|
|
|
|
Original Message
|
| RE: bumping compression.. |
| By Mike McQuesten - 08/30/2001 10:40:48 PM; IP 63.50.107.67 |
Here's a simple compression bump for your 352: Build it into a 390! Since it sounds like you're planning to rebuild this 1965 352-4V (Was there ever a factory built 352 that had more than 9.5:1cr other than the 1960 HP?) just get a 390 as has been recommended to you before Nick. Rebuild it with the commonly available '64 & later 4V cast pistons and there you go.....10.5:1 or so. Not a very expensive rebuild.
As for milling the heads......hey Mel remember this? It's right on page 15 of the first edition of Muscle Parts, summer of '69. There's the story about how much to mill the heads and the intake to assure correct mating of ports. Chart I.
You know that 350 horse '58 Thunderbird you mentioned Mel? From a Ford book. I think that may be in reference to the MEL(Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln) 430 that was the optional big horse mill for the '58 bird. I don't think there was a '58 FE of any dimension that was near 350 horsepower. Maybe the 361 Edsel was? Then you mentioned the horsepower ratings game Ford was playing with the 390 in the mid to late sixties. Pure confusion best describes it. I never understood why the '66 390GT went from what seemed a reasonably rated 335 horsepower to 320 in '67. I never thought the 315 rating was close to the Z-code 390 of '66 and '67. They were really a slug. Very poor cam. It was that C6OZ-B cam that woke the 390 back up from its slumber that began in '62 when the HP 401 solid lifter fire breather got replaced by the 406 in Jan., '62. The 390 became the torque grunt motor for everyday driving. The last real 390 GT was '68. What was it rated at? Oh ya, Page 44, Muscle Parts, 1969, are you ready? 325 horses! Was crack cocaine around then?
Then Ford really pulled what they thought was a fast one.....rating the 428CJ at 335 horses. Sure.
I appreciate all your input Mel. It's obvious you've been around and worked on FEs for many years. I think the old adage of "you may have forgotten more than what I'll ever know" may be appropriate. I mean that as a total compliment. You obviously have resources at hand and you were there. I may not agree with everything but you have got me checking,i.e., the claim of higher nickel content in '65 and later blocks. You mentioned a Ford bulletin or something about that. I'd like to know what that was again. I've asked two machinist friends who are FE fans. Both know their stuff, one runs a 428 CJ in a '67 Fairlane GTA @12.00 while the other runs a 427 SOHC in a '32 Ford at Bonneville. They told me that there were some blocks that they have seen where there's a large X cast in the lifter valley. They say these may be a little higher grade block. It doesn't mean they can take a 427 4.23 bore though. And you never said that the '65 and later blocks commonly could either. The point I'm trying to make here is that neither believed that there was much if any difference in the cast iron of normal FE castings. Of course, they mentioned that the '70s ribbed castings were sometimes blessed with thicker cylinder walls but that isn't a given. As for '65/later side oiler blocks, I and they believe these did have improved casting techniques. So my little mental jury is still out on that higher nickel content but it's still deliberating!
|
|
|
This thread, so far...
|
|
|
|
Post A Response
|
|
|
|
|
|