and hydraulic emission ticklers.


----------



## racerboy (Jul 22, 2007)

> _Originally posted by JasonJ_@Jan 9 2009, 05:49 PM~12656124
> *Im building a 357 with a 204 crank, bored .100 over with a big bump stick, titanium piston rings, and hydraulic emission ticklers.
> *


 are you using high tensile piston return springs?


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

> _Originally posted by JasonJ_@Jan 9 2009, 04:49 PM~12656124
> *Im building a 357 with a 204 crank, bored .100 over with a big bump stick, titanium piston rings, and hydraulic emission ticklers.
> *


 :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

> _Originally posted by racerboy_@Jan 9 2009, 05:09 PM~12656286
> *are you using high tensile piston return springs?
> *


 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## JasonJ (Aug 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by racerboy_@Jan 9 2009, 08:09 PM~12656286
> *are you using high tensile piston return springs?
> *


Of course!!! That way i dont have to rotate my crank shaft every 3000 miles DUH!





Sorry... my post was just my way of saying i have no clue wtf you guys are talking about. :biggrin:


----------



## racerboy (Jul 22, 2007)

> _Originally posted by JasonJ_@Jan 9 2009, 09:33 PM~12658339
> *Of course!!! That way i dont have to rotate my crank shaft every 3000 miles DUH!
> Sorry... my post was just my way of saying i have no clue wtf you guys are talking about.  :biggrin:
> *



still was funny!!!

did you know that a top fuel dragster's crank only makes about 9oo revolutions during a 1/4 mile run..

and that it takes more HP to run the blower than a nascar motor makes!!


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

> _Originally posted by racerboy_@Jan 10 2009, 07:08 AM~12661205
> *did you know that a top fuel dragster's crank only makes about 9oo revolutions during a 1/4 mile run..
> 
> and that it takes more HP to run the blower than a nascar motor makes!!
> *


 :0 :0


----------



## JasonJ (Aug 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by racerboy_@Jan 10 2009, 10:08 AM~12661205
> *still was funny!!!
> 
> did you know that a top fuel dragster's crank only makes about 9oo revolutions during a 1/4 mile run..
> ...


Damn, thats crazy.... you think i can fit one in my 64 rag??? Im going after DIPPIN!!! hno:


----------



## Jd's64impala (Jun 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by DIPPINIT_@Jan 9 2009, 05:35 PM~12654802
> *a 350 with a 400 is a 383. a 350 with a 400 crank is a 377.
> 
> To me it doesn't make sense to stroke or de stroke in a small block. Why not use a 400 with a 400 and have a 406??
> *



so what would a 350 bored .060 over be an then a 350 bored .060 over with a 400 crank in it what would that be


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

> _Originally posted by Jd's64impala_@Jan 10 2009, 04:19 PM~12664372
> *so what would a 350 bored .060 over be an then a 350 bored .060 over with a 400 crank in it what would that be
> *


A 350 gains 5 cubic inches with a .030 overbore.


----------



## RO Sleepy (Jan 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by racerboy_@Jan 9 2009, 04:30 PM~12654756
> *true they didnt NEED high rpms, but it didnt stop people from doing it..
> 
> and yes, an oversquare motor reves higher than a stroker.
> ...



a .60 over 400 with a 350 would be a destroked 388 

more torque than hp as opposed to a 388 stroker


----------



## BThompsonTX (May 15, 2008)

I am currently building a 481 stroker 409. We are shooting for 550 - 575 HP, but I would like to see it at 600! :biggrin: 

.060 bore, 454 Eagle forged crank, Eagle H-Beam Rods and 11.0:1 JE forged pistons weighing in at 652 grams with a total bob weight of 2313!! Edelbrock Heads ported to flow 300. All valvetrain will be Comp Cams Roller with a custom ground 260 @ .050 duration cam which is still undecided.

Just got the block back from the machine shop last week . Short block asembly will be done today. Cam, lifters and rocker arms will have to be ordered this week and will hopefully have them within a week or so.


----------



## racerboy (Jul 22, 2007)

> _Originally posted by Sleepy G_@Jan 11 2009, 10:56 PM~12676293
> *a .60 over 400 with a 350 would be a destroked 388
> 
> more torque than hp as opposed to a 388 stroker
> *


interesting, but that theory *may* be backwards...a stroker motor makes MORE torque than a non stroker. a de stroked motor is what is commonly referred to as "oversquare" which means bore and stroke are very close in measurements. and example would be a 3.5" stroke with 3.5" bore.

shorter stroke= faster revving.


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

> _Originally posted by BThompsonTX_@Jan 12 2009, 06:34 AM~12678020
> *I am currently building a 481 stroker 409.  We are shooting for 550 - 575 HP, but I would like to see it at 600! :biggrin:
> 
> .060 bore, 454 Eagle forged crank, Eagle H-Beam Rods and 11.0:1 JE forged pistons weighing in at 652 grams with a total bob weight of 2313!!  Edelbrock Heads ported to flow 300.  All valvetrain will be Comp Cams Roller with a custom ground 260 @ .050 duration cam which is still undecided.
> ...


Sounds like a monster


----------



## racerboy (Jul 22, 2007)

post some pix of that.


----------



## 4pumpcoupe (Feb 24, 2005)

:biggrin: :biggrin: motor for my boat 454hilborn fuel injection alky 15to1 compression & the boat is 16 feet no more said :biggrin: :biggrin:


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2009)

> _Originally posted by racerboy_@Jan 9 2009, 03:16 PM~12655206
> *???
> 
> a 350 with a 400 is a 383..  what is a 377?
> ...


A 377 is a 400 with a 350 crank.


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2009)

> _Originally posted by JasonJ_@Jan 10 2009, 12:45 PM~12663098
> *Damn, thats crazy.... you think i can fit one in my 64 rag??? Im going after DIPPIN!!!  hno:
> *



When our cars are done, were gonna have to worry about where to buy gas. All cars will be electric. :uh: 


























































with 800 hp over driven servo motors


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2009)

> _Originally posted by 4pumpcoupe_@Jan 12 2009, 10:37 PM~12688343
> *:biggrin:  :biggrin: motor for my boat 454hilborn fuel injection alky 15to1 compression & the boat is 16 feet no more said :biggrin:  :biggrin:
> 
> 
> ...



V Drive?


----------



## 4pumpcoupe (Feb 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DIPPINIT_@Jan 12 2009, 11:50 PM~12688468
> *V Drive?
> *


yes sir


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

> _Originally posted by 4pumpcoupe_@Jan 12 2009, 10:37 PM~12688343
> *:biggrin:  :biggrin: motor for my boat 454hilborn fuel injection alky 15to1 compression & the boat is 16 feet no more said :biggrin:  :biggrin:
> 
> 
> ...


 :0 :0


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

> _Originally posted by racerboy_@Jan 12 2009, 10:04 PM~12687934
> *post some pix of that.
> *


x2 :biggrin:


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2009)

> _Originally posted by 4pumpcoupe_@Jan 13 2009, 11:02 AM~12691874
> *yes sir
> *



Nice, I had a 1975 Kurtis 500 5/8 Runner bottom. I had the inside all redone with balsa wood. Had a 19% over driven casale. Never finished the boat, and sold it  

Imma get another one, but it is MUCH cheaoer to buy one built :0


----------



## racerboy (Jul 22, 2007)

> _Originally posted by DIPPINIT_@Jan 14 2009, 07:29 PM~12706496
> *Nice, I had a 1975 Kurtis 500 5/8 Runner bottom. I had the inside all redone with balsa wood. Had a 19% over driven casale. Never finished the boat, and sold it
> 
> Imma get another one, but it is MUCH cheaoer to buy one built :0
> *


if it flies, floats, or fucks, you are going to have problems with it.. :biggrin:


----------



## 4pumpcoupe (Feb 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DIPPINIT_@Jan 14 2009, 07:29 PM~12706496
> *Nice, I had a 1975 Kurtis 500 5/8 Runner bottom. I had the inside all redone with balsa wood. Had a 19% over driven casale. Never finished the boat, and sold it
> 
> Imma get another one, but it is MUCH cheaoer to buy one built :0
> *


hell yea,no one around here has a vdrive on jet drive boat,my girl friend calls it a floatin coffin with a big fuckin motor :biggrin: :biggrin:


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

> _Originally posted by racerboy_@Jan 14 2009, 10:04 PM~12709568
> *if it flies, floats, or fucks, you are going to have problems with it.. :biggrin:
> *


True. :0 :biggrin:


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2009)

> _Originally posted by 4pumpcoupe_@Jan 15 2009, 05:18 AM~12711106
> *hell yea,no one around here has a vdrive on jet drive boat,my girl friend calls it a floatin coffin with a big fuckin motor :biggrin:  :biggrin:
> *



pretty much. I have tried everything just short of homosexuality and heroine, and boat racing is by far the biggest rush :biggrin:


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2009)

> _Originally posted by racerboy_@Jan 14 2009, 10:04 PM~12709568
> *if it flies, floats, or fucks, you are going to have problems with it.. :biggrin:
> *



yeah but the problem is when the shit is fucking with you, you want to get rid of it, but can't til you fix it, then when everything is cool, you want to keep it :uh:


----------



## racerboy (Jul 22, 2007)

> _Originally posted by DIPPINIT_@Jan 15 2009, 09:57 PM~12719125
> *pretty much. I have tried everything just short of homosexuality and heroine, and boat racing is by far the biggest rush :biggrin:
> *


 i used to be a professional motorcycle racer (AMA Superbike)... that was a rush. now i race cars. a lil safer....


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2009)

> _Originally posted by racerboy_@Jan 16 2009, 06:33 AM~12721529
> *i used to be a professional motorcycle racer (AMA Superbike)... that was a rush. now i race cars. a lil safer....
> *


I have a 2006 CRF 50
:dunno: :dunno: 


I used to race at Terminal Island back in the 90's. I have a 64 Chevelle SS, still have it, but tore it down after they closed the track, and never finshed it, because of this damn 1963 Impala :angry: :angry: :angry: 

I think you know arturo in Santa Barbara, with the Lincoln.


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2009)

> _Originally posted by DIPPINIT_@Jan 16 2009, 12:33 PM~12724398
> *I have a 2006 CRF 50
> :dunno:  :dunno:
> I used to race at Terminal Island back in the 90's. I have a 64 Chevelle SS, still have it, but tore it down after they closed the track, and never finshed it, because of this damn 1963 Impala :angry:  :angry:  :angry:
> ...



Damn its a small world :0


----------



## RO Sleepy (Jan 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by racerboy_@Jan 9 2009, 05:16 PM~12655206
> *???
> 
> a 350 with a 400 is a 383..  what is a 377?
> ...



no its not

a 350 with a 400 crank is a 377

30 over makes it a 383


----------



## racerboy (Jul 22, 2007)

> _Originally posted by DIPPINIT_@Jan 16 2009, 01:34 PM~12724410
> *Damn its a small world :0
> *


yea i know arturo! great guy. tell him i have his $5...he'll get the joke!
that lincoln belonged to our club president. i love that car!


----------



## racerboy (Jul 22, 2007)

> _Originally posted by Sleepy G_@Jan 16 2009, 02:12 PM~12724745
> *no its not
> 
> a 350 with a 400 crank is a 377
> ...


that is correct, but when most people do the machine work necessary to install a 400 crank in a 350 block, it is assumed that the motor will be bored .30 over. so yes, from a purely mathmatical standpoint, a std. bore 350 with a crank is 377ci


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2009)

I am bored with this :0 

:biggrin:


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

> _Originally posted by DIPPINIT_@Jan 18 2009, 11:47 AM~12740668
> *I am bored with this :0
> 
> :biggrin:
> *


 :biggrin:


----------



## warning (Oct 31, 2005)

i always wanted a 348 or 409. id put it in 51 chevy truck with a chopped top and a channel, with a 4 speed some reverse chrome steelies


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

> _Originally posted by warning_@Jan 18 2009, 09:14 PM~12745002
> *i always wanted a 348 or 409. id put it in 51 chevy truck with a chopped top and a channel, with a 4 speed some  reverse chrome steelies
> *


Sounds like a plan. :biggrin:


----------



## 64SS (Feb 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by DIPPINIT_@Jan 15 2009, 09:57 PM~12719125
> *pretty much. I have tried everything just short of homosexuality and heroine, and boat racing is by far the biggest rush :biggrin:
> *


You should try boat racing while being fucked up on heroine, now that's a rush!!! :around:


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

> _Originally posted by 64SS_@Jan 21 2009, 06:08 AM~12769303
> *You should try boat racing while being fucked up on heroine, now that's a rush!!! :around:
> *


 :0 :scrutinize:


----------



## warning (Oct 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by 64SS_@Jan 21 2009, 09:08 AM~12769303
> *You should try boat racing while being fucked up on heroine and being homosexual with me, now that's a rush!!! :around:
> *


 :uh: :uh: :uh:


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:


----------



## racerboy (Jul 22, 2007)

> _Originally posted by warning_@Jan 21 2009, 09:22 PM~12777517
> *:uh:  :uh:  :uh:
> *


 :loco:


----------



## RO Sleepy (Jan 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by racerboy_@Jan 16 2009, 03:33 PM~12724940
> *that is correct, but when most people do the machine work necessary to install a 400 crank in a 350 block, it is assumed that the motor will be bored .30 over. so yes, from a purely mathmatical standpoint, a std. bore 350 with a crank is 377ci
> *




i dont want these dipshits to think they have a 383 when its a 377


most of them already think they have 350 and really have 305s :uh:


----------



## ACCESSORYFREAK (Jul 2, 2004)

when I first got my Impala it had a sbc 400 but I have always day dreamed about adding a 409 to my 64. after hearing the 10k price tag on the engine alone and that doesnt include all the touches you need to do to the car to make it look factory i decided against it. I ended up puting a 327 back in it but one day ill find my 409.


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

> _Originally posted by ACCESSORYFREAK_@Jan 24 2009, 10:22 AM~12801746
> *when I first got my Impala it had a sbc 400 but I have always day dreamed about adding a 409 to my 64. after hearing the 10k price tag on the engine alone and that doesnt include all the touches you need to do to the car to make it look factory i decided against it. I ended up puting a 327 back in it but one day ill find my 409.
> *


Years ago I almost got a guy to trade me a high mileage 409 that needed to be rebuilt for a 327 that had been freshly rebuilt. He backed out at the last minute.  
The 409 had all the brackets and pulleys too.


----------



## racerboy (Jul 22, 2007)

> _Originally posted by Ragtop Ted_@Jan 24 2009, 12:45 PM~12802362
> *Years ago I almost got a guy to trade me a high mileage 409 that needed to be rebuilt for a 327 that had been freshly rebuilt.  He backed out at the last minute.
> The 409 had all the brackets and pulleys too.
> *


where??? you distract him, and ill hit him with a stick!

try finding a 3 grove waterpump pulley for a 409 with the rpo33 (air & p.s.)


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

> _Originally posted by racerboy_@Jan 26 2009, 04:32 PM~12821236
> *where??? you distract him, and ill hit him with a stick!
> 
> try finding a 3 grove waterpump pulley for a 409 with the rpo33 (air & p.s.)
> *


It was advertised in ''Drive'' magazine about 8 or 9 years ago. I don't remember exactly what pulleys it had on it. My Rag has the 3 groove pulley though. :biggrin:


----------



## racerboy (Jul 22, 2007)

so you have ac and ps?
post up some pix!


----------



## Ragtop Ted (Sep 11, 2007)

> _Originally posted by racerboy_@Jan 26 2009, 09:52 PM~12825207
> *so you have ac and ps?
> post up some pix!
> *


Yes it does. I'm still working on it. I'll check if I have some pics when I first got it. :biggrin:


----------

