Post your favorite Mopar Myth.
No, the 396 and 400 Chevy are different blocks all together.
The 396 is the "smallest" of the big block Chevy.
The 400 was a small block 350 bored out to 400. It was known for thin cylinder walls and wasn't good for durability.
The 409's weren't durability engines. The piston skirts were too short and they had a problem with "piston ****" and excessive bore wear. Hard to get them over 100,000 miles. When they ran, they ran good, but not good for the long haul.
See I thought that GM made both, big and small block 400's. The small block 400 was the "junk" model and the 396 big block was also built off the same block as the big block 400....I am not sure why I thought that but. I know there has to be someplace I cross referenced it....
As far as the 409's, these were "you either got a good one, or you HAD a bad one" and to date EVERYONE I've seen, and I'll say quite a few, only 2 or 3 of them, were any good! They also had water jacket issues..... thin block casting, that heat would crack, interiorly of the block where it couldn't be seen or gotten too, between cylinders is one of the known locations. The 348 were a better block, if used as ment to be!
Heard that a couple of times myself.
When in actuality they never made 'Cudas before 1970. The 'Cuda package on the E-body was like the R/T package on the Challenger, et al.
Not that it makes a difference. Even most Barracuda's, A- and E-bodies, are called 'Cudas simply because of the fact we're all too lazy to say the whole word. lol
NOW, I have to say, the Barracuda and the 'cuda were in fact 2 separate cars? I just thought they got a series of serious face lifts and the 'cuda was a mere shortened labeling of the actual "Barracuda"............Again, I just learned something! Did I read that right?
I know that the Valiant was the basis to the car body, but still.....I thought the Barracuda and the 'cuda were like the 1969 Coronet, and the 1970 Coronet, same car, just a serious "face-lift" from one year to the following year.....