FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: Royce on May 18, 2021, 06:21:24 PM
-
This one is going on the pump Thurs..
It is a stock rebuild of a 360 horse 352 as near to original as I can make it. I have the correct heads, carb, intake, dual point distributor. Cam is a copy of the 406 cam from Holman Moody which most people agree is what came in the 360 horse.. I am going to run through the shorty cast headers into 2.5 inch pipes no mufflers
Deviations from stock: 4.03 bore, about 1/2 point shy on compression. Previous owner has put CJ sized valves in the heads. I will run it on 110.
I plan to optimize the air fuel on the original carb, dial in timing, and maybe try a couple spacers... Then I plan to switch to a Autolite 1.19 carb just for fun.
Guesses are welcome, however no prizes will be given.. Unless I can get Steve Peasley to volunteer for the county fair dunk tank.. Then i could give out a dozen free tries to put him in the drink.
Frankly, looking at the carb and intake manifold, no way this makes 360 horse.
-
So the cam is the 306-306 advertised, 228-228-114 at .050, .298 lobe lift?
Compression ratio?
Deck clearance & gasket thickness?
Piston-to-Bore & Bearing clearances rods/mains?
I ran spacers on the factory 8v LR intake & it did NOT like an open spacer, the air slamming into those 4 little holes really upset it.
I'd try either a 4-hole or a clover-leaf, something to smooth the flow as it slams into the intake.
This will be fun- especially the peak torque with those high-tech C0AE-D chambers.
-
Looking forward to the results...
-
Nice, I’ve always hoped someone would build and test one someday.
The least you could do is put up a shrimp cocktail for the winner ;D
-
Well lets see if I can fill in some blanks Compression ratio 10.1 I had to deck it .030 and cut the head .030 to get there.. Piston is .030 down the bore and I have a .020 head gasket Bearings are .0025 rod .0030 main. Did not measure the piston to bore clearance Relied on the machine shop and I forgot the spec. I have a 4 hole 1 inch spacer and a 1 inch clover leaf spacer to try
-
I won't be at all surprised if the Autolite 1.19 outperforms the original Holley.I also won't be surprised if you meet or exceed the factory rating.
-
358 @ 5500
-
What ring pack did you get with the pistons? That will have an affect on the results.
328 hp
Joe-JDC
-
You are close to my Guess Joe.. The rings are the old 5/64 style. In fact given how short of the 300 horse rating the standard 4bbl 352 was. I would not be surprised if this one was under 325 hp..
-
Any other "love" given to the cylinder heads other than bigger valves and milling?
Good luck and I'm hoping to see 360hp.
-
Cool Build!
Not old enough to remember 360 hp 352.
I would guess 340 hp.
I would also guess this will like plenty of ignition advance too.
-
361
-
Nothing done to the heads beside bigger valves and milling.. I hope my pessimism on the horsepower is proven wrong
-
It should at least make 1 hp per cube I'd think.
-
347 is my guess
-
Kevin..... the shrimp glutton has not even weighed in yet.
-
Gonkulator says
Torq 398 at 3400
Powr 345 at 5200
It does like a couple feet of 2.5" pipe on the end of the shorty iron.
This will be some good historical info to have.
-
357 @ 5800 rpm is my WAG. I'm thinking the heads may not like as much timing as standard shape FE chambers.
-
Well Folks results are in. Mr. Craine was our Nostradamus here. My lower guess was close but some tricks at the end got us a few extra ponies. I do have a gift for a lucky contestant. No,not shrimp cocktail lol.. I have a new size 2x "What the heck is a Y Block" T shirt. Free to the first request (if you want to admit you take a 2x.. Joe has plenty of these shirts and so do I. So, any closet Y Blockers out there?
Started out with some warm up pulls. 36 degrees of timing. Carb built to stock specs by Drew (performed great as far as function). I used a 4 hole 1 inch spacer. The original engine probably had one of those 1/2 inch phenolic jobs, but I could not find one. So rather than bolt the carb direct to the manifold, I used the 4 hole 1 inch. First pull yielded 290 horse. Ouch...We determined that the secondaries were not opening fully so we put a zip tie on them and tried again. Next pull 307.. Well it did improve... I was starting to think that my suspicion that this might be a 300 horse motor was proving to be correct. In looking over the data it's pig rich.11.6 up top. Down low and in a cruise test it was actually not bad 12.7. Since it is a 4160, no option to lean the secondaries, so we took 4 jets out of the front. Stock jets were 64s.. We had to hunt to find some 60s. It responded with a 311 number . It was still about 1/2 point rich but we had no smaller jets. Next we did some timing loops in the end 40 degrees is the sweet spot and it made 317.. With timing and fuel dialed in as good as possible time to try a couple other things.. I put on a 1 inch cloverleaf spacer and we hit 320.. We were pulling some vacuum but not a huge amount, 1.6 inches... Carb is small but not choking the engine too much. Pretty much had this combination maxed out.. I borrowed a 1.19 Autolite so I bolted that on hoping to see some more gains. One pull disabused that notion. It was dangerously lean, over 15:1. No jets on hand for that baby and since it is a borrowed carb I did not want to tear it apart..Just to see if the carb was really holding it back we put on the dyno shop 750. It is well sorted out and we got the best so far pull of 327..As the last effort we cooled it down to 120 water and 170 oil temp and made a final pull, 333 @5400 376 torque at 3500. It appears peak torque is lower than 3500 but the dyno is not happy being loaded at a lower rpm. I would guess peak torque is some where between 380 - 385.. I will post the actual dyno sheets a little later when I get some time.
Obviously there is not a 360 horse number as this engine sits.. In my opinion the intake is the main culprit, with the cam not really helping much either.. I thought the carb would be the real cork in the bottle but it performed pretty well.
So could Ford have made 360 horse? Maybe... If they had used dyno headers, that's probably 15 horse If the engine was blueprinted with a minimum chamber and tightest deck clearance and loose bearing and piston clearances, thin hot oil, that might be worth another 15 horse, so it's possible .
The cam, while showing a 308 seat to seat duration and 228 @.050 did not act that big at all. No idle lope, 19 inches of vacuum, and an easy 650 rpm idle. I lay most of that mildness on the super wide 114 LSA. On the other hand power peaked at 5400 rpm and it pulled strong to 5700. That probably is in part due to the 114 spacing. This is a really well mannered engine, starts immediately, idles effortlessly, takes throttle cleanly.. Would be a real joy in a street car. When you think about it, a 390 police interceptor made 330, so this thing makes that with 30 less cubes..
https://youtu.be/fQ4vw3Xnqq4
-
Still stout for its size. I'd be pleased with that.
-
Seems like a real good runner. This closet Y blocker would be proud to have that in something nice. I’ve been threatening to put something like that in the mustang instead of the finicky tunnel port and enjoy driving it. And I’m 2x size also.
-
Ding Ding Ding We have a weeener.. Give me your address... Only condition is you have to take a picture of you wearing it and post it on here so Jay can see it..
Oh, and Joe Craine can get 325 horse out of a 292 Y block without hardly trying
-
I've seen the Y-block t-shirt. I want to see the MEL t-shirt ;D
-
Royce, can you pop up some engine pics?
-
How much do you think the 1/2 point of compression was worth? Maybe another 5-10 hp? Along with headers, that would put it right up there around the factory rating.
-
1/2 point should be worth 6-7 at this hp level.
If you were able to find a head with the min CC spec and achieve very tight quench you might even exceed the factory compression ratio...
-
The cam, while showing a 308 seat to seat duration and 228 @.050 did not act that big at all. No idle lope, 19 inches of vacuum, and an easy 650 rpm idle. I lay most of that mildness on the super wide 114 LSA. On the other hand power peaked at 5400 rpm and it pulled strong to 5700.
My guess is that they rated camshafts differently back then instead of a .006" rating or a .020" rating like we have today. A 308 advertised duration on a 114 would be 80 degrees of overlap, which doesn't match your description of manifold vacuum, idle quality, idle speed, etc.
The .050" duration seems right in the ballpark though since the engine pulled to 5700. That .050" duration with 350 cubes and those heads matches right up. I think the factory rating was at 6000 rpm, right?
-
If you had been able to get the right pistons and get them closer to the deck,do you think it would have made a significant difference just from quench distance?Also what head gasket did you use that gave you the .020 thickness?If steel shim was it the Mr Gasket piece,I've been trying to find out for sure what the thickness of that gasket is I've seen 3 different specs from all the different vendors that sell it.
-
I don't think quench would have made a difference, I was using 110 fuel so detonation was not a concern..Maybe it would have not required as much timing, but the quench was not awful at .050. The extra compression would have helped.. I got the gaskets from Dennis at DSC
-
Absolutely agree with the intake being a cork as the stock intakes of that era (and most every Ford dual plane intake to some level) has a miserable sharp 90 degree corner for the lower plane at the bottom of the plenum. The early single 4s and low riser dual quads are the worst of the bunch. FWIW, after talking to Joe, and diving into it myself on CJ iron intakes, I reach as deep as I can to get inside, the lower plane especially, and eliminate shear points as well as smooth the turn FWIW
I also agree with Brent on the cam, I would venture to guess that Ford's seat to seat timing was something tighter than common cams, which would make it smaller using current measurement techniques, as well as the typically loose lash settings associated with the time having the same effect. I would love to see the cam degreed from .020 to .020 like a modern solid and hear the results, my guess is it likely is a baby as you have seen. It would also be neat if you dropped lash to .012-.014 to see where it moved things
I also agree quench at .050 wasn't an issue
That being said, spitting distance of 1 hp per cid without any tricks is pretty darn cool in my book!
-
I'm mostly bummed out about the heads.
I thought those C0AE-D were something special but it appears not.
If I put C1AE-A heads in the Gonkulator it lines up with the dyno exactly.
I thought I had dyno data to support that the C0AE-D chambers are better, but it seems not, at least from this data. Lower CC but that's all.
I also suspect the big valves are doing nothing, shrouded by the little chamber and small bore.
On the cam:
I degreed a 324-324 "8v" cam.
I think the 324-324 at at about .006 lobe
Ford also rated this cam at 288-288 or 290-290 duration in some old literature.
That's about what I measure "at lash".
At .020 lobe I got about 278 duration, and 244 at .050.
SO, for the 306-306 cam that would mean
306-306 at about .006 lobe
274-274 or 276-276 "at lash" which is also a duration FoMoCo used
228-228 at .050
I really thought it would do more with no mufflers.
How long was the 2.5" pipe?
Some of the cars back in the day ran AWFULLY good, trap speed & even top speed - must have had some good prep.
-
I think the statement "back in the day", is key to our expectations. I can remember when I was young and dumb driving above my tires, brakes, headlights, and suspension every time I got close to some of my high school friends on those country roads where I grew up. I can also remember when you could keep up with another car, and nudge his rear bumper, but when you pulled over to pass, you just could only keep up, not pass. A few horsepower would have made all the difference at those times. I had one high school "friend" who was a chevy guy that could not pass my '56 Fairlane on those country roads, so his dad bought him a new '64 Nova SS with the high performance 327, and one day he fell in behind my '56, and proceeded to blow around me so fast I had NO defense. I grew up with one of my uncles who is my age, and he bought a '60 Thunderbird with the 352 HP, and that car would outrun most everything around the area at that time, but the city kids started buying the new Chevy IIs with the 283s and 327s, and became the street cleaners until the Falcons and Fairlanes got the 289. Even a 260 Falcon was a car to be reckoned with if it had the 4 speed. An honest 330 hp is still a fun car to drive. I just wish I could buy a new Starliner today. Joe-JDC
-
What I meant by "back in the day" was the MPH from some old road tests, and forum members that ran em back then.
Top speeds reported as 148-152mph - clearly open exhaust, but still, that takes some serious power in that old brick body.
1/4-mile trap speeds of 101-103mph per Jody Alberts & Bobby Spears, and 106-107mph from Myrl Morris (in a gutted 3430 lb car).
I'm sure those were well-prepped engines, some with headers, but still allegedly stock legal prep.
SO I think, given that data, I just "assumed" those C0AE-D heads were something more special but maybe not.
Brannan tried them once on his 63 LWG, I should look at that data again too.
The 352/360hp never did well in class racing so that would imply indeed that it was likely overrated.
In contrast, the 406 and 427 LoRiser grabbed their share of NHRA Nationals class wins so they were likely rated pretty close.
For sure Joe, that's what happened year-by-year back then, even I remember a little of it.
The cars werent really THAT fast, it's just that each year was faster than the year before, right up to 1969-70.
After 1971, each year seemed awful - they weren't THAT slow, but each year was SLOWER than the year before & that's what we felt.
-
I don't think the small chamber heads are good for anything but adding compression, and my oversized valves probably cancelled out any extra flow with shrouding. I had a set of the C2SE heads on a 63 390 M code with 3x2.. About the same compression, cam about 10 degrees smaller, dyno headers. It made 340 horse at 5100. It had a better intake and headers and only made 10 more horse.. So by that measuring stick this 352 looks pretty good.. This cam is not all that bad. Docile idle with some low rpm torque and yet it pulls good up top. It looks to me like it would be close to a Comp 280 with wider LSA. And we know that cam runs good in FEs. When it goes back in the Starliner we will see if it runs 140ish LOL. Werby I bet those racers with the 352s had those things bending the rules to the max.. Given what it makes with these parts and no special prep, a guy in the know could make a lot more power
-
I don't think quench would have made a difference, I was using 110 fuel so detonation was not a concern..Maybe it would have not required as much timing, but the quench was not awful at .050. The extra compression would have helped.. I got the gaskets from Dennis at DSC
The quench was even worse on the factory 360HP @ .066 (.036 deck, .030 gasket).
What was the ICL on your cam? Also, what was the main, rod and piston clearance?
-
Bearings are .0025 rod .0030 main. Did not measure the piston to bore clearance Relied on the machine shop and I forgot the spec. I did not check ICL I think the cam has a symetrical lobe and i installed it straight up . If you can figure it out from the event numbers here they are: IO 24 BTDC IC 70 ABDC EO 72 BBDC EC 22 ATDC. Not much info on a Holman Moody cam card
-
By those numbers, it's 113 ICL and 115 on the Ex.
I asked because the 271HP, 289 uses the same lobes and 114 LSA but, they set the ICL @ 108 and Ex @ 120, when measured at .050 and 109 ICL when measuring at 306 duration.
-
By the way, The cam card says those measurements are at .015 tappet lift
-
Pm sent to Royce
-
I don't think the small chamber heads are good for anything but adding compression, and my oversized valves probably cancelled out any extra flow with shrouding. I had a set of the C2SE heads on a 63 390 M code with 3x2.. About the same compression, cam about 10 degrees smaller, dyno headers. It made 340 horse at 5100. It had a better intake and headers and only made 10 more horse.. So by that measuring stick this 352 looks pretty good.. This cam is not all that bad. Docile idle with some low rpm torque and yet it pulls good up top. It looks to me like it would be close to a Comp 280 with wider LSA. And we know that cam runs good in FEs. When it goes back in the Starliner we will see if it runs 140ish LOL. Werby I bet those racers with the 352s had those things bending the rules to the max.. Given what it makes with these parts and no special prep, a guy in the know could make a lot more power
I was going to use the C0 heads on my 352 but Blair told me that they were going to be dogs. I like finding things out for myself, so I threw every trick I knew at the heads, 7mm valves, good valve job, bowl blend, etc, etc., and they rewarded me with about 15 cfm less than a CJ head with the same prep. I don't think they even cracked 240 cfm with all the prep.
They would be good for adding compression for sure and that's why I was looking so hard at them.
-
Another issue that we haven't taken into consideration is, how much will the HP increase after it's well broke in?
-
True,, The dyno operator did run it for about 20 min under light load to beak in the rings a bit... I had broken in the cam previously on an engine stand.
.93 hp/cu in from unremarkable factory parts in very street friendly package. The only possible down side is if it can't handle running on 91 octane.. We will find out soon enough.
I almost forgot The engine was not running through the dyno MSD box. Dual points and a factory coil to 5700 rpm and never skipped a beat.
Someone asked about the length of the 2.5 inch pipes.. That would be 14 inches
-
True,, The dyno operator did run it for about 20 min under light load to beak in the rings a bit... I had broken in the cam previously on an engine stand.
.93 hp/cu in from unremarkable factory parts in very street friendly package. The only possible down side is if it can't handle running on 91 octane.. We will find out soon enough.
I almost forgot The engine was not running through the dyno MSD box. Dual points and a factory coil to 5700 rpm and never skipped a beat.
Someone asked about the length of the 2.5 inch pipes.. That would be 14 inches
If the hone job was good, it was broken in on the 3rd or 4th pull.
-
What I meant by "back in the day" was the MPH from some old road tests, and forum members that ran em back then.
Top speeds reported as 148-152mph - clearly open exhaust, but still, that takes some serious power in that old brick body.
1/4-mile trap speeds of 101-103mph per Jody Alberts & Bobby Spears, and 106-107mph from Myrl Morris (in a gutted 3430 lb car).
I'm sure those were well-prepped engines, some with headers, but still allegedly stock legal prep.
SO I think, given that data, I just "assumed" those C0AE-D heads were something more special but maybe not.
Brannan tried them once on his 63 LWG, I should look at that data again too.
The 352/360hp never did well in class racing so that would imply indeed that it was likely overrated.
In contrast, the 406 and 427 LoRiser grabbed their share of NHRA Nationals class wins so they were likely rated pretty close.
For sure Joe, that's what happened year-by-year back then, even I remember a little of it.
The cars werent really THAT fast, it's just that each year was faster than the year before, right up to 1969-70.
After 1971, each year seemed awful - they weren't THAT slow, but each year was SLOWER than the year before & that's what we felt.
If you read the articles Hot Rod did on them when they came out,they actually felt they were pretty close on the rating,Hot Rod always had the perception that Chevrolet was pretty honest on their power ratings and that Ford had grossly overrated the 300 horse 352,but when they compared the 360 horse to the 348/350 they felt that it was comparable and that any disadvantage the Ford might have would be more attributed to being heavier and the lack of availability of a 4 speed.
-
What I meant by "back in the day" was the MPH from some old road tests, and forum members that ran em back then.
Top speeds reported as 148-152mph - clearly open exhaust, but still, that takes some serious power in that old brick body.
1/4-mile trap speeds of 101-103mph per Jody Alberts & Bobby Spears, and 106-107mph from Myrl Morris (in a gutted 3430 lb car).
I'm sure those were well-prepped engines, some with headers, but still allegedly stock legal prep.
SO I think, given that data, I just "assumed" those C0AE-D heads were something more special but maybe not.
Brannan tried them once on his 63 LWG, I should look at that data again too.
The 352/360hp never did well in class racing so that would imply indeed that it was likely overrated.
In contrast, the 406 and 427 LoRiser grabbed their share of NHRA Nationals class wins so they were likely rated pretty close.
For sure Joe, that's what happened year-by-year back then, even I remember a little of it.
The cars werent really THAT fast, it's just that each year was faster than the year before, right up to 1969-70.
After 1971, each year seemed awful - they weren't THAT slow, but each year was SLOWER than the year before & that's what we felt.
If you read the articles Hot Rod did on them when they came out,they actually felt they were pretty close on the rating,Hot Rod always had the perception that Chevrolet was pretty honest on their power ratings and that Ford had grossly overrated the 300 horse 352,but when they compared the 360 horse to the 348/350 they felt that it was comparable and that any disadvantage the Ford might have would be more attributed to being heavier and the lack of availability of a 4 speed.
John,
I dont have anything from Hot Rod on the 352/360hp, can you summarize?
I also thought the Chevy 348/350hp came out in 1961 since it used the 409 heads.
BUT, there's conflicting info there, a couple sources say 1960. NHRA says 1961 though.
Maybe Hot Rod was comparing the 352/360 to the 348/335-6v?
Did they do any drag or dyno tests?
OF course if it was a 1961 Chev, 348/350-6v, the car would indeed be a lot lighter than the 1960 Ford, maybe 300 lb.
I have March 1960 Rod Builder, says they ran the 352/360 in the 1/4 and it "hit over 100" and "was quiet".
Well I dont believe 100mph thru the mufflers, so maybe the SPEEDOMETER said 100, which as we know doesnt mean much.
No data other than that.
Super hard to find data from 1960-61.
-
The 348 was available in 1958 in the Impala, and it was available with the 3 x 2V option. My dad had one. Real gas guzzler. 1961 was the 350 hp version. Joe-JDC
-
From hotrod.com, "The difference in real-world performance between the 360hp 352 and the 300hp 352, the next highest engine in the option lineup, was huge. Motor Life magazine tested a 1960 Starliner with the 352/300hp and reported a quarter-mile e.t. of 20.7 seconds with a trap speed of 80 mph flat. A snoozer, right? Another Starliner was tested in the January 1960 issue, this one equipped with the new 352/360hp engine. The e.t. for this car dropped by five seconds to 15.32 at 92.87 mph. A second test of a Starliner with the 352/360hp engine in Motor Life's July 1960 issue listed an even lower e.t. of 14.81 at 94.71. The slow 352/300hp car also had an automatic transmission, which was no hot rodder's gearbox. Even so, an engine that could shave e.t. by more than five seconds was almost supernatural."
-
What was the cam in the 300 hp 352? My 352 when it was new to me and worn out made 264 hp with a BT 1x4, 650 Holley and the factory 190-ish duration camshaft. I can't remember the compression ratio I calculated, but it was like 8.5:1.
-
Bearings are .0025 rod .0030 main. Did not measure the piston to bore clearance Relied on the machine shop and I forgot the spec. I did not check ICL I think the cam has a symetrical lobe and i installed it straight up . If you can figure it out from the event numbers here they are: IO 24 BTDC IC 70 ABDC EO 72 BBDC EC 22 ATDC. Not much info on a Holman Moody cam card
http://holmanmoody.com/cams.html
Royce, the confusion is solved by your post. Those are the valve events for the HM 406 Sideoiler camcam, 275 @ .001, 228 @ .050. Nice mild street cam, buy there is likely lots and LOTS more in that old girl! 47 degrees overlap at .001 probably equates to a 268H or less. Not knocking the build in any way but all seems to jive now
-
Ross nailed it, that's why it sounds so mild.
-
hmmm so I did not get a copy of the 352/360 horse cam?... Werby???
-
hmmm so I did not get a copy of the 352/360 horse cam?... Werby???
You got the HM #406 cam, which was the 1963 AA cam.
-
hmmm so I did not get a copy of the 352/360 horse cam?... Werby???
Same cam.
As I said above, that 275-275 duration is AT LASH.
Look right below it, the "B" cam is shown as 290-290 AT LASH with the usual 242-242 at .050.
But we all refer to the "B" cam as the 324-324 cam, which is what it measures at .006 lobe approx.
That's just what I get when I degree that lobe out. 288-290 at lash, 324-324 at .006 lobe, 244-244 at .050.
Royce, you might want to degree the cam you got to be sure, eg is it in fact 228-228 at .050?
From the peak RPM it sounds like it.
I degree them at
.006 lobe
.020
.050
.100
.200
Max lift
.200
.100
.050
.020
.006 lobe
Did you flow those heads somewhere along the way? I forgot.
19.5" vacuum does sound high, but maybe. Some vacuum gages read high too.
The 306-306 aka 275-275 aka 228-228 cam idles smooth in either the 406 or 427, all you hear is clatter, no lope.
I've never heard the factory version in the 352 but from all the literature we've all been thru it's the same cam, just "advertised" at different lobe lifts.
The 352/300 had a couple cams in there:
The early "hot" B8A-A 352/300 "Pro Stock Police FBI Interceptor" or whatever it was called had a solid
202-206-112 at .050 as I measured a well-used one.
This might have been 206-206, and may well have evolved into the 1961-65 390/330 PI cam, which is suspiciously close to the early 390GT cam at 206-206 up thru early 1966.
The later "grocery" 352/300 had the little B8A-B 186-186 at .050 cam, 270-270 advertised, those lobes look as round as they get.
Per the info I have, B8A-B 1958-59 had a 113.0 LSA, the later C0AZ-A had LSA=110.5, tightened up a little.
The vanilla 352 became a competitive NHRA combo when it was downrated to 352/250hp in 1964, but no way at 300hp.
There's also a 1959 "Police" 352 B9A-A cam listed in MPC but I've never seen any specs on it, IIRC it says "high lift", like maybe .430 instead of .401.
I had the Motor Life quarter mile tests already, those Gonkulate well at about 348hp.
I just wondered if Hot Rod had done any other 1/4 mile tests.
To get that 152mph top speed ROTFLMAO I have to Gonkulate that with approx an NHRA legal engine (about 385hp) and open exhaust.
-
I have these specs for a C0AZ-A cam. I think it is the 300 hp 352 cam.
270 duration, LSA 110.5, ICL 109, 49 over lap, .401 lift
-
Well, this can get really confusing, but Werby seems to have it worked out... OK so do I have the cam that Ford put in the 352/360. Even under ideal conditions that engine probably never made 360 horse, more like 325 .. Ford exaggerated HP .Probably not the only time that happened. We have to remember as racy as these cars were touted, they still had to be street cars which required docile idle and acceptable fuel mileage. This cam is a pretty good compromise.. Mild down low.. and a good top end. Unlike the regular 300 hp 352 which signed off at about 4800 this cam would still make horsepower at 6000 if the valve springs cooperate.. This cam in a 427 seems like it would be way too small, and even on a 406 would be kinda wimpy. Did Ford tighten the LSA for those engines to give some more overlap?
Is the 352 intake manifold the exact same piece as the 390/375 and the 406/385? Did the 390 and 406 get a bigger carburetor?
-
Royce,
Well that's why I said I'd degree that cam just to be SURE, get a whole profile since this is such a significant test.
All the info I have leads me to conclude: SAME CAM:
352/360
390/375-401
406/385-405
427/410-425 (early 8v anyway)
Advertised: 306-306 or 276-276 or 274-274 I've seen all 3
228-228 at .050 195-195 at .100 lobe
114.5 LSA, never changed.
Nearly identical (maybe 2 degrees bigger at .050) cam used in
289HP
302boss
429SCJ
If you've heard a factory 289HP or 302boss, this cam gets fairly rough when the CID gets down that low.
I've never personally heard an original in a 352/360hp.
FoMoCo fattened this same cam up to
Advertised: 324-324 or 288-288 or 290-290
242-242 or 244-244 at .050, 208-208 at .100
Still 114.5 LSA
This became the 427-8v cam or 427 "optional" cam.
Chevy liked this grind so much it became the grind for the Rat L78, L72, L71, L89, LS6.
FoMoCo tightened the LSA up to 107 IIRC and this same 324-324 cam became the factory cam for the 427HR in the T-Bolt and 64 LWG.
Intakes, as I understand it now there are 3 different low-riser aluminums
352/360
390/375 and 406/385, runners are maybe 1/4" or 1/2" higher
427/410 runners are about 10% bigger inside
FoMoCo did have an "A"-Curve for dyno testing which is sometimes how they rated gross horsepower.
* Heads & deck at min volume
* Bearings & walls loose as a goose
* Headers instead of exhaust iron (nil difference on the 427s)
This is how we hear numbers like 400-410hp for the 428CJ instead of 380hp for a "typical" factory 428CJ.
So I guess it's possible that the 352/360hp was the "A-curve" rating.
-
So I trust HM table as much as I trust Ford for measuring the way we measure now. There just weren't any standards to compare cam to cam back then. much like the HP numbers LOL
However, if you look at the chart I sent the link to it says events at .001 lift, if that is defined as immediate lifter rise. That would only make up .00176 of the lash, before the valve left its seat it would need to make up the rest of the lash, effectively making it smaller than 275 degrees
If the .001 means "at the valve" then it really means the .050 value would likely be at the valve and measured oddly, but these were slow ramp cams, so that really doesn't check either
.
I think I agree that this is the same old 306 baby427 cam, but not entirely sure, and it would make sense they used it across a lot of Ford models if it was just a copy HM offered.
It'd be great if you could map the cam at all valve events at .020 and .050, we can see what it compares to versus modern solids, or send out to a Cam Doctor for a real cam card
Regardless, this cam is behaving exactly like a 270S or smaller with a wider spread, so I think we are on to something. I also suspect that you did build a 360 hp Ford, they just weren't 360 hp
Get a bit more modern intake lobe, add a bunch of exhaust lobe, and keep overlap in check and I bet power and torque goes up.
-
Does anyone on here have a Cam Dr? I have an early 427 cam plus this H-M cam Would be nice to get a full profile of both of them.
-
Intake manifolds are definitely different between the 352/360 and the 390/375 engines. We have shown the differences in pictures in the past. The runners on the 352 intake are below the surface in places, and the 390 runners are raised. If your intake runners disappear into the casting you have the 352 intake. Joe-JDC
-
Definitely the 352/360 intake
-
I thought I would share information I gleaned from the 1960-64 MPC and the 1961 ready reference catalog,the 60-62 352/390 used in galaxies and T-birds with 2B and 4B carbs used a hydro cam part number C0AZ 6250 A,60-61 Galaxie only 352/390 4B only used a C0AZ 6250 B cam(I suspect this one to be the HP/Special cam cast letter K).61-62 police 390's used a C1AZ 6250 B solid cam,62 Tbird 6B used a C2SZ 6250 A hydro cam and 63 Tbird 6B used a C3SZ 6250 A hydro(I suspect the 2 Tbird cams are the same profile 62 on the early thrust button core and the 63 on a later non thrust button core).The 62 390HP/early 406 used the C2AZ 6250 A (mechanical tappets cast letter K stamped letter A I believe this cam to be the same as the 60-61 cam except for a revision on installed timing).Then late 406 used a C3AZ 6250 D cam cast upside down A B(I believe this cam to be the AA profile on an early thrust button core used with 4B 6B and 8B and long exhaust manifolds).Then the 63-64 427 used the C3AZ 6250 AA cam upside down A BA.There is also the C4AE 6250 B cam that is the long duration cam for use on high performance vehicles(lightweights and Tbolt?).
-
Thanks for adding to the knowledge base... I don't know if this is fact but seems to be consensus among the T Bird crowd that there was a difference between the 62 and 63 6V cams, with the 63 somewhat milder