Not one thats already done,just something thats sitting that youll never get to?
Who Is Sitting On A 348/409 Rebuildable Engine
Kindred
61 - 80 of 106 Posts
Joined
·
161 Posts
Here's 2 complete for sale. https://columbiamo.craigslist.org/pts/d/348-chevy-motors/6481930680.html
Joined
·
16,603 Posts
1968 Camaro Z28, 1933 Chevy Coupe, 2024 Colorado Trail Boss, 1946 Chevy PU, 2000 Custom Harley
Joined
·
60,833 Posts
For almost 10k,....he better have more info that this.... I bought this engine a few years back ,the only info I have on it is it was a running engine
1968 Camaro Z28, 1933 Chevy Coupe, 2024 Colorado Trail Boss, 1946 Chevy PU, 2000 Custom Harley
Joined
·
60,833 Posts
These are more in the OP's price range.
Joined
·
4,236 Posts
Joined
·
27,465 Posts
Engine choices included the inline six-cylinder as well as the famous Chevy small-block and big-block V8s. Automatic transmission buyers were given the option of the newly introduced three-range Turbo Hydra-Matic for the newly introduced Mark IV big-block engine, displacing 396 cubic inches. The old 409-cubic-inch (6.7 L) "W" engine was discontinued early in the 1965 model year, so early-production '65s got the 409, available only in four-barrel 340 and 400 horsepower options. The new 396 Turbo Jet V8 was the first General Motors engine to receive the Rochester Quadra-Jet four-barrel carburetor that would become a mainstay until the early 1980s. The new 396 was available as a 325-horsepower version with 10.25 to 1 compression ratio and hydraulic lifters or a high-performance version with 11 to 1 compression ratio, solid lifters and 425 horsepower.![Image]()
Joined
·
27,465 Posts
This quote below in bold is from Chevy Hardcore:
http://www.chevyhardcore.com/news/impala-engine-options-1965/
You have to keep in mind that the new models were released in September of the previous year back in the day so the 1965 cars started coming out in the showrooms as early as September of 1964, that would give the old 409 a 6 month model run before being phased out for the new 396. Dave
The 409 engine was discontinued early in the 1965 production year. Image: www.impalass427.com
The 396 cubic-inch engine was introduced in February, to replace the outdated 409 cubic-inch engine, which was only available in 340 and 400 horsepower versions this year — the Tri-Power was gone. By mid-year 1965, the W-series engine would be a thing of the past. During the final year of 409 cubic-inch engine availability, just 742 of the 400 horsepower versions were sold, and 2,086 of the 340 horsepower engines found their way into 1965 Impalas.
http://www.chevyhardcore.com/news/impala-engine-options-1965/
You have to keep in mind that the new models were released in September of the previous year back in the day so the 1965 cars started coming out in the showrooms as early as September of 1964, that would give the old 409 a 6 month model run before being phased out for the new 396. Dave
The 409 engine was discontinued early in the 1965 production year. Image: www.impalass427.com
The 396 cubic-inch engine was introduced in February, to replace the outdated 409 cubic-inch engine, which was only available in 340 and 400 horsepower versions this year — the Tri-Power was gone. By mid-year 1965, the W-series engine would be a thing of the past. During the final year of 409 cubic-inch engine availability, just 742 of the 400 horsepower versions were sold, and 2,086 of the 340 horsepower engines found their way into 1965 Impalas.
Joined
·
12,081 Posts
Dave already covered the bases on the availability in a '65, so I'll only add that I have seen one in person with the 409, along with complete documentation. Really different, and cool. Too rich for my blood, and a curiosity more than anything, but still neat.
Joined
·
7,631 Posts
That's just a BAD joke.
348's as posted in the other posts are about right for $$$ wise. I bought my '61 CANADIAN Pontiac 4 yrs ago. It had a stroked 348 4bbl motor in it. I purchased a 3X2bbl rebuilt car set-up for $2,200. I sold the motor and 3X2bbls running from my car for $8,800. I have since put in a '64 409 stroked to 474 with 425Hp "690" heads, ported and Edelbrock 2X4's. Motor is low compression (9.2-1) but make some good power. In a 3300lbs '61 Pontiac (not mine) it went 10.32 with 4500 converter T400 and 4.10 gear. So it's supposed to be just over 600Hp as a nothing special OEM style motor.
Honestly, if your piecing one together, look for deals. 333 truck heads were better then most OEM heads unless you got the better 690 heads, then the super rare and pricey Z11 stuff was even more.
I would say, start with a 348 block, BBc rods and either 3.75 or 4.00 stroke crank, THEN buy the pistons. A .030 over with 4.00 stroke is 433 inches. 333 is your best bang for the buck in heads. The 690 heads can be found, but guys want top $$$ for them. I was offered a set of nice, BARE 690's for $2,500. Best heads out are either BWR hi port or the Z12 head by Carl McQuillen. Edelbrock are ok, but these 2 are far superior. As for intake, Carl McQuillin has a nice 2X4 style intake for his heads. And Speedport 6/7000 cast single is good too. Again Edelbrock's are ok, but the other 2 again are far superior.
Prices for this nostalgia stuff is all over the place. I've seen stock stuff for $15K+ just fresh for 425Hp 409's. There is still a market for this stuff as manufacturers are getting more into it for now. But for how long? And to do these are not cheap and has some quirks. They don't rev and Hp per $$$ is not anywhere near that of a BBc. BUT It is cool to show up with an old car, open the hood and see the 2X4's on a 409 and a 4 gear.
Joined
·
367 Posts
Joined
·
367 Posts
Joined
·
4,236 Posts
Lots of early 1965's Chevrolets had 409's but the Caprice wasn't introduced until the 396 became available.
Joined
·
12,081 Posts
I don't know about the Caprice specifically (which was just a trim package on the Impala in that year.) I looked to confirm/deny the 409/Caprice combo but only found the same brochure you posted. But I didn't catch the "Caprice" part of your & Dave's posts.
If the Caprice was a mid-year introduction (I couldn't find a date), that would follow that it was 396 only.The one I saw was a SS, which technically is its own model and not just a trim package. I'm not sure what in GM's mind constitutes a difference here, as SFAIK the frame and basic body (where there is a direct equivalent, i.e. 2-door coupe to 2-door coupe) are the same between an Impala and a SS.
Joined
·
26,914 Posts
If the 409 was not available after 1965, how does one explain it being in a 67 model COE big truck??
Joined
·
4,236 Posts
I can't explain a negative but I can show what Chevy claims are 1967 Truck Engines.
![Image]()
61 - 80 of 106 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
