Original paint '62 409hp 409

[300deluxeL79]

verne, didn't the 409s have a firewall mounted ballast resistor also?

[442w30]

Are there signs that would distinguish a 409/380 from a 409/409? Or the tell-tale signs the same?

[Verne_Frantz]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300deluxeL79</div><div class="ubbcode-body">verne, didn't the 409s have a firewall mounted ballast resistor also? </div></div>

Yes they did, and I didn't see any evidence of one on this car, but a lot of things were removed from the firewall, so it's hard to tell. The only sign is that there are no ruminants of the correct engine harness that would use the ballast resistor. (a green and tan wire)

Verne

[Verne_Frantz]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 442w30</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are there signs that would distinguish a 409/380 from a 409/409? Or the tell-tale signs the same? </div></div>

The ONLY things that would be different between a 380hp and a 409hp would be the throttle rod from the arm, the hot air choke tube from the carb to the manifold and the fuel line from the pump to the carb. I actually am concerned about even posting this info.

Obviously, the intake, carb(s), linkage, return springs, air cleaner and valve cover decals are also different but those are no a brainer.

Verne
(this applies to '62 only)

[442w30]

I only ask because the claim was being made it was a 409/409, so I was curious why the claim wasn't that it simply was a 409 car in general. Thanks for your answer!

[Verne_Frantz]

Regarding the throttle rod, I forgot to mention that a straight one is also used with the 380hp (1x4) version. I can't tell from the photo what the length is, but it could be a good clue that the car was a 380hp 409.

Verne [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/biggthumpup.gif[/img]