FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: allrightmike on September 07, 2020, 07:46:30 PM
-
Would love to see an authentic spec 360 HP 352 on the dyno.What did it really do?
-
A guess would be 385-390. Pretty nice.
-
By 1960 standards, I doubt it would be over 340 hp at the flywheel. With headers, and higher compression, and more camshaft, then yes, 360 hp would be feasible. You have to remember it was only 15 years after WW2, and we were just coming into our stride as a world class automobile manufacturers. In my part of the USA in 1960, folks were still driving Model As, 40 Fords, and a few mid-fifties vehicles, not HP Galaxies or Corvettes, Hemis, etc.
Joe-JDC
-
It diffidently would not have been 385 HP but, with a "blue printed", loose engine (largest spec piston and rod clearance), Min spec on the deck clearance and combustion chamber and good 3 angle valve job with a tune on a dyno, I think it would make 360 HP. I almost forgot the thin pressed steel head gasket.
I don't know what the cam lift and timing was on that engine but, it's possible it could have been the same as the '61 401 HP, 390.
Joe would probably be close for a production 360 HP.
-
Werby might have some insight on this?
pl
-
Having dynoed some other stock engines, I find that some of the HP ratings are a joke.. Think 300hp 352 for instance. My guess would be the 360 hp would in the 325 area..Go back and look at HRM article about the new big block Ford in one of the 57 or 58 issues.They had to really modify it to get close to rated hp... I know on my Lincoln and MEL engines they miss the rated hp by about 40.
-
I agree Royce, although the heads were good for compression, they were a low riser port that didn't flow, barely better than a C8AE-H, maybe even. Intake wasn't much, but it had some compression and some cam.
I think 300 is likely realistic given the drag in those engines and poor reathing, but I'd give it 325 if it was set up right.
-
Werby might have some insight on this?
pl
Gonkulator puts the 352/360hp at about 350hp gross iron manifolds.
I think Ford just wanted to one-up Chevy's 348/350hp rating.
Gonkulator puts the 352/360hp at about 365-380hp in NHRA stock legal trim which is NOT assembly line trim at all.
Some engines made 20-25% more than their ratings with NHRA stock legal prep.
You can pick them out because later they'd get factored, and still win their classes.
Part of where the 352/360 and 390HP really excelled was the awesome midrange of those ahead-of-their-time C0AE-D heads.
Gonkulator puts peak torque about 395 ftlb in production trim.
The 390HP, because of these heads, Gonkulates overall as strong as the factory 406.
I think Ford thought it would have been rude to larger engines like the 409, 413, and 421 to put these chambers on the 406.
So they took a step backwards to a soggy dead chamber, and added a soggy deck to boot.
In other words I have no idea why Ford gave up on those beautiful chambers.
Agree w Royce on the big MEL's - (partly since he is the source for much of my MEL dyno data!)
Ford really liked to overrate their vanilla cruiser engines:
352/300 Gonkulates to about 270 real gross HP
390/300 about 280 real gross HP
390.315 about 290 real gross HP
428/345 about 310 real gross HP
429/360 about 320 real gross HP
430/360 about 320 real tross HP
As I understand it, the really early 430's made more power, still not their ratings but closer, but got detuned for smoothned, avoiding knock, etc.
BTW, I am convinced that big early Hot Rod dyno test on the 361/303 was reporting more like NET horsepower for most of the tests.
The vanilla FE is overrated but not by THAT much.
Still I'd welcome some precidion-prepped throwback dyno tests of the old stockers.
-
Werby might have some insight on this?
pl
In other words I have no idea why Ford gave up on those beautiful chambers.
Because they stink in terms of flow.
I bought a set for my 352 project, put bronze guides in them, new 7mm valves, did a real nice valve job, seat blend, etc. I thought they would be right around where my CJ heads are with that kind of prep, 250-ish cfm. They were down about 18 cfm.
Blair warned me and then gave me an "I told you so" afterwards.
The small chambers are real nice but the intake valve is shrouded and just plain icky.
-
Yep, the lack of flow of a C8AEH with bigger runner to boot, opposite of good, at least as built by Ford
-
Werby might have some insight on this?
pl
In other words I have no idea why Ford gave up on those beautiful chambers.
Because they stink in terms of flow.
I bought a set for my 352 project, put bronze guides in them, new 7mm valves, did a real nice valve job, seat blend, etc. I thought they would be right around where my CJ heads are with that kind of prep, 250-ish cfm. They were down about 18 cfm.
Blair warned me and then gave me an "I told you so" afterwards.
The small chambers are real nice but the intake valve is shrouded and just plain icky.
But Brent, comparing them to CJ heads with bigger valves, I'd say that's pretty good, only down 18cfm.
That would put them about like other small-valve C0AE-C, C1AE-A, C4AE-G, etc, heads in terms of FLOW, but much better chambers, right?
So sure, the 406 needed less shrouding but had a bigger bore so that could be done. I still think Ford just wanted to go slower or was lazy.
The C0AE-D was years ahead of its time & Ford just quit. Development should have continued!
-
I think they were an experiment to make some power with compression, but they’re not on par with the C4. All the other low riser heads would compete or beat a CJ head with the work Brent did.
If also like to know if they ran less total timing because it is a smaller chamber but unless the need for advance is reduced it might be smaller but not better
-
Werby might have some insight on this?
pl
In other words I have no idea why Ford gave up on those beautiful chambers.
Because they stink in terms of flow.
I bought a set for my 352 project, put bronze guides in them, new 7mm valves, did a real nice valve job, seat blend, etc. I thought they would be right around where my CJ heads are with that kind of prep, 250-ish cfm. They were down about 18 cfm.
Blair warned me and then gave me an "I told you so" afterwards.
The small chambers are real nice but the intake valve is shrouded and just plain icky.
But Brent, comparing them to CJ heads with bigger valves, I'd say that's pretty good, only down 18cfm.
That would put them about like other small-valve C0AE-C, C1AE-A, C4AE-G, etc, heads in terms of FLOW, but much better chambers, right?
So sure, the 406 needed less shrouding but had a bigger bore so that could be done. I still think Ford just wanted to go slower or was lazy.
The C0AE-D was years ahead of its time & Ford just quit. Development should have continued!
They had same size valves as the CJ valves, but smaller diameter stems.
Development stopped for a reason I think.
-
Werby might have some insight on this?
pl
In other words I have no idea why Ford gave up on those beautiful chambers.
Because they stink in terms of flow.
I bought a set for my 352 project, put bronze guides in them, new 7mm valves, did a real nice valve job, seat blend, etc. I thought they would be right around where my CJ heads are with that kind of prep, 250-ish cfm. They were down about 18 cfm.
Blair warned me and then gave me an "I told you so" afterwards.
The small chambers are real nice but the intake valve is shrouded and just plain icky.
But Brent, comparing them to CJ heads with bigger valves, I'd say that's pretty good, only down 18cfm.
That would put them about like other small-valve C0AE-C, C1AE-A, C4AE-G, etc, heads in terms of FLOW, but much better chambers, right?
So sure, the 406 needed less shrouding but had a bigger bore so that could be done. I still think Ford just wanted to go slower or was lazy.
The C0AE-D was years ahead of its time & Ford just quit. Development should have continued!
They had same size valves as the CJ valves, but smaller diameter stems.
Development stopped for a reason I think.
AHAH then! CJ valves are too big for them (unlike the more open "D" chamber early heads).
So, any flow data on the as-cast C0AE-D with their stock 2.03 x 1.56 valves?
Are they as good as C0AE-C, C1AE-A, etc?
(I've always assumed so but no hard data).
Maybe you or Blair have looked at this?
-
Everybody looks at those and wants to compare them to modern heart shaped chambers. But combustion chambers are three dimensional, and those old ones are only similar when viewed "from the deck".
-
The intake manifold was not very efficient for the 352/360 engine. If you look at the pictures of the manifold in Royce's other post about the 352/360 HP, you will see that the runners disappear into the body of the manifold, and are not raised like the 390/406 HP intake. The 352 HP intake is the least performance oriented of all the aluminum FE intakes from Ford. Joe-JDC
-
Werby might have some insight on this?
pl
In other words I have no idea why Ford gave up on those beautiful chambers.
Because they stink in terms of flow.
I bought a set for my 352 project, put bronze guides in them, new 7mm valves, did a real nice valve job, seat blend, etc. I thought they would be right around where my CJ heads are with that kind of prep, 250-ish cfm. They were down about 18 cfm.
Blair warned me and then gave me an "I told you so" afterwards.
The small chambers are real nice but the intake valve is shrouded and just plain icky.
But Brent, comparing them to CJ heads with bigger valves, I'd say that's pretty good, only down 18cfm.
That would put them about like other small-valve C0AE-C, C1AE-A, C4AE-G, etc, heads in terms of FLOW, but much better chambers, right?
So sure, the 406 needed less shrouding but had a bigger bore so that could be done. I still think Ford just wanted to go slower or was lazy.
The C0AE-D was years ahead of its time & Ford just quit. Development should have continued!
They had same size valves as the CJ valves, but smaller diameter stems.
Development stopped for a reason I think.
AHAH then! CJ valves are too big for them (unlike the more open "D" chamber early heads).
So, any flow data on the as-cast C0AE-D with their stock 2.03 x 1.56 valves?
Are they as good as C0AE-C, C1AE-A, etc?
(I've always assumed so but no hard data).
Maybe you or Blair have looked at this?
Sorry, Werb....they just stink. I think the guys who remember them running so hard was because they added two points of compression to their 8:1 engine.
-
Here is some flow numbers, for a ported, C0AE head. I don't know if they were the -D version.
Ford 428 C0AE Med Riser Flowtech - Steven Magnotti SF110 Iron N/A 2.09/1.65
-
No Pipe N/A 61/44 111/86 156/132 196/158 206/175 211/178 215/202 218/204
They have decent Ex flow numbers but, not much on the In. The flow starts at .100 and ends at .600, in .100 increments.
I'll ask Steve about them, next time we talk.
-
Here is some flow numbers, for a ported, C0AE head. I don't know if they were the -D version.
Ford 428 C0AE Med Riser Flowtech - Steven Magnotti SF110 Iron N/A 2.09/1.65
-
No Pipe N/A 61/44 111/86 156/132 196/158 206/175 211/178 215/202 218/204
They have decent Ex flow numbers but, not much on the In. The flow starts at .100 and ends at .600, in .100 increments.
I'll ask Steve about them, next time we talk.
I doubt those are D heads. Ask him to clarify exactly what they are, as a 1960 head is not a medium riser and a 428 was a gleam in Henry Ford's eye at that point.
-
Here is some flow numbers, for a ported, C0AE head. I don't know if they were the -D version.
Ford 428 C0AE Med Riser Flowtech - Steven Magnotti SF110 Iron N/A 2.09/1.65
-
No Pipe N/A 61/44 111/86 156/132 196/158 206/175 211/178 215/202 218/204
They have decent Ex flow numbers but, not much on the In. The flow starts at .100 and ends at .600, in .100 increments.
I'll ask Steve about them, next time we talk.
I doubt those are D heads. Ask him to clarify exactly what they are, as a 1960 head is not a medium riser and a 428 was a gleam in Henry Ford's eye at that point.
Whatever they are, they'd run almost as good backwards :)
-
Here is some flow numbers, for a ported, C0AE head. I don't know if they were the -D version.
Ford 428 C0AE Med Riser Flowtech - Steven Magnotti SF110 Iron N/A 2.09/1.65
-
No Pipe N/A 61/44 111/86 156/132 196/158 206/175 211/178 215/202 218/204
They have decent Ex flow numbers but, not much on the In. The flow starts at .100 and ends at .600, in .100 increments.
I'll ask Steve about them, next time we talk.
I doubt those are D heads. Ask him to clarify exactly what they are, as a 1960 head is not a medium riser and a 428 was a gleam in Henry Ford's eye at that point.
Whatever they are, they'd run almost as good backwards :)
Some Poncho heads are like that. Think how cool it would be to have a couple of webers by each shock tower and the exhaust sticking up through the center of the hood!
-
One thing I think about the 60s engine era - my experience is that the "nominal" published figures for things like deck, chamber sizes, etc were not all that accurate. Blueprinting was a real job (still is) in those days because production tolerances were all over the place. You could not get pistons out of a box that were within .0003 or so of each other, rod lengths that checked to the .0001/.0002 area and so on.
-
For our '60 Starliner we were intending on hopping up the 352 a little bit, better valve job, little hotter cam, but it should be 90-95% stock. We'll dyno it and I can post it up here. Can't promise it'll happen very soon though, maybe within a year?
-
For our '60 Starliner we were intending on hopping up the 352 a little bit, better valve job, little hotter cam, but it should be 90-95% stock. We'll dyno it and I can post it up here. Can't promise it'll happen very soon though, maybe within a year?
A year doesn't seem so long, given that after 60 years, there seems to be NO dyno data on the 352/360hp.
Has anybody ever dyno'd anything with factory stock C0AE-D heads?
Brent? Barry? Blair? Others?
-
I may have my hands on a legit 352 360 horse engine in the next couple months.. It is fresh rebuild but i would do a tear down just to see what parts are in it... I would have to get in line for space on the CC dyno to get it accomplished..