Battery is not that good, but it's not a stock battery.
The legendary 409.
425 horsepower.
450 lbs. of torque.
Linked to the 4-speed Muncie Rock Crusher tranny.
Need I continue?
Not the greatest review, I don't get the battery issue? I have a 1964 Impala SS Convertible review on this site. I also owned a 1963 SS hardtop. Would be nice to know more especially if you have a 409. My issues with mine were floor pans, rusty quarters. They are very easy to work on. The 1963 is nicer looking, but could not pass on a SS Convertible. Its nice seeing them properly restored without putting on hydraulics/ghetto blaster! Something about Impalas going this route which I fail to understand.
I remember these from the time before they became very expensive collector's items and were considered as transportation that showed up occasionally at the drag strips. Sorry, but I don't remember the 409 all that fondly. At its best, it was a rather thirsty engine. The 283 and 327 V8's, however, were very good basic transportation engines that gave decent performance and economy (for the day.)
A little history of the 409: It was originally a truck motor which was pressed into service as a passenger car engine. It was a very overweight engine itself and didn't really have a very efficient design from the get-go. Because the combustion chamber was in the block, the effective compression ratio was only about 10:1, instead of the claimed 11 or 11.25:1. Running a very high compression with such an engine design was just not feasible from an engineering standpoint.
Reliability of the 409 was spotty at best. I know of several instances where the engine came unravelled during revving. Dropped valves in the solid-lifter V8's were also reported to be common by Chevy mechanics. And, like I say, fuel economy was generally between 8 and 15 mpg on a good day.
As to the vaunted "425 horsepower" claim, well, it just wasn't there in the average street engine. With the dual 4 barrel 409, the 1963 Impala gave a quarter mile run of 98 mph at about 14.8 seconds--quite impressive for the day. But this works out to only about 245 horsepower at the rear wheels, assuming a weight of 4000 lbs, with flywheel power being, at most, only about 320 horsepower. The single 4 barrel high performance engine ended up developing between 275 to 290 horsepower in stock form, and the mild hydraulic "340 horsepower" only came in at about 260 real horsepower.
But it's fun to hark back on these cars, and engines, from bygone days. However, the reality of them was much different. They became obsolete for a reason, my friends...