Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
1961 Impala SS409, Holy Grail?
http://www.classicdreamcars.com/61IMPALA.html
Is this the Holy Grail for collectors of post WW2 Chevys?
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
http://www.barrett-jackson.com/auctionresults/common/cardetail.asp?id=158393
That 409 looks a lot like the 348 4 speed convertible I had, only I think the color is a shade lighter (hard to tell from the great photos).
My guess is that the later 409 SS ('62-64) is worth more because, as the ad says, hardly anyone knows about the '61s. It's hard for people to fantasize about owning a car all their life when they don't know it exists.
It would be interesting to know if the 348 3x2v was the 280 or 320 hp version. With the mild hydraulic cam the engine is no world beater, but with the solid lifter cam it's pretty lively.
The 409 is about the engine, the '57 Chevy is about the whole car, is what I mean. It's a BIGGER chocolate bunny for the collector.
Out of curiosity how does a 61 Impala SS 409 compare to a 57 Convert on pricing.
I remember some years ago Super Chevy (?) making a big deal about this car.
the '56 is much nicer.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
The Turbo-Thrust 348 was the boat anchor in my car, rated at 250 hp with small WCFB four barrel from '58-'61. Then there's the Super Turbo-Thrust 348, same engine and years but with three Rochesters--same carbs as Pontiac Tri-Power and also probably the Olds J-2 and Cad 3 deuce setup of that era. Both the 250 and 280 have 9.5:1 CR and mild cam.
Then there's the Special Turbo-Thrust, a "special order high performance engine" with special main and rod bearings. Hydro cam and 9:5:1 CR, so it was detuned from the '59-60 version that had solid cam and 11:1. That's the one that came only with the HD Powerglide.
At the top are the Special (Super) Turbo-Thrust 348 with either 340 hp (one AFB four barrel) or 350 hp (three deuces). 11.25:1 CR, "pistons relieved for valve clearance, special main and rod bearings", mechanical cam. I heard that this cam was so aggressive it wore out valve springs, and when they compensated by increasing the spring tension the cam lobes wore down. Maybe that's when they realized they'd gotten everything they were going to get out of the 348.
These were early musclecars in a sense, but the idea behind what most people call the first true musclecar, the GTO, was a strong but relatively mild big block in a lighter car. That way people didn't have to put up with lopey cams and dual quads to make 4000 lb. cars go fast. There aren't that many people into high maintenance engines, but the engines in the first GTOs didn't need any more maintenance than the average Bonneville.
Shifty, have you ever seen a '59 with either fuelie and/or four speed? Do you want to?
As for value vs. a '57, I have to guess if anyone could even locate a '61 SS409 convertible for sale (a real one, documented, etc.), it would cost the moon and the stars, if complete, regardless of condition. Keep in mind, a total of 453 SS cars (by all accounts, available on ANY Impala that year only), and only 142 409 cars (all SS) were built for the '61 model year, so how many surviving 409 convertibles could there possibly be? I also wonder if any there were actually any '61 SS made that were not two-door hardtops or convertibles.
The '57s are probably more 'desirable' to most collectors, but not all that rare, unless we're talking a fuelie or one of the other 'hot setups' offered that year. There were over 47,000 Bel Air convertibles and over 166,000 Bel Air hardtops made for '57; desirable, yes, rare, no.
And this supply and demand thing changes, as the type of collector changes.
speedshift--no, can't say as I have ever seen a FI '59.
The strangest 59 I ever saw once was a 59 Biscayne Station Wagon with a 348. It had tri-power, and a three speed on the column with overdrive. As a kid working in a gas station, this old man would bring it in (often)to buy ten gallons of premimum!
Now, how wierd is that one?
At least he bought ten gallons, not "check the windows, check the tires, check the oil, a dollar gas". Of course in those days ten gallons would have cost, what, $2.50?
Would you translate that to an earthly sum?
As for the '65-up convertibles, they're just too big. The earlier ones are smaller but still feel ponderous. I had a '65 Impala SS with 327 and four speed and while I probably would have enjoyed it more if it had run on more than seven cylinders, it was not one of the handful of cars I'd like to have back.
It's possible they never stamped a #1, or it may have been destroyed. There's a story about it somewhere, but I've forgotten the details, since a '53 Vette doesn't excite me very much. But it is historically interesting.
Yes, the '57s are more expensive (I personally don't get it), but I'd rather have a '61. I think they're great looking, reasonably sized (especially compared to '65 and later SS) and unusual.
61 Chevies just don't have that kind of pull in people's imaginations.
You take a '55 Corvette or '55 Studebaker. Which one will everyone point to, talk about, remember? Same thing here, except it's not fair to call a '61 Chevy a Studebaker.
http://www.mershons.com/view_photo.asp?ID=4523&image=Exterior
It shows a '63 409 in pretty good condition.
As for the '61, well, that's a whole different ballgame. My favorite from those years is the '59. They're the same car from '59-'64 but for me the '59 is more evocative, more over the top. Sounds funny but if I had an old sedan in my garage I'd want it to make a statement. A '59 makes all kinds of statements, good or bad but never indifferent. The dash is great too, with those hooded instruments like the contemporary Corvette. I like obsolete engines and the 348 certainly fits the bill, especially with three twos and a solid cam.
A '60 would be great too, or a '62 (had one). Never really took to the '63 or '64--the greenhouse just doesn't seem to fit the rest of the car--but they seem to be worth more, at least the 409 version.
be had with the powerful 409 made the 409 seem special when it was introduced. Wasn't chevy racing the 409 in NASCAR at the time?
I did a little research and it seems fairly certain that the Z-11 first appeared in February 1963 at Daytona, although it may have been announced as an option before then.
It was a $1237.40 option on any Impala two-door hardtop (what, I can't get one in a Brookwood wagon?). Included four speed, HD suspension, Posi and metallic brakes. Oh yeah, and aluminum hood, front fenders and bumpers. "Buyers require approval from the Central Sales Office before the order can be filled." Factory racers only, please. The engine apparently made 550 hp but the 409 bottom end couldn't handle it so they weren't much of a threat, especially after Chevy pulled the plug on overt factory support.
http://www.geocities.com/greatamericanmuscle/Chevy-63impala.html
The road test mentions NASCAR roots. Was it necessary to sell a certain number of 409 street versions in order for it to be eligable to race in NASCAR (homologated?)
Since you couldn't race with multiple carburetion each manufactuer needed a single four barrel version of their hottest engine. That's why the hottest 409 came in both single four barrel and dual four barrel versions from 1962 on. The four barrel was for NASCAR, the dual quad 409 for the street and drags.
Starting in 1963 there was also a four barrel 409/340 "police" engine with hydraulic cam, usually bolted to Powerglide. I had this engine in an early '65 Impala wagon of all things.
A '62 Catalina Super Duty 421 could 0-60 in "under 6 seconds" and do the quarter in 13.9 seconds at 107 mph. Rated at 405 hp but may have put out as much as 465 hp.
I wasn't too impressed with the 409/340 PG in my '65 wagon but to be fair it was probably about the same as the 396/325 with PG. Neither was meant to be a screamer.
Going back to the '61 409, I had always thought it was kind of a half-hearted first step because it didn't have optional dual quads like the later 409s and it didn't have the 400+ hp ratings they did. And there's no question the later 409s were improved. But looking at the quarter mile numbers of the '61 it seems like the first 409 was conservatively rated (very unusual for the time). I think it was making close to its 360 gross hp rating.
models like those available beginning in 1962. All 61SS's were equipped with all the heavy duty police components and a choice of large displacement high performance V8 engines. It also was the first really BIG engine in a Chevy. It is interesting to note that SS was marketed and equipped as a superior high speed road car (with too much cam and a poorly designed distributor!), not a drag racer as it was beginning in 62.
I was 14 y/o car junkie kid when a neighbor purchased a new red 61SS 348/340 4 speed bubbletop. Sounded kinda Wild next to Dad''s 55 Belair!
I hadn't thought about it but you're right, the Super Sport concept was more "pure" and enthusiast oriented in '61. Chevy did the same thing four years later with the original Chevelle SS 396: a mid-year introduction of a model that had all the good parts standard. The next year (1966) the SS 396 was watered down considerably. Too bad in both cases but apparently you don't make the big bucks selling small numbers of genuine performance cars.
Yes, you could get the three deuce 348 in a non-SS car. I think only the 409 was exclusive to the SS. No 409 Biscaynes in '61, I guess. Hi-perf 348s are expensive so it looks like lots of guys remember them and show it with their wallets. I got my '61 convertible 348/250 four speed for $250 in 1971, drove the wheels off it and basically gave it away a few years later.
http://www.chrysler300site.com/cgibin/history.cgi
It shows a the history of the 300 series cars.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
So the Z11 and "mystery engine" are different engines. It makes sense. The drag engine would be built for peak output and the NASCAR engine for sustained output. Probably the cam was different and certainly the carburetion--NASCAR didn't allow more than one carb at that time.
IIRC that strategy worked a lot better in drag racing, where the Z11s were very strong, than in NASCAR. The 409's bottom end obviously wasn't up to coping with the increased power over the long haul. That has to be why the 396's main journals are substantially larger than the 409's, although a modified 396 crank can be used to stroke the 409.
There isn't a whole lot of information on the Z11/mystery engine, at least in my sources. Sounds like you're into W motors.
http://www.dr409.com/
Actually a W engine is like the new VW, with two V8s sharing a common crank.
W