|
|
Original Message
|
RE:sorry Mel but... |
By Mike McQuesten - 08/21/2001 4:29:34 PM; IP 206.193.0.120 |
Hey Nick you got your question(s) posted twice. Easy to do but Mel, you should read Styline58's response on the potential of a 352. I'm not going to rehash that 'cause as I said, he had it right on. As for the '58 FE 352 not being much in a "heavy" car.....I will agree that the first FEs of '58/'59 were disappointments. The Ford engine engineers were doing their best to honor the supposed ban on anything high performance that all the manufacturers agreed to in '57. Of course, the boys over General's way were cheatin' like crazy. Hence, the '60 352HP/360 horse. That was a bad '52 and is still a legend. And remember Nick said his car is a '65 thus his camshaft would be using the improved cam retainer that started with '63/'64. Now about your claims that the '65 and later blocks/heads were"made of much better iron alloy" etc. Hmmm...I ain't gonna bodly claim this to be not so 'cause I've learned to not make such bold claims but I'd like to hear more about these "Nodular" engines. Is there some truth to this Shoe? I'm always open minded to learning more about our big friend FE. Oh, '58 Fords are heavy? Again, I don't think they're that heavy. There is documented proof that stock HP 352s moved 4,000 lb. plus Galaxies into the 14's in the quarter. Stock! I had to modify my '66 GT Fairlane to get it to dip into the high 14's back in '67 or so. It took 352s two years to get out of the gate but once they hit the track, it was Total Performance all the way. |
|
This thread, so far...
|
|
Post A Response
|
|
|
|