Skip Navigation Links.
 |  352 -- Steve, 03/27/2002
I have a 1960 Thunderbird with a 352 in it . I am putting in a Edlebrock 390 Performer, a 600 Holley and shorty headers. is there anything else I can do to get the Bird going (the car weighs about 3800 lbs and is an automatic) I have been told that performance cams are not available for this engine. ?
Thanks for your info |
|  | RE: 352 Cams -- SDP, 03/27/2002
You should check with Isky or Scneider cams on a camshaft for your motor. Last I heard these companies still had some of the older billets lying around. |
| |  | It's a simple matter to update your block. -- Dave Shoe, 03/27/2002
Yoiu can update your original block to fit the later-style cam retainer. The holes are already there. They just need to be tapped and a common FE cam plate installed to the front of the block. A new timing chain and you're ready for action.
It's not even a precision operation to install the plate, so you can do it all at home. Tapping cast iron is a piece of cake, so you should have no problems with finding a modern-profile cam for your car.
Also, the Performer 390 isn't exactly a performance intake. A Performer RPM, 428CJ iron, or 427MR/428PI intake might be more of what you are looking for if you want to squirt away from traffic lights a little faster in that 352.
JMO,
Shoe. |
|  | RE: early 352 cams -- Derek, 03/28/2002
As has been suggested, you have a couple of options.
- Melling and TRW had cam profiles for the early FE engines, and there may still be some stock in warehouses across the country.
- There have been both NOS and used cams recently on ebay for these engine, for example:
(http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/ebayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1815530564&r=0&t=0)
- Your original cam could be reground by any of several cam vendors.
- Changeover to the 63 and later thrust plate style, as described here.
Years ago, I had a '58 Bird, and if memory serves me right, it tipped the scales at nearly 4,080 lbs. And if I remember correctly, auto trans T-Birds of this vintage were factory outfitted with 3.10 gears. Changing up to a 3.50-3.70 set would improve performance, yet still be very streetable. I'd also consider bumping the torque converter up to one with about 2,400-2,800 RPM stall speed (You may have to check with several vendors for a unit to fit your Cruise-O-Matic, as it predates the C-6).
If your motor is in decent shape and still pretty much original, it's probably got decent compression. Your manifold, headers and carburetion will go a long way towards improved breathability, but you do need more cam to fill those cylinders. I'd suggest a dual-pattern design, and keep it down to something like about 210/224 @ .050", with lift in the .490"-.520" range. That should be compatible with your other components (5,000-6,000 RPM range), and the engine's effective limits. Pay attention to the manufacturer's specs, but you might want to advance the cam 4-6 degrees, for more low/mid range power with the auto.
Check your distributor cam to see if it's got the 10/15 or 13/18 degree slots. If you can, set it for 10, and dial in 13-18 degrees initial. This will substantially improve off-idle and low speed performance, but listen carefully for knock. Likewise, make sure the carb isn't jetted too lean.
Those 2nd generation Bird were nice cruisin' cars, so keep it on the road and enjoy it! |
| | | RE: 352 -- Steve, 03/28/2002
Thanks for all the great information! |
| end stands or steel rocker shafts -- Charlie, 03/27/2002
Which is a better upgrade to a set of ford adjustible rockers,
end stands or steel shafts
Thanks for the input |
| | I believe end support stands help most. -- Dave Shoe, 03/27/2002
Iron or steel rockershaft pedestals are more rigid than stock pedestals will certainly reduce flex and stress on the rockershaft, but aluminum end support stands do seem to get to the core of the flex issue and transfer the stress away from the shaft.
The issue not only relates to prevention of broken shafts, end supports also help keep the valve action more precise when the cam ramp rates increase and spring pressures rise beyond stock.
End supports help with adjustable as well as non-adjustable rockers. Any cam warmer than a CJ can benefit from replacement of the stock aluminum pedestals on the ends of the rockershafts. The stocl aluminum pedestals in the center positions are not stressed as highly as the ones in the end position, so replacement of the center ones become critical when more radical cams are installed.
JMO,
Shoe. |
| | | well....... -- John, 03/27/2002
I can't give you a personal experience answer because i've never built a serious enough fe to have to make an upgrade like that. However, i will say that getting steel end stands will NOT transfer the stress away from the shafts. If anything, it will put more stress on the shaft because now the end stand won't flex with the shaft, therefore putting all the torque on the shaft. I also dont think that the end shaft is the sole cause for less precise valve operation. I believe it is a combination of the shaft and stands. So, getting steel stands will certainly help with more contolled valve operation, but the best way to give integrity to your valvetrain is to replace both the end stands and the shafts. |
| | | | Iron/steel shafts reduce the moment arm. -- Dave Shoe, 03/27/2002
The higher modulus of the iron/steel over the stock cast aluminum design will move shaft stresses away from the center of the pedestal and closer to the rocker centerline, and will thus reduce the moment forces on the shaft.
Since the fracture of FE rockershafts originates at the weakest spot, the bolt hole, moving the stresses away from the pedestal center and toward the rocker additionally reduces the opportunity for rockershaft failure.
To be sure, if 427 racing engines of the 1960s used cast aluminum rockershafts instead of iron, there would have been a whole lot of reliability problems. Prior to the iron racing pedestals, you can be sure that Ford did run into failures.
Modern billet aluminum pedestals have the same modulus shortcomings of the cast alum items, but their massive design and additional support features tend to make up for these shortcomings while providing support for modern springs and cam ramps.
Again JMO,
Shoe. |
| | | | | RE: Iron/steel shafts reduce the moment arm. -- John, 03/27/2002
Well, actually Aluminum End Support Stands, like the type FPP sells, do EXACTLY the same thing as merely upgrading the shaft to a stronger (thicker wall) unit. This is because all the end stands do is stiffen the shaft along the area the rocker rides on. But there is still considerable moment-arm force as only the existing end stand bolt is utilized. Now, some end support stands, like the ones Dove,...or is it Total Performance (Can't remember)sell, do a lot more because they utilize the last head bolt location for additional clamping to the head. This essentially puts the rocker shaft in a double shear position which makes it incredibly stronger than merely stiffening the shaft through the FPP type of end stands or using a stronger shaft like the type Harland Sharpe sells. Incidentally, concerning stronger rocker shafts, it should be remembered that in this type of application, a thick walled tube is almost as strong as a solid tube. The difference is almost negligable. It is a stronger steel that helps the most...BUT...harder also may mean more brittle depending on the process and material, and that's not good. I use FPP stands with the Harland Sharpe shafts, BUT if I had to do it again, I would buy a set of the end support stands that use both a head bolt and a rocker shaft stand bolt and keep the OEM Ford shaft. |
| 352 -- jesse, 03/27/2002
can you turn a 352 into a 390 ? |
| | Yes, you can! -- Kevin, 03/27/2002
The difference between these engines was in both bore and stroke:
- The 352 has a 4.00" bore, and a 3.50" stroke.
- The 390 has a 4.05" bore, and a 3.78" stroke.
I don't believe there's a 352 block out there that WON'T safely overbore the .050" to 390 bore size (Ford did it to make the 360 light truck engine - 4.05" x 3.50"). Many will go out considerably larger in bore too, some all the way to the 406 engine's 4.130" standard size.
After boring, all that remains is to a) install the longer stroke 390 crank, which has identical main and rod bearing journal diameters, and b) replace the slightly longer (but lighter duty) 352 connecting rods with those from a 390 or larger FE. It's a 'drop in'!
If your ambitions are for even more displacement, you can again follow the factory's lead. Install a 410 (Mercury) or 428 Ford crankshaft, with its 3.984" stroke. This gets you 410 cubes at standard 390 bore size, and there are aftermarket replacement pistons readily available.
However, since the 410 and 428 were 'externally' balanced, you'd want the appropriate flexplate or flywheel that goes with those cranks, to keep everything happy. |
| 65 Galaxie P code -- Art, 03/26/2002
I'm trying to find out how many 65 Galaxie 500 " P " code convertibles they made. This is a 500 with no power options with a four speed trans.and bucket seats. Any help would be great. Thanks, Art |
| | Re: 500 xl? -- Mike McQuesten, 03/26/2002
You didn't mention if your 330 horse 390 "P" code was a 500 XL but you mention that it has bucket seats and that it was a 500? So it's an XL or someone has replaced the sofa with a couple a buckets?
I don't have a specific answer but I would venture the obvious.....very very few.
The "P" code 390 would have been a nice step up over the standard 390GT in '66......especially with the available tri power but oh no, the "335" horse hydraulic GT390 was all we got.
Does Kevin Marti have numbers/facts on '65s? |
| | | RE: Re: 500 xl? -- Art, 03/26/2002
Yes it is an XL I screwed up on that one.Sorry. And I checked Marti's site and there wasn't any listings for 65 unless I didn't use his site properly. |
| | | | RE: Re: 500 xl? -- Travis Miller, 03/27/2002
In 1965, there were 9,849 Galaxie 500XL convertibles built. On average, there were 3.5% of the full size Fords built each year using the P-code 330/390 Police Interceptor engine. Mathematically that would make about 345 500XL convertibles built in 1965 with the 330/390 engine. This is just an estimate. |
| | | | | RE: Re: 500 xl? -- dale, 03/27/2002
how about 4 speed 65 ltd's? |
| | | | | | RE: Re: 500 xl? -- Travis Miller, 03/27/2002
In 1965 there were 37,691 2dr Galaxie 500 LTD's built. Using averages, 3% of the total full sized Fords built had 4-speed transmissions. That would make 1130 2dr LTD's with 4-speeds. This is an estimate. |
| | | | | | | RE: Re: 500 xl? -- dale, 03/27/2002
have you ever heard or seen a 65 2dr 4spd ltd? |
| | | | | | | | RE:yes I have -- Mike McQuesten, 03/27/2002
I rode in it when it was brand new. Roy Ballinger, a friend of many years ago in my hometown, Sunnyside, WA, ordered it. It was a '65 triple black: vinyl top, body and the plush LTD interior/bench seat. It was a 390-4V/300 horse with 4 speed. Beautiful, quiet, reasonably powered. Only LTD '65 I've ever seen. Roy was a chevy man at heart, drove some of his friends crazy that he'd buy such a thing....not this friend.
Now here's a rare one I didn't see but a guy in Tacoma, Gene Tarangio, phoned mye a couple of years ago to ask if I was interested in buying it:
A '66 LTD. Red body, black vinyl top and black interior. Engine code: R! Engine & trans were long gone. It had been sitting in his backyard for many years and he wanted a mere $10K. I thanked him for the opportunity and explained that I'd have to pass on that very rare LTD. |
| | | | | RE: Re: 500 xl? -- Art, 03/27/2002
Thanks Travis ! Where did you find the information? |
| | | | | | Production Figures -- Travis Miller, 03/28/2002
The Production Figure Book For U.S. Cars
by Jerry Hensley
copyright 1977
published by Motorbooks International
Osceola, WI 54020
Engine and transmission estimates came from various sources in conversations over the years. |
| | | | | | | RE: Production Figures -- Travis Miller, 03/28/2002
Oops, authors name is spelled wrong. It should be Jerry Heasley. |
| | | | | Where did you get that '3.5%' estimate? [n/m] -- Mr F, 03/28/2002
n/m |
| | | No - MAW have 1967-73 records, only. [n/m] -- Mr F, 03/28/2002
n/m |
| | | | Travis, do you have anything on total 427 numbers? -- P, 03/28/2002
I've always wondered how many 27's were built. Perhaps you've got some kind of a thread or clue there?
P |
| | | | | Where to find info on Galaxies (63-64) -- Travis Miller, 03/28/2002
Greg Donahue Collector Car Restorations has researched the 1963 and 1964 Galaxie production figures. He has a small booklet printed for each year. Anyone interested in finding out how many 390's, 406's, 427's, etc were produced needs to buy these books for their library. The booklets can be purchased from Greg Donahue by calling 352-344-4329 during regular business hours.
Typical info in the booklets show 3.5% of the engines put in 1964 Galaxies were P-code 330/390 Police Interceptors. Averages should apply to 1965 as the engine was still available. |
| | | | |  | Ok, then - does he say where he got the figure(s)?[n/m] -- Mr F, 03/29/2002
n/m |
| | | | | | You do see where I'm going with this, right? :-) [n/m] -- Mr F, 03/29/2002
n/m |
| | | | | | | RE: You do see where I'm going with this, right? :-) [n/m] -- Travis Miller, 03/29/2002
I do not see where you are going with this.
I just talked with Greg Donahue and he said all the data is available for anyone who wants to take the time to research it. He can be reached at 352-344-4329 during regular business hours (EDT). You can ask him if he wants to reveal his sources where he was able to come up with data for the 1963 and 1964 Galaxie engine production numbers.
His booklets for 1963 and 1964 sell for $7.95 each. He is also the co-author along with Paul Zazarine of How to Restore Your Musclecar. This book is one of the best ever published covering Ford, Mopar, GM, and AMC restorations. It has 352 pages and over 1300 photographs. It sells for $29.95 and should be in every 60's car buffs library.
Greg also answers tech questions about car restoration in several musclecar magazines. |
| | | | | | | | RE: You do see where I'm going with this, right? :-) [n/m] -- Mr F, 03/31/2002
|
I do not see where you are going with
this.
I'll
explain. But you've already answered my question, Travis.
All I wanted was
the bottom-line source of your estimate. Now you've explained that it comes from a source that
you consider trustworthy but who offers nothing substantial (Ford documents,
citations from another's published work, etc.) in support of his claim. That's all
I want to know. And I think its all anyone else would need to know, as
well.
I'm
perfectly happy taking sources at their word, for what that's worth. But I
think most of us are hoping they'll have something more substantial
to back them up. Otherwise, their claims will be suspect if
contradicted by a seemingly more credible source. After all, if the true
figure was published by Ford then one either
has
seen it or not....its as simple as that.
Anyway,
thanks for clearing it up. I appreciate your directness.
Mr
F
| |
| Thanks Mr. F & T-bird Lou.... -- Mike McQuesten, 03/26/2002
Thanks for that link back to late Sept., '00. That's the exact air cleaner I need and hope to find. That was a great thread on "Ford's First Muscle Car".
Hawkrod, you're right that there's a strong similarity between the late fifties/early sixites six-banger air cleaner lids but it's just first appearances. A little closer inspection of those six lids and you'll see they're totally different. I have a stack of them.
And Lou....way back there on, 9/30/60, you posted saying that '60 Starliner pictured , and the engine picture was of a '60 as evidenced by the unique inner fender panels, had the incorrect expansion tank. You said it should have the smooth one of the '58 - '59. You also said the '60 HP 352 did not have the pictured air cleaner but a standard style air cleaner like your '60 T-bird. Lou, we've communicated before in a civil manner and I don't want to offend you so I'm trying to be tactful here and maybe I should just let it go but I can't. Sorry Lou, the '60 pictured back there in that thread of late, 9-00, was indeed totally correct. That's the exact air cleaner that solid liftered, aluminum intaked, Holley 540 cfm 4-barreled, header style exhaust manifolds, dual point distributor, 3/8" fuel lined and special heavy-duty chassis/drivelined that was available on special order "PAO" full size Fords got. The HP package was available to all full size Fords except station wagons. I have four farily virgin/stock '60 Fords and they all have that style of expansion tank. That doesn't mean that Ford didn't use the '58 - '59 style on the Thunderbird. I also have a '58 Ford w/352 Interceptor and it has the '60 and later expansion tank installed. Probably installed in the sixites when the original sprang a leak which is rather common of these tanks.
I think you have a very rare '60 Thunderbird because it has the stick and overdrive. But I think your 352 is the -Y- code hydraulic liftered, cast ironed intake, single point distributor with vacuum advance that was rated at 300 horsepower.
Again, I don't want to be argumentative and I'm always open to learning. I've said it before and I'll say it again right now, I've learned a lot from this forum. I've always appreciated everyone's input. I was a little put off at first when some guy named Stanley would post......I don't want to go there. And what happened to Mel Clark? Haven't heard a thing from him in a long time. |
| | Mike -- Lou, 03/26/2002
Mike, no offense taken, and I must cede that you are right about the aircleaner. The HiPo does have it's own aircleaner. I have found out that my t-Bird had the aircleaner changed.
As for the expention tank, the 60 Birds were smooth, but not all Ford cars in 1960 got the 58/59 tanks it was dependent on what plant they were built at.
As for the 360 HP in my car, yes it does have the correct 360/352, as I bought the car form the original owner ( a neighbor of mine) in 1972 and have the original invoice and order form.
A note in passing, I have been approched to sell another 60 HiPo bird very poor body but really good drive line, anyone interested in the $2,500 range, it sould be up for sale late April or early May?
I can't not buy this car as I'm the appraiser on the estate. |
| | | RE: thanks Lou. -- Mike McQuesten, 03/26/2002
Thanks to you and a lot of nice folks here I learn new FE & Ford stuff all the time. A short time ago I would have confidently selected -True- on a T & F test to this question: There was never a '58 & later T-bird produced stock with a stick shift transmission. I'd missed that one along with a lot of other things I thought were true and or false.
I'd like to have a '60 'bird/ 360 horse to go with my Sunliner but I need to focus on getting this totally done so I can drive it to Knott's, Bonneville, The Muscle Car nats to hoot for Royce or better yet to show his GTE the tail of the big yellow 'liner. With a legal 352. Deams like this keep me crawling around on the cement floor and even the dirt to get that one more piece I need.
I still have that '58 glovebox "Interceptor" door safely stashed for you. It's yours free just for information that leads me to a genuine '60 HP air cleaner.
Thanks again Lou for being understanding. You have one rare 'bird and that other would be a steal @ $2,500. |
| | Sure - I assumed you hadn't seen that thread.[n/m] -- Mr F, 03/28/2002
n/m |
| | 60 NASCAR HI-Po T-Bird -- CincyEd, 03/29/2002
I also have a 60 352/360 Bird with 3 Sp manual, heavy duty suspension AND manual steering / brakes. It was built to 1960 NASCAR Grand Nat'l specs but never raced because the Ford teams went with the Starliner body in mid 60. The car was acquired from the Wilkes County NC Transportation Museum by Don Miller, President of Penske Racing South and partners with Rusty Wallace. Don supervised restoration and believes that when the teams went with the Starliner that this car was acquired by a NASCAR official with one foot in the moonshine trade and used as a low altitude, high speed delivery vehicle for Wilkesboro White Lightnin' through the hills of Norht Carolina. The 352 Hi-Po is one of the great engines of all time having won 15 NASCAR races in 1960. Great to read posts from folks who both know about and appreciate this engine. ED |
| | | I think most real car nuts are history buffs, too. :-) [n/m] -- Mr F, 04/01/2002
n/m |
| 428 crank difference -- 410cougar, 03/25/2002
ive got a 428crank with a ua marking whats the difference as to a ub marking and so on. |
| | RE: 428 crank difference -- mustangoldtimer, 03/25/2002
Iua early-69 scj to 12-26-68 iub 69-70 police,mid 69cj from 11-13-68 to 12-26-68 |
| | | RE: 428 crank difference -- 410cougar, 03/26/2002
just curious. i purchased this crank from a guy in washinton. it was originally from a shelby kr500. i did a lot of research behind his back just to make sure i wasnt ending up woth a paper weight. come to find out. his engine guy has rebuilt his motor with a forged crank. so its kinda nice to know ive got a little bit a shelby in there. i got it for 400 all ready turned and polished. |
| | | | RE: 428 crank difference -- salid, 03/26/2002
careful there cougarboy. You are right to be cautious. I believe mustangoldtimer is right, IUA is a SCJ crank. I don't think they were available until 1969. A GT 500KR is 68 model, SCJ cranks were not available. If the seller represented it as the original crank, I suspect he is wrong. To make that crank work with "normal" CJ rods and pistons, the whole rotating assembly will have to be rebalanced, since the SCJ crank used Lemans rods and a different balance scheme. |
| | | | | A question of balance -- Kevin, 03/27/2002
While the crank could certainly have come from a Shelby, it's highly unlikely it was a '68 KR. And aside from the usual caution that any engine not 100% factory original (and most of those too!) should be balanced anyway, Salid points out another valid concern.
Ford used not only the heavier Le Mans 'clone' C9ZZ rod, but also different pistons (in both 692 and 712 gram weights) and much thicker, heavier wrist pins in the SCJ motors.
They also used different flexplates or flywheels than did the regular CJs, and a special counter-weighted crank spacer behind the vibration dampner.
There's nothing a good machinist can't 'neutralize', but these parts are definitely 'match', not 'mix'!
|
| | | | | | Actually, CJ and SCJ pistons are identical. -- Dave Shoe, 03/27/2002
The CJ and SCJ drew their pistons from the same pile on the assembly line. They are the same casting and also the same finished part.
The only difference came when it was time to fit the piston to the bore. The SCJ piston was selected to fit a bit more loosely.
I'd like to learn whether the SCJ piston was one grade (.0004") or two grades (.0008") looser than a CJ, but that'll have to wait for another time.
Note that the 427 was listed as the top engine at the start of the 1969 model year. The CJ was second fiddle, and the SCJ idea had not yet been hatched.
The emissions-laden 427 was too expensive and too smothered to put into live production, so some inspired genius decided to make an affordable king motor by converting the CJ into a high-revving monster using a stock crank, LeMans rods, and reinforced cast pistons. Thus was born the SCJ, allowing the 427 to exit the production-engine category with some measure of dignity remaining.
Note that prior to the incarnation of the SCJ, the CJ had pistons designed like other 428 pistons - though it had a dish taylored in volume for the CJ head only. When the SCJ "Super 428" piston was incorporated in Nov 1968, the CJ instantly inherited it, too (obsoleting the original CJ piston). This "Super 428" piston had extra aluminum at the pin bosses for greater revving potential. As soon as these pistons became available, Ford started running tests on them to determine whether they could be improved further. They determined the pistons could benefit even more from further reinforcements and the new "Super 428" tooling was revised. The final CJ/SCJ piston became available in Dec 1968.
I'm pretty much making all of this up as I go along, but then I'm pretty much right on the money, too.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | RE: Actually, CJ and SCJ pistons are identical. -- Derek, 03/28/2002
Well Dave, sounds like you know this story pretty well!
I had heard many years ago that there WERE minor differences in the pistons - slightly thicker skirts, heavier expansion control struts, thicker decks, and of course, those v-e-r-y heavy wrist pins. But perhaps this just refers to the differences between the early (680 gram) and the later (712 gram) pistons?
Lastly, I had also heard that the early (680 gram) pistons, as would have been used in the "Great White Fleet" at Pomona, did not have the .0625" wrist pin offset, to reduce wall loading and friction? Did you ever deal with any of these, to know?
|
| Xcode 352 -- Ira, 03/25/2002
This motor is in a 1964 Galixie 500XL 4door.any information on this engine would be appreciated.Is there any thing different about this motor or just a 352 with 4bbl. |
| | RE: Xcode 352 -- Mike McQuesten, 03/25/2002
A '64 XL 4-door hardtop is a pretty cool car. They weren't very common. Your 352-4V is a decent runner that ran fine on low octane regular fuel. They didn't get very good mileage but only the V-Dub bug-nuts cared about that gas mileage stuff back then. Okay, there were Corvair nuts too. And 144 c.i. Falcon fools.
We thought that premium ethyl would never quit flowing. And then it was 1974.........
But you can build that 352 into a strong runner for your '64 XL. A modern cam & kit, An Edelbrock Performer 390, a 600 CFM carb, an electronic ignition,a set of headers and there you go. Maybe keep your eyes open for a 390 to build. But you can perk that 352 right up.
Hey Idaho Steve, tell him how to make a 352 pull a '64 through the quarter in low 14's. |
| FE engine Block -- Kalin, 03/24/2002
Wondering if someone could tell me where to find a casting number decoder or break one down for me. I have a 390 Block with the # C8 MEA. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! |
| | | Some clues that I have found need remedy -- Kalin, 03/25/2002
I have discovered what appears to be a casting date number maybe? 9D154. Also the block has the holes drilled in the side of the block just like the holes on the 427 side-oiler for cross-bolting the main bearing caps. It also has the screw-in plugs for the hydraulic camshafts. Is this any more help? |
| | | | It's a very common 390 block. -- Royce Peterson, 03/25/2002
I think the holes in the side are tooling holes near the pan rail and do not line up with the main saddles. The hydraulic cam plugs are there for any hydraulic block of any displacement.
C8ME and C8ME-A are very common castings for any displacement FE except 427. Some may have different 427 features by accident but this does not make them more interesting, valuable or desirable.
Royce Peterson |
| | | | I'm with Royce - its a 390, orig. assembled 15 April, 1969. [n/m] -- Mr F, 03/25/2002
n/m |
| | | | | RE: I'm with Royce - its a 390, orig. assembled 15 April, 1969. [n/m] -- Kalin, 03/25/2002
Thank You very much all. Kalin |
| does the plain 428 REALLY have more -- mikeb, 03/24/2002
torque than the CJ or was there some fudging going on? i've heard the torque is what accelerates a vehicle, and that would appear to be a step backwards. If it is true, why would torque have to be sacrificed to get the CJ's increase in horsepower?
thanks |
| 360/390 Confusion -- Joe, 03/24/2002
I recently acquired (for free) what I thought to be a 360, judging from the almost illegible sticker on the valve cover. Upon taking off the heads, intake and oil pan, it was obvious it had been hot and there was some carbon buildup. What I found next is perplexing. Cyl. 1,5 and 6 had 390 pistons and 2,3,4,7,and 8 had 360's. Con rods all are part # C7TEA ( I believe that's the correct #). Crank is a 2T (360 c.i.). Am I correct in believing the 390 pistons are shorter? Certainly this is not common, or was it just rebuilt by an idiot? Could this have damaged anything? I needed this engine to use its con rods for a different rebuild so I guess I did accomplish that, they are in good shape. If you have any idea what happend here I would be thankful for any answers/advice you may have. |
| | 390 car pistons same as some 360 truck pistons. -- Dave Shoe, 03/24/2002
The 369 engine is a low compression engine. There are some 390 car pistons which were used in the 360 to achieve this low compression.
The compression was redesigned lower through the nine year life of the 360, so not every year would work with a specific 390 car piston, but there were years where the 390-4V piston was used (maybe 390-2V car in some years, I forget), and if Ford wore the die-cast tool out they'd make another tool with 360 markings on it.
Since 390 car and 360 truck tools were casting pistons side-by-side at times, you'll find the end result is a mix of 360 and 390 pistons in the same engine. The same holds true for the 390 truck engine and the 410 car piston, and true with connecting rods, too. Mixed casting and forging numbers inside the engine, but all based on identical tools.
JMO,
Shoe. |
| | | Thanx -- Joe, 03/26/2002
That helps put my mind at ease. |
|