Misconception on a slow stocker winning

bill dedman · 07-04-2012, 06:33 PM

Gary,

I believe the "mystery motor" was the canted-valve, new head-design, N.A.S.C.A.R. motor that we came to know as the 396/427/454 engine. The Z-11 was a 409 on steroids; angled top-deck block; a "combustion-chambers-in-the block" design with some really good-flowing heads and an intake manifold, the design of which emulated a tunnel-ram (raised carbs, with vertical runners delivering the charge to the heads.)

A VERY powerful engine...

The cranks may have had similar bearing parameters, and the bore-center spacing was the same, but they were two very different motors in terms of the top end.

GarysZ24 · 07-05-2012, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Gary,

I believe the "mystery motor" was the canted-valve, new head-design, N.A.S.C.A.R. motor that we came to know as the 396/427/454 engine. The Z-11 was a 409 on steroids; angled top-deck block; a "combustion-chambers-in-the block" design with some really good-flowing heads and an intake manifold, the design of which emulated a tunnel-ram (raised carbs, with vertical runners delivering the charge to the heads.)

A VERY powerful engine...

The cranks may have had similar bearing parameters, and the bore-center spacing was the same, but they were two very different motors in terms of the top end.

Bill, I may stand corrected on that (even though I thought I read in a performance book and/or Chevy performance magazine that Z11 was also associated with the 427 engine that was popular in the '63 Chevies of that great era, but I'm no authority on that). However, the important thing is that Z11 wasn't associated in any way shape or form with the Citation...it was the X11, which I know of for sure. There was also a Z26 offering which was connected with the now defunct Beretta, or the Z34 from the Lumina.

bill dedman · 07-05-2012, 02:41 AM

Gary,

You are correct that the 1963 427 Chevy engine WAS the Z-11. I should have made that more clear when I said it was a "409 on steroids." It was a 409 DESIGN that was enlarged to 427 cubic inches for the 1963 limited-edition "lightweight" drag package that Chevy built for NHRA racing. There were some problems getting them homologated; not enough cars were built before the G.M. front office issued an edict that killed the racing programs at both Chevy and Pontiac, resulting in not enough cars being built to qualify their legal status as Super Stockers, so they had to run these cars (the Z-11 full-size Chevys with the 409-style 427-inch motors, and the Pontiac 421 Tempests (dunno about the swiss-cheese Catalinas) as F/X cars. No matter; they were all still really, really tough!

The "mystery motor" was not included in any of the drag racing activities that I ever heard of, in 1963. It was a canted-valve, 396-style "semi-hemi" whose excellent basic design is STILL making its mark in Pro Stock, Stock, and Super Stock today. It was a NASCAR item ONLY, in the beginning. Who'd have dreamed that it was so good that it would still be a factor in NHRA racing, virtually fifty years later?

Hope this clears up the some of the murk about the two distinctly different big blocks Chevy was developing in 1963. They were both formidible!

GarysZ24 · 07-08-2012, 01:13 AM

They were both formidible![/QUOTE]

x2 for that Bill, and I often wonder what would've been in the Stock/Super Stock wars of the brands, if only that "409 on steroids 427 Chevy, and it's 421 Tempest cousin would've had the numbers built they needed to be a threat to the Savoy's, Belvedere's, and Coronets and their hemi or Max Wedge offerings???

bill dedman · 07-08-2012, 02:53 AM

Gary,

It would have been VERY interesting... that's for sure!

GarysZ24 · 07-08-2012, 07:19 PM

x2 for that Bill....

Rick Unterseh · 07-08-2012, 07:49 PM

Look at the finals of the Div. 7 National open Angelo Phillips and myself, the two slowest cars in the field, and we were in the finals !!!! GO SLOW CARS !!!!

07-04-2012, 06:33 PM	#1
bill dedman VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Conway, AR Posts: 1,739 Likes: 0 Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Re: Misconception on a slow stocker winning Gary, I believe the "mystery motor" was the canted-valve, new head-design, N.A.S.C.A.R. motor that we came to know as the 396/427/454 engine. The Z-11 was a 409 on steroids; angled top-deck block; a "combustion-chambers-in-the block" design with some really good-flowing heads and an intake manifold, the design of which emulated a tunnel-ram (raised carbs, with vertical runners delivering the charge to the heads.) A VERY powerful engine... The cranks may have had similar bearing parameters, and the bore-center spacing was the same, but they were two very different motors in terms of the top end. __________________ Bill Last edited by bill dedman; 07-04-2012 at 06:39 PM.

07-05-2012, 02:41 AM	#3
bill dedman VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Conway, AR Posts: 1,739 Likes: 0 Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Re: Misconception on a slow stocker winning Gary, You are correct that the 1963 427 Chevy engine WAS the Z-11. I should have made that more clear when I said it was a "409 on steroids." It was a 409 DESIGN that was enlarged to 427 cubic inches for the 1963 limited-edition "lightweight" drag package that Chevy built for NHRA racing. There were some problems getting them homologated; not enough cars were built before the G.M. front office issued an edict that killed the racing programs at both Chevy and Pontiac, resulting in not enough cars being built to qualify their legal status as Super Stockers, so they had to run these cars (the Z-11 full-size Chevys with the 409-style 427-inch motors, and the Pontiac 421 Tempests (dunno about the swiss-cheese Catalinas) as F/X cars. No matter; they were all still really, really tough! The "mystery motor" was not included in any of the drag racing activities that I ever heard of, in 1963. It was a canted-valve, 396-style "semi-hemi" whose excellent basic design is STILL making its mark in Pro Stock, Stock, and Super Stock today. It was a NASCAR item ONLY, in the beginning. Who'd have dreamed that it was so good that it would still be a factor in NHRA racing, virtually fifty years later? Hope this clears up the some of the murk about the two distinctly different big blocks Chevy was developing in 1963. They were both formidible! __________________ Bill

07-08-2012, 01:13 AM	#4
GarysZ24 VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Tempe, Az. Posts: 1,270 Likes: 918 Liked 238 Times in 94 Posts	Re: Misconception on a slow stocker winning They were both formidible![/QUOTE] x2 for that Bill, and I often wonder what would've been in the Stock/Super Stock wars of the brands, if only that "409 on steroids 427 Chevy, and it's 421 Tempest cousin would've had the numbers built they needed to be a threat to the Savoy's, Belvedere's, and Coronets and their hemi or Max Wedge offerings??? __________________ Gary Hampton '86 Z24,173 V6 CF/S #5824 (#78 in 2021)

07-08-2012, 02:53 AM	#5
bill dedman VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Conway, AR Posts: 1,739 Likes: 0 Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Re: Misconception on a slow stocker winning Gary, It would have been VERY interesting... that's for sure! __________________ Bill

07-08-2012, 07:19 PM	#6
GarysZ24 VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Tempe, Az. Posts: 1,270 Likes: 918 Liked 238 Times in 94 Posts	Re: Misconception on a slow stocker winning x2 for that Bill.... __________________ Gary Hampton '86 Z24,173 V6 CF/S #5824 (#78 in 2021)

07-08-2012, 07:49 PM	#7
Rick Unterseh Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Phoenix, Arizona Posts: 133 Likes: 3 Liked 31 Times in 7 Posts	Re: Misconception on a slow stocker winning Look at the finals of the Div. 7 National open Angelo Phillips and myself, the two slowest cars in the field, and we were in the finals !!!! GO SLOW CARS !!!!