1965s with factory installed M22

[Tom D.]

Re: 1965s with factory installed M22

Please see your copy of "Chevrolet By The Numbers 1965-1969" for an article in the back off the book, around page 327. An example Corvette coupe with a Canadian racing history is presented by Colvin. The car still has it's original transmission. I think the VIN ended with 18966. There is a member in CT who keeps of list of such cars. I seen now that Wayne has made this same remark. /tom

Mr. Colvin and others have said there are other features to note. They are reluctant to reveal the other features, for fear of more "fakes".

The second owner, a hill climber and SCCA racer in 1967, swears 116538 had what he calls "a stone-crusher". The third owner makes the same statement, and is willing to write it down. The car was ordered for racing by Tom Morgan of Allentown, PA. I am working to locate more proof. /Tom D.

[Bill W.]

Re: 1965s with factory installed M22

Sorry in my earlier post I listed 396 # 20929 as being a possible M22 car I gave the wrong serial number it is 20977 not 20929 .

[Tom D.]

Re: 1965s with factory installed M22

Bill: Did that car also have the two tape bands on a cross member? See images from 16538, the blue racer.

[Bill W.]

Re: 1965s with factory installed M22

Tom yes my St Louis car (17346)had the Black tape , I posted a photo of it when I removed the body . Nobody had seen tape before and thought it was added later . It had to be added before the body was installed due to foot well clearance . I dont know about 20977 I did not see it before the frame was blasted . Seems odd that two 396 cars built 800 cars apart had the same tape .Has anyone else has seen this and what was it for ? DSCN1375.jpgDSCN1376.jpgDSCN1377.jpg

[Gene M.]

Re: 1965s with factory installed M22

Almost looks like the tape was holding the brake line for installation. What other reason would there be?

[Bill W.]

Re: 1965s with factory installed M22

Gene . Thats what I thought , It had to be for the brake line or to hold the e brake cable from hanging .??? But why is there not more people who have actually seen this . I now know of three cars all 396s a 16000, a 17000 and now a 23000 .

[Mike E.]

Re: 1965s with factory installed M22

Did 396's have shot peened half shafts? Perhaps it was to remind folks on the assembly line to install the special half shafts?

I just checked my some pictures of my small block frame (7841) and it had no remnants of tape.



Mike

[Bill W.]

Re: 1965s with factory installed M22

Yes Mike they did have shot peened half shafts along with heavy duty axle flanges . My car also had an X under the job number in the rt front foot well and the rear bulk head . According to Phil Hawkins a retired plant worker these Xs were put on to remind the assembly line workers to check the build sheet because something was different about this car . In my case it could have been the 396 , the side exhaust or no radio ? If there was an X or some other sign on the frame I did not find any sign of it . Bill sorry wrong picture

[Tom D.]

Re: 1965s with factory installed M22

The 16000 version mentioned, under restoration this year, also had factory side pipes, aluminum wheels, F40 (or was it F41) HD suspension, 4.11 gears and no radio. All signs in the engine compartment point to "big block". We have learned a lot about the first four owners and have learned some about the dealership in Allentown, PA. The first engine expired in Reading, PA. The roll bar was added in the first year, and A/Production hillclimb results are well documented. We are looking for the trans. (Dan Adie, a long long time member of NCRS, has been a great asset.)

[Larry E.]

Re: 1965s with factory installed M22

I watched the nice Seminar that Al put on about the Chevy B/B and M22's. I believe he indicated that the 1st competition for this engine
was at a sports car race installed in a Corvette. (Kinda hard to hear him speaking) Was not the 1st competition ever in anything with this
engine in NASCAR? Was this the "Mystery Engine" we all hear about used by Junior Johnson?? Correct me if I am wrong. Larry

[Patrick B.]

Re: 1965s with factory installed M22

The 1963 Daytona Junior Johnson engine was a Mark II big block that had heads very similar to the 1965 396 Mark IV big block, but I believe the short block was mostly a 409 short block with the angle between the heads surfaces machined to be 90 degrees.

That said, the Mark IV big block used the same bore spacing as the 409 and by machining the main bearing journals of a 454 crank down to the smaller 409 main journal size you can actually use it in a 409 to produce huge increase in stroke.

Since the Mark II Nascar engine looks pretty much the same a regular 427 from the outside , I have thought of it also as a prototype 396/427/454. However, since it also had a lot of 409 parts, I can understand the distinction. I have no idea what a Mark III big block would have been. Anybody have the answer to that?

[Patrick N.]

Re: 1965s with factory installed M22

The 16000 version mentioned, under restoration this year, also had factory side pipes, aluminum wheels, F40 (or was it F41) HD suspension, 4.11 gears and no radio. All signs in the engine compartment point to "big block". We have learned a lot about the first four owners and have learned some about the dealership in Allentown, PA. The first engine expired in Reading, PA. The roll bar was added in the first year, and A/Production hillclimb results are well documented. We are looking for the trans. (Dan Adie, a long long time member of NCRS, has been a great asset.)

I assume the lower front air scoops are brake cooling intakes? What an amazingly bad ass looking car! it looks like its ready to pounce.

[Larry E.]

Re: 1965s with factory installed M22

The 1963 Daytona Junior Johnson engine was a Mark II big block that had heads very similar to the 1965 396 Mark IV big block, but I believe the short block was mostly a 409 short block with the angle between the heads surfaces machined to be 90 degrees.

That said, the Mark IV big block used the same bore spacing as the 409 and by machining the main bearing journals of a 454 crank down to the smaller 409 main journal size you can actually use it in a 409 to produce huge increase in stroke.

Since the Mark II Nascar engine looks pretty much the same a regular 427 from the outside , I have thought of it also as a prototype 396/427/454. However, since it also had a lot of 409 parts, I can understand the distinction. I have no idea what a Mark III big block would have been. Anybody have the answer to that?

Patrick: Thanks for this interesting story. I guess we can call this a "bridge" engine in the fact it was a "path" from the Mark II to the Mark IV.
We also have a "path" now from the SBC to the Chevy LS engine. It's called the RO7 engine that NASCAR uses. It has traits of both engines in
it as NASCAR will not let the Chevy teams develop the LS engine alone. Their reason: That engine would produce too much H/P and make the series "unbalanced". Larry

[Gene M.]

Re: 1965s with factory installed M22

Patrick: Thanks for this interesting story. I guess we can call this a "bridge" engine in the fact it was a "path" from the Mark II to the Mark IV.
We also have a "path" now from the SBC to the Chevy LS engine. It's called the RO7 engine that NASCAR uses. It has traits of both engines in
it as NASCAR will not let the Chevy teams develop the LS engine alone. Their reason: That engine would produce too much H/P and make the series "unbalanced". Larry

How is that unbalanced if Chevy WINS? Keep in mind Ford has a lot going on in the current Mustangs. Lastly who even gives a c#%p about the third manufacturer?

[Larry E.]

Re: 1965s with factory installed M22

How is that unbalanced if Chevy WINS? Keep in mind Ford has a lot going on in the current Mustangs. Lastly who even gives a c#%p about the third manufacturer?

Gene: Right now Chevy is winning about 55-60% of the races. NASCAR does not want that to increase and does not want to start making "individual engine rules". With a "all out LS Developed Nascar engine" and same rules for all manufacturers the winning % would increase by
a ton. Ford may have a lot going with the current Mustangs but have absolutely nothing going with "push rod" engine technology which has to
run in NASCAR. Totally agree with your last comment on the Third Manufacturer! Larry