There are moments at my age when you think just maybe your memory is failing. But rudiger’s comment on the ’64 Chevy 409 CC: The L78 (or L89 if aluminum heads) 396 was only rated at 425 hp for one year (1965) and then only in the Corvette. It was probably no different than the regular 375 hp L78 396 that was in everything else got me scratching my head, since I seemed to remember that the hi-po L78 396 was rated at 425 hp in the big Chevys too. Went to wiki, and they also said the L78 396 was rated at 375 hp, other than in the Corvette. Did I remember such a memorable thing as the 1965½ introduction of the new porcupine 396 wrong? At the impressionable age of twelve? Time to find a brochure.
Sure enough: 425 hp. Just the thing to power your new Caprice four door sedan, with the optional four speed stick. So the only question is: were there more or fewer 425/396 Caprices built than 140 hp 230 CID six-cylinder 1965 Imapla SS convertibles? Oh, and of course Chevy was just playing around with the advertised hp numbers: the 425 and 375 hp L78s were the exact same engine. But it wouldn’t have looked right for there not to have been a 425 hp engine on the option list. In 1966, the 427 inch version of the same state of tune was also rated at 425 hp; how convenient. Who knows how much they really made?
Remember, just because it made the brochure, doesn’t mean it made production. And there is NO mention of it in the 6th edition of Chevy Power, the official factory performance manual. The L78 375HP was the highest power 396 made. Just another GM fantasy. However there was an aluminum head 427 available in ’65, (425hp) but doubtful any made it into full size barges.
I think you’re missing the point: there was no apparent difference between the 375 hp and 425 hp versions of this engine. They just used 425 hp labels for the Corvette and big Chevys, and a 375 hp label for the Chevelle.
And in 1966, the top (iron head) 427 was rated at 425 again, and there were undoubtedly a fair number built. The L-88 option just substituted aluminum heads for the iron ones, but Chevy didn’t rate its power output any differently. Otherwise, it was the same engine.
The reason for the different rating in the Chevelle was probably GM’s rule at the time that the divisions could have no more than 1 hp advertised for every 10 lbs of curb weight. Obviously the weights varied a lot based on options but it stands to reason that the Chevelle, being under 2 tons, would have the lower rating to fit the letter of the GM rule.
What about the Corvette? The Corvette was GM’s stated exception – cars could not be advertised with fewer than 10 lbs per hp, EXCEPT the Corvette.
At any rate, it was just a rule about advertising – the engines could make whatever it is the engine made. Hence, the 375 hp 396 in the Chevelle was identical to the 425 hp 396 in the full-sizers and the Corvette.
The 1hp/10lb rule didn’t appear until 1967, which explains why the top Chevelle SS 396 suddenly made only 350 hp, and the top 427 in the big cars was now rated at 385 hp.
Bah! Off by a year! 🙂
Not sure if the rule started in ’67, but the top L78 396 was rated at 375 like before and after.
I was going to say, I have seen a ’66 Caprice with the L72 — and four-speed, amazingly enough — that I am pretty sure was OEM.
There WERE NO 1965 caprices with a 4 Speed. They came out in 1966. My friend went to the local Chevrolet dealer in my 3000 population town and bought a new ’66 Caprice 396 with 4 Speed setting on the showroom floor, and the dealer made him wait a week to take it because he wanted it for show!!
I bought the mid year Impala in January 1966. 396- 425 hp. Solid lifters, 4 speed w/ positraction. Fastest car on Woodward Ave Ran against everything, hole shots, 15 roll, 25 rolls. Rolls were best, didn’t burn as mush rubber between power shifts.
The difference between the L78 (425hp) and the L37 (375hp) were the cam shafts. The 425 had a solid lifter cam and the L37 had a hydraulic lifter cam setup. This is very well documented.
The L-78 375HP engine has a solid cam and is the exact same engine that was put into the 1965 Corvette. It was re badged as a 425HP because the top GM brass wanted their flagship high performance car to have more horse power than any other cars of the times. The ads attributed the extra horsepower to the special Y type header exhaust manifolds only found on the Corvette and rated the engine at 6,600 instead of 5,600 RPM. Having an L-78 rated at 375HP does not mean one can achieve a 50HP increase simply because it’s bolted into a different car. it was just smoke and mirrors from GM PR guys. I’m afraid I do not know what an L-37 is. That is the current designation for a Cadillac North Star engine. There is an L-34 and an L-35 396ci but no L-37.
The L37 he mention was for the Z16 and is no way the same as the L78.
The 1965 Malibu SS had a 396 375hp with HYDRAULIC lifters. What is the correct number for this engine???? This engine was in a world of it’s own. The only produced 200.
I ‘v got a buddy in Tomahawk Wi. that had a 425hp 427 in a 1966 caprice !
Would anyone know what a 66 Caprice 427/425hp Would be worth?
I bought. a new 396- 425hp Corvette, and this engine was only available 1/2 a year in 65. The L78 375hp was not the identical Engine. The 425hp was the only 396 with a 4 bolt main, and larger oil passages. The cam lift and duration was different, and exhaust. I do not believe the 396-425hp was available in the impala as the 409-425 was still offered in the impala when I purchased the corvette. Remember half of the year was already gone, and the 396-425hp was dropped by 1966. As far as literature stating it was available in the impala, that actually never happened.
The 1965 396 375HP and 425hp were one year only motors. The camshaft part numbers and lift were one year only. the 375HP in 65 had a hydraulic lifter cam.
in 66 the 375HP 396 and the 425HP 427 got a new solid lifter cam with more lift than the 65 solid cam. GM was so sure that Nascar was going to put a 400 CI limit on motors in 65, that is why the 396 425 existed. The 65 375 HP 396 was the only hydraulic lifter big block to get rectangular port heads. It never came in the full size cars. Only the Corvette and a very small run of 65 Chevelles.
Probably the rarest 1965 Impala, in terms of production numbers, was the 283 2bbl with a factory 4-speed. A high school friend and his brother ordered one from the dealer. 2-dr hardtop, maroon (Honduras?), with black vinyl interior and a front bench seat. The car wasn’t all that fast but I was envious.
I doubt that was all that rare of a combination, especially compared to the 230 six SS convertible or the 425 hp Caprice.
Not fair! We’re talking engine/transmission combos. I would wager that there weren’t all that many 283/4-speeds sold in full-size Chevys in 1965. There were a ton of 230 sixes with glides sold in all trim ranges.
Somebody settle this!
You can have the win!
But I still bet there were fewer 425 hp 396s built with the three-speed manual.
You win!
No sixes in the Caprice (obviously) . . . however, over the years I have seen: ’65 Impala SS – early ’65 with a 409; a ’66 Caprice 396 3-speed column manual and overdrive (Caprice Coupe); a ’65 Impala SS with the 230 six and three-on-the-tree and I remember one of my Boy Scout troops’ Dad brought us home from Sierra Camp in their ’66 Impala Sport Coupe, that maroon color, black vinyl seats, three-on-the-tree 283 2-bbl. I rode home with them (Mr. Gavalos) in that car – and it was downhill into the Sacramento Valley, so as a 13 year old, I couldn’t gauge how powerful the car was.
As ’65 and ’66 Full Size Chevies were very common in the Bay Area in the day, my youthful mind did notice that most of these were in the 283 2-bbl and 327 4-bbl variety, with high school acquaintences who had some 6 cylinder Bel-Airs thrown in the mix . . . .
The 409 was still available until around February of ’65 where it was replaced by the 396.
1965 Chevrolet production figures, courtesy of a SME on the chevytalk.org site:
409/340… 2,086
409/400… 742
396/325…55,454
396/425… 1,838
I considering buying a true ’65 409 car in B’ham years ago. The car was a complete basket case but was a true 409/4speed car and the original color was some sort of neat aqua. Unfortunately it had been sitting outside with no windows for quite some time but the stealership had the original drivetrain inside. Asking price was in the $5K range and I wasn’t man enough to take it on.
In 1968, I was 16 years old looking for a 4 speed for my 63 409 Chev that I was putting to gather. Someone told me about a Chev with a 4 speed, but I had to buy the whole car. Went to look at this car that had a car cover over it. Pulled the cover off and wala! 1965, triple black Impala SS conv with a 409-400-4 speed rock crusher. No options except tach and gauges. Car had 20.000 miles on it and the guy lost his drivers licence. 4 drag racing tickets. 400.00 on payments and 3 months after it was paid for, drove it home. that is when my street racing career started. I peeled the 409 numbers of because I had a hard time to get people to race me. They would look at the tags.
I think that I had the most rarest 65 Impala SS. I bought this car in 68 from the original owner. 65 Impala SS convertible. Triple black 409-400-4 speed.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh back when you could order just about anything the factory could conceivably build. Personally I’d love to be able to order the cop suspension on some modern family cars.
What’s more amazing is that you had to order the 396 just to get the Turbo Hydramatic. If wanted a small block – like most people did – you were stuck with the silly Powerglide until ’67 or ’68. Ford and Plymouth had three speed automatics in the ’50s and dropped their two speeds altogether by 1965.
The Powerglide wasn’t without its merits, but I’m still amazed that Chevy kneecapped its cars for so long.
Yeah how many years did the “Ford-matic” two speed last? The “Cruise-O-Matic” took over pretty quickly. (Oh crap we’re about to get into the Power-slide debate again… 😛 )
That’s a more complicated question than it appears because there were various different transmissions sold under the Fordomatic and Cruise-O-Matic names. The original 1951-vintage Fordomatic was not a technically a two-speed; the actual two-speed iteration debuted in 1959 and lasted through about ’64.
You beat me to it. A lot of people think that the 1950s Ford-O-Matic was a two speed because its normal operation mode started the car out in second gear then shifted to third. You had to manually move the lever for a first gear start, then shift to Drive. The Studebaker Flight-O-Matic used from 1956 to the end was basically the same design. It is my understanding that this was their way of avoiding a fairly harsh 1-2 shift in the unit.
Between inflating for bragging rights and deflating for the insurance rates, did GM ever tell the truth about the HP? I think possibly for the sixes and the 283. The more I read the articles that appear here the more I doubt even that.
GM wasn’t the only one.
One of my favorites was Ford rating the 428 CobraJet at 335 horsepower (the exact same as a 383 Roadrunner).
Has there been a past CC poll such as:
“Fudging Numbers: What’s the Most Egregious Example of a Manufacturer Under/Over Rating an Engine’s HP/Torque?”.
The CJ gets my nomination. A complete work-over, and rated 5 hp more than the dog 428 it was derived from.
As evidence that Ford severely underrated the CobraJet, one need only look at the horsepower ratings of the competition. Chevy’s hydraulic-lifter 427/454 engines were rated at 390, while Chrysler’s 440 had a 375 hp rating. The 428 CobraJet, in a similiar weight/geared car, could easily run even with both those engines, so it’s pretty evident Ford’s rating was low by at least 40 horsepower (Wikipedia states it was really putting out close to 410).
Although the original Roadrunner gets all the accolades as the ultimate budget musclecar, to me, the best value of the musclecar era goes to the 1969 Fairlane Cobra that came standard with the 428CJ engine. For just a few dollars more than a grungy 389 GTO, 383 Mopar, or 325hp SS396, you’d have a box-stock car that could easily stomp all of those cars flat in the quarter mile.
One of the things responsible for Ford engines’ lousy performance was Ford’s insistance on using poor flowing Autolite carbs (while everyone else was using Carters or Holleys). Even GM’s Rochester carbs flowed better than Autolites. It’s worth nothing that the CobraJet used a 735cfm Holley, and not an Autolite.
Although replacing the crummy Autolite carb was a factor, the items that really woke the 428 up were the high-flow 427 heads and free-er flowing exhaust manifolds, not to mention the 428 Police Interceptor intake, albeit cast-iron instead of the PI’s aluminum. Back in the day these PI manifolds were a hot item for FE guys, better breathing plus 55 pounds of dead weight gone.
Acutally the CJ was rated 5HP less than the cooking version in ’68, 335 vs 340.
The L84 375hp fuelie 327 Corvette engine was no longer available in 1966.
The L72 425hp 427 began production in 1966.
The 425hp 396 was gone in 1966 with all L78s being rated 375hp across the board in any Chevrolet.
I highly doubt there’s any real difference, whatsover, between the 1965 L78 425hp 396 and any L78 375hp engine with the only difference existing in the 1965 sales brochure.
From what I’ve read, those supposed 425hp L78 396 engines are quite rare in 1965 Corvettes (let alone in anything else).
As Paul says, my guess is simply that, with the demise of the 409 in 1964 (and the 427 not ready for production until 1966), Chevrolet had to have a 425hp big-block engine in the 1965 lineup, somewhere, and the L78 396 got the call as a one-hit wonder (with the actual horsepower always being 375hp).
That’s not to say that the L78 was a slouch, by any means. A 375hp L78 SS396 Chevelle was one of the hottest street machines of the time, notorious for being able to beat stock Street Hemis if you could get the Mopar to race from a standing start. The L78 396 would jump to an insurmountable lead off the line from which the Hemi couldn’t overcome because the 426’s monstrous torque didn’t come on until higher in the RPM band (which is typical of a race-only engine).
Chevy at least in that era certainly wouldn’t want to so the top HP rating going down in the new model year. All new car with a less powerful engine than last years has never made good ad copy but certainly more so in an era where “new higher HP engine(s)” was often found in ads. Since the numbers back then weren’t done in a standardized manner and there weren’t many magazines that would take a brand new car and throw it on the dyno they could more or less claim anything they wanted.
August/September, I was newly discharged from the service. Walked into Mathews-Hargreaves Chevy Dealer in Royal Oak, Mi with a buddy. Just wanted a car. Salesman took us outside to show us a car that had been special ordered but buyer backed out.
Wish I had kept the window sticker now. It was a 1965 2 dr Impala. Told us it had been ordered with special motor, 393 cu. in. 425 hp. 4 speed on floor, posi traction, solid lifters etc. I wasn’t that impressed at the time but my buddy was going ape shit. I bought it for $3000.
When I drove it off the lot it took me a bit to get used to the 4speed, although I was told it also had synchronised shifting whatever that meant.
It doesn’t matter to me whether anyone believes or not, but this car was a total freak! Seldom did hole shots as it would only spin rubber off the tires.
I was 21, single and looking for girls. Out nearly every Friday and Saturday night on Woodward Ave looking for races. Hole shots, 10-15 roll, 35-45 roll,$5 a gear, mattered not. This car literally ate 442 olds, 421 Pontiac, 409’s, GTO-tri powers’.
The only car that beat this one was a Corvette up from Ohio, had the same motor and took my Chevy by about 3 to 4 car lengths.
for Jerry Ashley howdy….don’t know how old this posting is but here’s my story.
Sept 1964 ordered new 65 impala with 409…..waited and waited until late Nov 1964 and dealer in Kansas told me factory was on strike.
Almost two mo’s later they went back to work but had discontiued the 409. I was devistated and mad after waiting all this time. Dealer said the 409 had been replaced with a new engine ”396”….that came in two HP versions…325hp and 425hp.
So for another 250.00 i went with the 425hp. In mid Feb 1965 I got delivery of an Impala 2 door, 396/425hp, 4:10 Posi, 4-speed rocketship $3250.00. I was 22yrs old.
With 6” slicks it would turn 13:08’s @ 106mph, rev 7K rpm and I didn’t even know how to drive the car right. No ps or pb but had regular ignition not transisterized like all others of that horsepower that i’d seen.
I had the car 3yrs and totaled it hauling it back from the dragstrip. I am now 76yrs old and the last few yrs have built a clone of that car complete with L-78 engine from GM…..Dave
Great story! Thanks for sharing.
For no particular reason I toss into the power ratings fray the awesome MoPar 340 powerhouse that made a few other supposedly faster and/or more powerful cars stare in disbelief at the rear license plate in front of them.
Beep beep.
Or is it Meep Meep?
I recall that the NHRA “factored’ the 340 to something like 325 gross horsepower for classification purpose.
Sounds about right (Chrysler rated the 340-4v @ 275 gross). It would seem to be simple enough to figure out how accurate the figure was if equal equipped 1971 340 and 383 Roadrunner road test results could be located.
If the 340 was truly putting out 383 level horsepower, a lighter-weight 340 Roadrunner should be at least as fast as (if not faster than) the 383.
I remember a road test comparo in 1968, my guess is Motor Trend, that compared mid-sized (Satellite and Dodge equivalent) outfitted with a 440, a 426 Hemi, and a 340 or 360. The fastest quarter mile time was posted by the 340/360 yet the mag stated that they would choose the Hemi for its superior torque. Hah?
The first time I ran my Rabbit in time trials at the drags, the car next to me was a 340 Duster. I learned what a 13.4 sec time looked like from the perspective of my 17.3 car. Those things were fast.
I would cook the 340s with my 67 Z28!!
The Caprice was invented when GM told its divisional managers they had to drive their respective makes as company cars. So, I’m thinking some Chevy managers ordered a top dog Caprice 427, with automatics more likely.
That’s an urban legend, and about as true as most urban legends.
Reality check: the 1965 Ford LTD was a big hit, and Chevy had to scramble to come up with something comparable. A luxury trim package, and ready in six months for a mid-year intro.
Don’t believe everything that JB says.
As entertaining as JB’s pieces can be, I suspect there’s not a whole lot he says that we should believe. 🙂
You said it, so now I don’t have to.
Who the hell is JB?
Jack Baruth – The Truth About Cars own tame race car driver.
I haven’t gone to TAC since CC was spilt off.
Whew! I was getting nervous there. 🙂
Here’s the specific article: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/02/avoidable-contact-how-fake-luxury-conquered-the-world/
Kevin, you know how when you were in school (if you can remember back then) that there was no such thing as a stupid question, because somebody else was afraid to ask the same thing. Just to let you know that it’s stupendously wonderful that you asked and I think you are very brave.
Paul, once again, you hit the nail on the head. GM was notoriously late in introducing new, innovative models (save the ’63 Grand Prix and ’63 Riviera). Ford’s Galaxie 500 Luxury Trim Decor set the pace of standard size lower price “luxury” cars (save the Ambassador); but Ford’s LTD success most assuredly cannibalized Mercury sales and Caprice in ensuing years closed the gap between a top-dog full size Chevy and Cadillac . . .
The 1963 Buick Riviera and 1963 Pontiac Grand Prix were responses to the four-seat Thunderbird, which had been on the market since 1958. They were great cars with stunning styling, but they weren’t a new idea.
Jack Baruth didn’t come up with that story regarding the first Caprice. It was first repeated by Brock Yates in a Car and Driver article on the Chevrolet Impala that appeared in either 1970 or 1971. Yates also included it in his 1983 book, The Decline and Fall of the American Automobile Industry. Baruth simply repeated another version of it, without crediting the original source, or even checking its accuracy.
GM had a severe case of “not invented here” syndrome in the 1960s (it took the company five years to respond to the four-seat Thunderbird with the Buick Riviera). The “division managers couldn’t drive Cadillacs anymore, so Chevrolet had to come up with the Caprice” story sounds better than “Ford beat us to the punch with a super-luxurious low-price car.”
Of course, the real story is how Ford’s moves with the four-seat Thunderbird and original LTD forced responses from GM that ultimately undermined the old Sloan division structure and helped topple Cadillac from its position as top dog in the American market. If you could buy a Chevrolet that was ultimately as nice as a Buick or a Cadillac…why bother paying more? And if you wanted REAL distinction in a luxury car, you bought a Mercedes, BMW or Lexus, not a Cadillac.
Aha! That is where I heard it! Brock Yates.
However, I can see GM making up that story, rather than say, ‘Here is our LTD’.
Oh yeah, oooooops, but there is some merit to GM divisions wanting to compete with each other, all offering a luxury trim.
That goes back much longer, decades even. The 1955 Chevy Nomad already cost more than a Buick Century hardtop coupe (not a low-level Special): https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-capsule-1955-chevrolet-nomad-stealing-the-thunder-from-the-high-priced-cars/
True statement, Chicagoland. The ’64 Pontiac Bonneville Brougham and ’65 Oldsmobile 98 LS (complete with Fleetwood style ammenities). Boy, those cars shot Alfred Sloan’s car-for-every-purse-and-purpose structure all to hell (although that started to decay as early as the pre-war days). Then came the Caprice . . . .
There’s some misinformation in the comments about the 1965 375-hp 396, which was exclusive to that year’s Chevelle SS396 (RPO Z16 package).
The Z16 package engine was coded RPO L37 and was NOT the same as the 1965 425-hp L78 396. The Chevelle engine had hydraulic lifters; the 425-hp big car/Corvette L78 had solid lifters. There were a few other differences…see attached from 1965 Chevrolet mid-season changes summary document. The 1965 375-hp hydraulic lifter 396 was only available as part of the Z16 Chevelle package. Reportedly, 200 Z16 Chevelle SS Sport Coupes and one Z16 Chevelle SS Convertible were built.
The mid-1966 Chevelle SS RPO L78 375-hp solid lifter 396 was available in Chevelle, Camaro (post-intro 1967) and Nova SS 1967 through 1970.
Terry, thanks for that unexpected bit of enlightening info. I suspect many of us had the mistaken belief the those 375 hp 396s were all the same. I distinctly remember the ’66 Chevelle brochure and the description of the solid-lifter 375 hp engine, although I’d forgotten that came out mid-year. And so I assumed the ’65 Z16 was the same engine.
I’m doing a post tomorrow to clarify this further.
I’m late to the party here, just got back from a work trip with no internet. Gotta love rural BC. Here’s the deal on the L-78 power ratings. In 1965, and only 1965, the rating was 425 bhp @ 6400 RPM. As noted it was available in Corvettes and full size Chevy’s only. The following year, the L-72 427 replaced the L-78 as top dog in the vette and full size cars. Chevy would grudgingly install an L-78 in a Chevelle SS in ’66 if you knew to ask for it and if your dealer could be convinced it was actually available. It was exactly the same engine as the previous year with 2 exceptions.
First, Chevy rated the HP at 5600 RPM instead of 6400 which partially accounted for the 50 hp “loss”. Secondly, the exhaust manifolds required to fit the 396 into a Chevelle were quite a bit more restrictive than the units used in the ‘vette and full sized car, so there was a bit of power lost in reality. This situation was carried on with the Camaro and Nova once those cars came along and eventually got the L-78 option. A set of headers, richer jets and a properly curved distributor really woke this engine up. A properly tuned L-78 was a match for just about anything short of a Hemi or 427 ‘vette, and even then it was no sure thing. The only problem with this engine was the noise from the solid lifters, which was an instant tip-off to the knowledgeable that it wasn’t just “a 325 horse with a cam” that you claimed it to be.
3855962 is the cast number on the block of a 65 396/425 hp. I have one sitting in my garage. cast date E 19 5, May 19, 1965. T0628IE.
Pulled the motor out of my 69 SS Chevelle in 83 and been waiting for someone who wants it more than me.
What is the 66 Caprice 427 425hp worth
I have a 1965 Chevrolet impala caprice 396 with 42,000 actual miles anybody knows the production figures with the 396 in it… looking to sell want to get an estimate
5 were built with the L78.
https://impalas.org/1965caprice/