FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: Royce on September 05, 2020, 02:51:43 PM
-
Can somebody direct me to a site that lists all the parts that would come on the 360/352 that would be different than the standard 352.
-
I had a '60 Ford Galaxy and I still love the body design, over all other 60's Fords.
Mine only had a 300 HP, 352, from a '58 Bird with a FMX trans. It was originally a 223 - 6, 3 speed.
Here is a little info:
V8 (Serial No. Code R):
Cast-Iron, Overhead valve design
352 cubic inch displacement
Compression ratio: 10.6:1
360 brake horsepower @ 4600 rpm
Bore: 4.00 Stroke: 3.50 inches
Holley four-barrel carburetor
5 Main bearings
I think they had the first shorty cast manifolds, too.
https://www.hotrod.com/articles/super-rare-superstar-1960-ford-starliner-360hp-high-performance-v-8/
-
There was a post a while back on 352s, some of the discussion was about rods
Was it ever determined if the hi-po 352 rod was larger like the 390 rod ??
Sorry to hi jack
Ricky.
-
I have an uncle who owned a Thunderbird with the 352HP, and it had the exhaust manifolds like the 390/406, solid lifters, Holley carb, and I don't remember the intake manifold. Ran really strong Loved gas, too. Really not good mileage, but that was probably due to being driven hard. Joe-JDC
-
The article was just what I needed Thanks..
I have a chance to buy one if I can get a clue to what it is worth..
-
I had for a short while (in 1966) a (black) '60 T bird with that engine. As Joe mentioned it really loved gas. As a high school kid, I was always broke with that car. 10 mpg maybe? A weekend trip from Fairfax, Va. to Ocean City would require careful financial planning and an egg between your foot and the go pedal. The lack of a vacuum advance, of which I knew nothing then, would have had a huge impact on that.
(When I fitted vacuum advance on my current 428 it was an across the board 20% improvement in mpg)
Fun car...
edit: From the square bird link perhaps the 360 hp wasn't offered! Maybe that bird only was a 300 hp version, I was only 17 years old...
My memory is the gas mileage kept me broke!
.
-
The December 1959 issue of Hot Rod had an extensive article about the new 360 hp 352, along with lots of pictures and if I remember a pretty good run down of the unique parts. I’m pretty sure someone scanned the issue in on the FE Facebook page quite a while ago, maybe if you search online you might find a scanned copy of it.
-
https://www.squarebirds.org/vbulletin/forum/-1958-to-1960-thunderbirds-general-technical-discussion/-1958-to-1960-squarebirds-general-technical-discussion/8029-1960-352-360-hp-engine
-
Here's some pics of an honest to goodness 352/360.
-
Ebay has a intake road draft tube and a set of short headers (62 part number) look under 390.
-
That piston looks like it weighs a ton.
-
This may not be much help, but interesting nonetheless.
http://wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990663465054/1960-01_ML_1960_Ford_360_HP_V8_Expo_1-4.pdf
http://wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990606005159/1960-07_ML_The_Hottest_1960_Stocks_1-8.pdf
http://wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990663971860/1959-12_HR_1960_Ford_352_CID_Interceptor_Test_1-10.pdf
pl
-
Before the 360HP Ford had any manufacturer offered an engine as completely engineered with unique parts from air cleaner to exhaust manifolds? Seems to me this was the first to have what became all of the standard bits and pieces that constituted a muscle car engine.
-
Royce, wondering if the seller is Mark Spade? I hunted one of these engines for about a year for our '60 Starliner. I found a few, finally found one for sale. Paid the guy $4500 for the complete engine minus carb and air filter. I felt like that was a pretty fair deal.
-
No it is not Mark Spade.. This car had a very correct restoration about 7 yrs ago.. It went back to a shop to fix some paint issues.. The car had the work roughed in when the owner died and the car sat on dirt floor storage since.. It looks like it is a legit 360 horse as all the correct bits that i can see are there.. But the car really needs to be re-restored Motor is stuck and any part that was not painted is rusty and the interior is musty and all the other ills you find in a car that has been in damp storage. The owners children have finally gotten around to offering it for sale, but all they know is how much the owner spent on building the car.. The reckoning will come when they see the current condition.. Right now they want low 20s for it
-
Here's the things you can look for fairly simply that aren't internal to the engine.
-3/8" fuel line
-AC 10 bolt fuel pump
-generator has large pulley
-3 row radiator, the core should fill up the radiator space front to back
-3" wide front drum brakes
-no power steering, no power brakes
-On the door data plate, needs to be a Y-code, the axle code spot left blank
-if you get lucky the KH wheels will be left on it with the cats eye slots in them.
-5 leaf rear leaf springs
some pictures:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Bb0xwjMF/IMG-5429.jpg) (https://postimages.org/) (https://i.postimg.cc/c4TQX4YK/IMG-5432.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/FshyyJf5/IMG-5444.jpg) (https://postimages.org/) (https://i.postimg.cc/Cx1btTHc/IMG-5461.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
OK big gen pulley check.. Y code Check..no ps psb check. COAE D heads check, Shorty manifold check, 3 inch drums Check, 3/8 fuel line check,
I will look at the wheels, fuel pump, leaf springs. What is the correct carb list number?
-
If it has all that then you're pretty much there.
Carb is a Holley 2112 List. Part# C0AE-9510-AA
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJ6bymTz/IMG-2829.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Before the 360HP Ford had any manufacturer offered an engine as completely engineered with unique parts from air cleaner to exhaust manifolds? Seems to me this was the first to have what became all of the standard bits and pieces that constituted a muscle car engine.
Maybe the Chevy W-Motor 348/335hp-6v of 1959.
Quite a few eg Mouse Motors had special cam and carbs already.
AFAIK the 348/335-6v was the 1st to ALSO have special heads and exhaust manifolds AND be factory production.
Unless you count the 1950s Hemi's.
Pontiac had lots of full-on combos starting in 1956 but most/all were "over the counter" so I would not count those.
The Merc 430/400-6v of 1958 might well have been the 1st one, if produced as planned.
I'm convinced that the 400hp was a real prototype, but with early heads, and cam that didn't make production.
Gonkulator puts the production 1958-1/2 430/400-6v at about 345 gross HP.
-
A friend had a 60 two door post in 69 or 70 with a 3 speed od it had one hell of a top end we did not know it was a 352-360 guy he got it from said it was a pi.I know for sure it was way north of 120 next to a six pack runner.Know now thats what it was.
-
The Merc 430/400-6v of 1958 might well have been the 1st one, if produced as planned.
I'm convinced that the 400hp was a real prototype, but with early heads, and cam that didn't make production.
Gonkulator puts the production 1958-1/2 430/400-6v at about 345 gross HP.
I don't know of any special cylinder head castings, but I believe in the original pre-production configuration there was a camshaft change intention, but this was lost probably due to the drivability complaint concerns associated (maybe just the vac. wipers wouldn't work? ::) ) by the time the "Super Marauder" option "J" code on ones' '58 Mercury Marauder meet with available production.
But, it's the torque that moves these "boats" around, and the 430 MEL wasn't nick-named the "Bulldozer" for nothin' ! ;)
Scott.
-
There was a running change on the 58 430 due to customer complaints about idle quality.. They softened up the cam and reduced the size of the intake valve. The 430 really got neutered in 60 with a 2bbl carb.. The super marauder package was induction only, no special cam or head. Based on my experience I would say the 430 6V actually made about .85-.90 hp/cu in. The 6V intake is not a performance piece.. I think the single 4bbl is actually a better manifold. It does have the coolest air cleaner ever put on an American car though. That's worth 50 hp
-
Before the 360HP Ford had any manufacturer offered an engine as completely engineered with unique parts from air cleaner to exhaust manifolds? Seems to me this was the first to have what became all of the standard bits and pieces that constituted a muscle car engine.
As Werby mentioned, the Chrysler 300 series... (In particular the 300C with fuel injection in 1958)
Much like the the early 60's Mopars, these cars were rare but real contenders and sort of set the standard for street racing. Not that I ever did that!
more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_300_letter_series
-
The 430 really got neutered in 60 with a 2bbl carb..................... It does have the coolest air cleaner ever put on an American car though. That's worth 50 hp!
Fortunately, at least the '60 "J" code Thunderbird's were build with the '59 specification engines. 8)
And, dog-gone-it, that air cleaner doesn't fit (without modifications) under the hood of the T-Bird; but I guess considering what they sell for these days it wouldn't work out as cheap H.P. anyway! ::)
Scott
-
I think some of you who posted and criticized the 360hp/352 are a little harsh on the first high performance FE ever. It is very easy to look back 60+ years, play the "what if" game and lament of what Ford should have done. Very easy to say now, 60+ years later. One poster criticized the 360/352 intake manifold, which, IMO it was not bad considering it was said to be a "layed out" on Don Sullivan's kitchen table and using only Sullivan's knowledge, common sense and the sound of the engine was the only way they had a general idea the manifold worked. No flow benches, no dyno testing because the 4 man team [Sulliven, Frey, John Cowley, a chassis/suspension engineer and Bill Innes from engine/foundry div.] did not rank high enough on the corporate food chain to have access to dyno facilities. In one link posted in this thread showed the 360hp/352 was a close second to the Pontiac which the article indicated the Pontiac was a "ringer" set up by the Royal Pontiac dealership for the 4 car test. Pontiac used the 'Tripower" on a 389 which also had a 37 cubic inch advantage, had an Isky cam and several other "options" the Pontiac had over the Ford. IMO the Ford did remarkably well considering the lack of experience, lack of time involved and lack of manpower that the Pontiac/GM enjoyed over that of the Ford "team". Also consider that GM went "underground" since June 1957 when the AMA passed a resolution that all car mfgs. would adhere to the "racing ban" and the advertising of horsepower, racing and any other type of speed contest. GM then marketed their high performance parts as "police/emergency vehicle" or "heavy duty". Ford purged any and all parts connected to high performance and racing and got completely out of the high performance market which as a result left GM with a 2 year advantage over Ford.
-
What was the general nature of the high performance cams ford used back then? Long duration low lift?
-
What was the general nature of the high performance cams ford used back then? Long duration low lift?
Ford cams were mild compared to other factory HP cams. The HP-352/390/406 solid lifter cam [with minor timing changes only] was .479" lift using a .025" lash, 276 deg duration [advertised] I don't know if they used the typical .004"-.006" lift to determine duration. Actual lobe lift should be .504". I still run an old 406 solid lifter cam [C2AZ 6250-A] in my Q code 66 Galaxie/428. For an antiquated and obviously obsolete cam it still runs pretty good. Valve timing: I/O 24* BTDC - I/C 72* ABDC- E/O 72* BBDC - E/C 24* ATDC, 48* overlap
-
I am sure i have read a 60 ford was the fastest car tested on daytona beach speed trials but i cant find it still looking
-
Don't overlook the fact that the post-57 AMA Racing Ban was actually requested by General Motors, Ford and Chrysler Corp. were eating GM's lunch in NASCAR and, as such, racing was becoming an advertising liability to the General.
-
Found it Vicki Wood 150 mph 60 two door post.John Barber ford Belleville michigan on the side of the car.
-
Found it Vicki Wood 150 mph 60 two door post.John Barber ford Belleville michigan on the side of the car.
Post a link please.
-
http://yblockguy.com/articles/KarolMillerStory.html Is a story of Karol Miller who is still alive here in TX. He drove a '60 Ford 352 to Bonneville and went 157/158 MPH, and drove on Daytona Beach, etc. Joe-JDC
-
https://www.autoblog.com/2020/06/16/vicki-wood-race-driver-dies-at-101/
-
Looks like Karol Miller invented the first spintron, just imagine what a weapon he could have been had he owned a dyno!!
-
X2 what RJP said on this. The doggy 352 did pretty doggone good here.
That July 1960 Motor Life test series was interesting indeed.
Here are the reported MPH & ET, engine, rated HP, trans, and gear and the cars involved.
The middle digit m or h is the cam, mechanical or hydraulic.
95.64 and 15.00 383m340-LS 3m-331 Fury*
94.71 and 14.81 352m360-4v 3m-411 Ford
94.50 and 14.55 389m349-6v 3m-456 Catalina**
92.78 and 15.36 348m320-4v 4m-411 Impala
86.03 and 15.19 383h330-LL 3a-456 Dart***
That’s the raw data. Notice I listed them in order of MPH, not ET, because MPH tells us more about the engine.
ET just tells us the fat Pontiac hooked up really good, maybe since it came from a drag race dealership.
Note also the asterisks:
*_The Fury should have been a stock 383h330-LL (Long Ram, Long Partition) but instead as they noted, it was a solid cam, and as I conclude since they discuss the 413m400-LS, it was an LS, or Long Ram Short Partition. This would be legit if it was 1961, but then the car would have gone up against the Ford 390m375 and lost badly.
** The Catalina had a solid cam, I assume the 389m363-6v Super Duty cam. So, not factory either, and not even a rated combo so not NHRA legal in any year, let alone 1960.
*** The Dart was an iron case torqueflite, so a heavier car, but mainly with a way too steep 4.56 gear, it ran out of revs as they noted. With a more correct 3.90 gear, it Gonkulates to the same ET, but 90.2 MPH instead.
So, how do we really compare these cars? Of all the vaguaries of magazine road tests, I USUALLY like a comparo better because I can then assume, in the Gonkulator, that each car saw the same weather and same payload as it went down the track. Not always strictly true, but at least close.
For these cars, I guessed the curb weight by just using the NHRA weight, accounting for any options (guessing PSPB on the big fat Cataline and automatic Dart), and multiplying that by 1.06 which I find is pretty good overall. Sometimes.
Here are the curb weights I got for each car. Alongside, I put in the “Huntington” style computed net HP for Road Test (RT), roughly NHP_RT=(MPH/W)^3 or cubed after adding a 300 lb payload to each car (also a guess).
Curb Net HP
Guess (MPH/W)^3 engine / car
4130 311 389m349-6v Catalina Cheater ::)
4040 306 352m360-4v Ford 8)
3800 298 383m340-LS Fury Time Tunnel ???
3900 279 348m320-6v Impala
3900 222 383h330-LL Dart
I’d say that doggy old 352 did pretty good, hanging in there with the two “cheater” engines and blowing away the two stock engines. Again it’s not really fair to the Dart because it ran out of revs.
With a 3.90 gear, the Dart Gonkulates to 90.2 MPH for:
3900 256 383h330-LL Dart
As a standard, I add 2mph to automatic cars when comparing them to stick cars.
Doing that, the Dart NHP_RT gives
3900 273 383h330-LL Dart
So the exotic looking 383h330-LL, corrected for overgear and trans, still comes in last, but not far behind the Chevy Truck motor.
Here is what the Gonkulator says about each engine in terms of Torque, Power, and the most important street metric, Ponies (the geometric average of T and P, which correlates best with street car timeslips).
Ponies Torq Powr Engine
384 421 350 383m340-8v-LS Mopar (this is a 1961 combo not 1960) :-[ :-[
381 423 342 389m349x6v Pontiac (x for didn’t exist) ::)
372 421 329 389h348a6v Pontiac (a for 425a)
371 394 350 352m360-4v Ford
371 440 312 383h330-8v-LL Mopar
343 361 325 348m320-4v Chev
Of the legal engines, the 352/360 Ford makes the most Gonkulator HP, and misses the top spot in Ponies by just 1 Pony.
A pretty good showing.
As I might have mentioned, I did some GTECH testing on a heavy 3.00 geared 434cid using first the 427-8v cam, and then the Comp 270S, about equal to the 352hp-390hp-406-427-4v-429scj cam.Of four intakes tested:
• Ed RPM
• 428PI
• 390HP
• Z Iron
The low-slung390HP intake with its stock 1” spacer won both shootouts in 0-60mph and 330ft.
(BTW, during this road testing, I used the same intake gaskets SIX TIMES without issue, thanks to of all things, Permatex Red High-Temp silocone, the tube I happened to have open. A serendipitous discovery indeed.)
In heavy factory street trim (not crazy cams, open headers, drag race gears like we all use here!!!) the drop-center intakes were not too bad indeed.
Down on peak power, but winning in Ponies where it counts. I didn’t have a 352HP intake and know it’s not quite as good, but I think Ford did a great job on this whole engine for 1960. 8)
BTW on solid cams:
I’m convinced that what Ford called the 276-276 cam is identically the 306-306-114 cam, just measured differently, and the same 228-228 duration at .050. I’m also convinced that the 288-288 or 290-290 cam is identically the 324-324-114 cam. Maybe the variance there goes with an .050 or either 242-242 or 244-244 or 245-245 as I’ve seen all of those in various spots. So these are not all different duration cams, just the two basic solids Ford used, in addition to the very mild approx. 206-206 solid cam in the 390PI and the 244-244-106 “B” or HiRiser cam.
-
Werby, I can say with 99.9/10% certainty that the C2AZ 6250-A- 276/276 cam is not the same as the 306 cam, p/n C3AZ 6250-AA The timings are different. The 306 cam's timing are as followed: I/O 40* BTDC - I/C 86* ABDC E/O 88* BBDC - E/C 38* ATDC - 78* overlap. Refer back to my other post for the 276* cam's timings. My experiences having used both cams I can say they don't act the same either. The 306 cam might have been used in the early optional 1963 406 8V drag race engine and IIRC it was used in the early 427 LR 4V and the 8V LR got the 324*cam. I would also like to point out that the 360/352 Ford only had a couple of months of development, if you want to call it that, as the 360hp/352 was released on or about mid Dec 1959, a couple of months after the 60 models hit the show room floors. It is almost comical the Ford beat the almighty 348 Chevy like a drum and came damn close to handing the Pontiac's ass to 'em with their 2 year head start and professional preparation by the Royal Pontiac dealership. BTW Pontiac cams were ground by Isky and had no Isky part number stamped on them. That was left to the Pontiac parts department to install a Pontiac part number. ;)
-
https://www.autoblog.com/2020/06/16/vicki-wood-race-driver-dies-at-101/
Thanks for the link Wayne. Interesting and incredible woman.
-
Had no idea about Vicki Wood. Thanks for the link.
-
the pic of her standing with her Fairlane is awesome. It even has the factory mufflers.
-
One of my old ford books had the car in it but i don't know what one it was 50 years of old ford books put away.It may be complete ford book first edition i think the car was stock 352-360 it had some carb work and oversize tires.With todays heads cams and intakes the old 352 may be a high rpm killer in a lite car.
-
WerbyFord can you tell how much hp it would take run 150 in that 60.
-
Not to take anything from the lady, but Karol Miller went 158 with his '60 at Bonneville. Wonder what his horsepower level was? Running at 4300 feet elevation is a lot different than sea level. Joe-JDC
-
The Carol Miller-Singer dragster won top eliminator NHRA nationals with a supercharged Lincoln engine.
-
Not to take anything from the lady, but Karol Miller went 158 with his '60 at Bonneville. Wonder what his horsepower level was? Running at 4300 feet elevation is a lot different than sea level. Joe-JDC
Joe, Reading the article from the 1962 Ford Performance Handbook Mr Miller's Ford had a few modifications. He started with a 300hp/352 and with that he bored the block .090" [.030" over 361 Edsel pistons] to take advantage of the BGC/Sedan class limit of 370" He borrowed a pair of 360hp/352 heads from a friend. Heads were milled .030" to produce a 11-1 c/r. The stock aluminum manifold was used but had a 59 Lincoln AFB carb instead of the 540 cfm Holley the hp. engines came with. Cam was an Isky RR8000 and spring kit, the only non-stock parts used. Taking into account the altitude difference and the aforementioned modifications I'm sure Mr Miller's Starliner produced a bit more power. Add the slight advantage he had using the Starliner body over that of Ms. Woods Fairlane. IMHO both are quite remarkable in their own right.
-
Well here is my (LONG) logic in concluding that the Ford HiPo solid 274-275-276 and 306 duration are all the same grind:
From NHRA Blueprint files:
Solid FE cams: Published Lift (In & Ex all same)
Year Eng PI HP
60 352 ----- 500
61 390 440 499 (ie net)
62 390 439 500 (ie net)
62 406 ----- 500 (ie net)
63 390 465 ----- (ie gross)
63 406 ----- 525 (ie gross)
63 427 ----- 525 (ie gross)
64 390 439 ----- (ie net)
64 427 ----- 500 (ie net)
65 390 465 ----- (ie gross)
65 427 ----- 525 (ie gross)
Nota that NHRA cites net lift in some years and gross lift in other years, since we know that the 390PI had .440 net and .465 gross lift.
This supports a single HiPo cam lift of .500 net and .525 gross.
Dec 1960 Hot Rod:
“Ford engineers told us that they tried every camshaft grind they had, then tried everything they could buy from outside cam specialists and there was nothing they found that could match the grind they used in 1960 HP engines so they used the same grind again for 1961.”
IF both these (NHRA and HotRod) are right, then since the 1961 cam has .500 lift, which we assume is net since the 390PI is listed as .440 lift ie net, then the 1960 cam has to also be .500 NET lift.
So we are talking about the HiPo cam as either
276-276 duration, .480 .480 net lift
Or
306-306 duration, .500 .500 net lift
LIFT wise, it doesn’t make much difference. If duration is the same, going from .500 net lift to /480 net lift only loses 1 hp on the 352HP, and only loses 3 hp on the 390HP. I’ve just always had the hunch that the 352HP was in fact .500 net lift, same as the 390HP, 406, and 427 – and that’s why the early 352HP springs couldn’t get the job done.
DURATION is another issue.
As far as the 352HP or 390HP cam being 276 duration, as in 30 degrees less duration than the 427 cam at 306 duration, I just don’t believe it. The 352HP and 390HP would be way down on power, and just not capable of turning in the MPH numbers the cars ran.
Changing duration at .050 from say 228 to 206 loses 15hp on the 390/375.
The 390PI cam is usually listed at 282-282 advertised duration, compared to the 306-306 HP cam.
If there was a 276-276 advertised solid cam and it was really down 30 degreed duration across the board, the 352HP and 390HP would idle and run like a kitten.
So I think the 276-276 vs 306-306 are the same, just measured at different lobe lifts.
Not uncommon in those days.
Supporting this is the March 1960 issue of Rod Builder mag on the 352/360HP.
“It includes a hot cam (306 degree-valve-opening duration).”
Rod Builder continues:
“The cam is wild, to say the least: 306 degrees duration for intake and exhaust. The maximum lift at the cam is .298 inches, which together with a 1.76 rocker ratio, produces a valve lift of .525 inches.”
That may be the 1st time I’ve seen the 306 number – but where else would they have gotten this number (in March 1960) unless it was the real 306 duration of the 352/360HP? Also the 1st time I’ve seen .298 lobe and .525 gross lift for the 352HP cam. This is consistent with NHRA showing .500 net lift for 1960-61. Again, I think 276 duration & 306 duration are the same cam, just measured at different lobe lifts.
It can be confusing looking in the later MPC books as they look backward: If you look in eg the 1960-64 MPC published in 1968, you’d think there was a factory 390 Tunnel Port running the .600 lift “D” cam! But since this Rod Builder article is from March 1960, if that 306 degree .525 gross lift cam wasn’t for the 352HP where’d they conjure up those exact (later 427) numbers?
H&M lists the good old c3az-aa “306-306” cam at “275-275” duration.
And they list the “324-324” c4ae-b “B” cam at “290-290” duration.
http://www.holmanmoody.com/parts1.html
That’s another reason I’ve concluded that the (276-276 or 275-275) cam is in fact the 306-306 cam. And also that the (288-288 or 290-290) cam is in fact the 324-324 cam. They just measure the events at different lobe lift.
For example, when I degreed a clone of the 324-324-114 c3az-k 427-8v cam I get
244 duration at .050 lobe
279 duration at .020 lobe (maybe this was the “288” advertised duration)
331 duration at .006 lobe (maybe this was the “324” advertised duration)
You can see why “advertised” duration drives everybody NUTS.
Same cam, but ~40 degrees difference in “advertised” duration, depending how it’s measured.
I still think this is what’s going on.
The discussion here, circa 2004, at least for the 427, reinforces my hunch/conclusion:
http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/fe-talk/59944-stock-425hp-solid-cam-specs.html
Notably the discussion by Ted “Y-Block” Eaton.
“As I use to run the "K" grind back in the late Sixties, I went back to the old Ford parts catalogues to see exactly what the specs was on that particular piece. It was the C3AZ-K camshaft with 290°/.500" and was listed for use in the '66 427 both in the 1X4 and 2X4 engines.
Going back a little further I find that the 1963 and 1964 427's had different cams for each year while the 1X4 and 2X4 versions were also different. The 1X4 cams were C3AE-M (276°/.525") and C3AE-U (274°/.525") for '63 and '64 respectively. The 2X4 cams were C3AE-AA (288°/.525") and this one carried through into early 1964 on the 2X4 engines where it was changed out for the C3AE-V cam with 290° duration. Date codes on the engines play heavily on the cam listings in my old reference books and there appears to be a myriad of service cams offered including the aforementioned C3AZ-AA with 306°/.500" specs. I spared you the listed intake/exhaust opening/closing specs.”
The (274-274 or 276-276) and 306-306 durations for the 427-4v are talking about the same cam.
And the (288-288 or 290-290) and 324-324 durations for the 427-8v are talking about the same cam.
At least very, very close.
Now, is the 276-276 “427” cam the same grind as the “276-276” 352HP and 390HP cam?
Based on all this, I think so. But again I’ve never measured any.
But knowing Ford, anything could happen.
I’d happily degree some old cams to be more definitive, but I don’t have any.
I’ve degreed an old 352/300 solid cam from 1958 but don’t have any old original HiPo cams.
There could be some further confusion regarding the HiPo 276 degree cam (which I still think is the identical 352HP-390HP-406-427-4v grind, .298 lobe, 306 or 276 advertised). The 390PI used a solid cam with lesser lobe lift of .264 and a 282 advertised duration.
In one of the Shop Manuals (1961 IIRC) in the engine section, it calls out the engines – 390/300, 390/330, 390/375HP, and then in the cam section, just says Lobe Lift = .232 for all. Well that’s the 390/300 Lobe Lift but not the others. In another Shop manual, the 1962 Ford, the 390/300, 390/330PI, 390/375HP-4v, and 390/401HP-6v, ok got em all. Then it lists .264 Lobe Lift for all solid cams – 390/330PI, the 390/375HP-4v, and the 390/401HP-4v, which is obviously wrong.
There is, nonetheless, reference to a 352HP-390HP-406-maybe solid HP cam with .480 net lift. Other than subtracting the lash twice, I can’t find any substantive reference for this cam. Maybe it never existed, or maybe it did, and Ford cut the net lift from .500 to .480 as a valve spring crutch, since it only Gonkulates to a loss of 3hp.
Documentation or measurements of any of this would sure help the history!
8)
-
WerbyFord can you tell how much hp it would take run 150 in that 60.
The Gonkulator thinks that a typical NHRA-legal 352/360HP at about 387 gross hp with open exhaust and no fan (no need) gets it done for the Vicki Wood 150mph.
Bonneville at 4300 ft is only about 1mph slower due to the altitude. In theory, there is NO difference - you make less power, but the air you're cutting is EXACTLY that much thinner so it's the same.
But, you still have the same (minor) driveline losses so you do lose a little top speed.
I totally guessed at Karol Miller's Isky RR8000 (roller?) cam and Gonkulated 431hp for his Starliner.
The Starliner body ran about 2.5mph faster, Bonneville was almost 1mph slower, and the engine added about 6mph vs Vicki's "NHRA legal" 352/360hp.
Great story about Vicki. Funny, she may have been at Flat Rock in 1963 when I was there- I was a little kid, I remember being scared of the blue &orange flames coming out of the flathead blocks (no exhaust manifolds, just wide open junkyard cars). I cant get the picture in the link to work, I need a new laptop like all the schoolkids get for free.
Who knows exactly what they did in each case so there is some guessing here.
That 60-62 front end was pretty slick. The 62 box roof messed things up or it would likely have been slicker than the 63-64 cars, let alone the 65 bricks. The slick curvy-front-hood went away in the mid-60s and then made an encore with the Talladega body. Then it went away again for the dark era of the 1970s.
The Gonkulator puts a well prepped bone stock 352/360 Starliner at 135mph top speed, with just 2-1/4 pipes, mufflers, everything else stone stock. Still pretty darn good but not 150mph.
-
Werby, You are more than welcome to come to my shop and degree the 276* cam that I have in my 66 Galaxie 428. This is the same cam I purchased new, in the cardboard tube from Morris Landy Ford in Alameda, Ca. on or about 1967-68 when replacement parts were still supplied for the usual time honored 10 year period for part availability. As to your comment that the cam would "Idle like a kitten" it does. Idle is very smooth at it's typical idle speed of 650-675 rpm and still smooth while in-gear. Lashed at .028" now it has the music of the typical valve clatter most solid lifter cams have or should. As for the 306* cam idle wasn't quite as docile but did have the typical music of the solid lifters depending on the valve lash. I didn't play with the valve lash quite as often as I did with with the 276* cam. With that cam I would vary the valve lash anywhere from .021" to .030" with a distinct difference in where the power curve occurred. It is a very responsive cam. Regarding your doubt that a cam that mild would have the "well prepped" power/torque curve to only produce a 135 mph top speed...not a 150 mph, I wholeheartedly disagree. My 60 Starliner ran app. 140mph [dream wheel calculated, thats all I had] using this 276* cam in a forged dish-top piston .030" over 390, all else stock, single 4V, thru the mufflers. With a 2.91 gear, T-10 4 speed, 5000rpm [and still pulling BTW] on a 28.5" tire...I pedaled it at 5K as I was on a public highway and thought this was not very prudent. ::)
-
Here is some of my solid lifter cam info, direct from Ford publications. Also 2 pictures, one of the race cams and another of the intake options. These from a Ford Tech Tips, of 1968.
Note, there is a C8AX-B, with the manifolds.
FE Solid Lifter Cams
C3AZ 6250 -AA
In 40/86 - 306 Dur, 113 CL
Ex 88/38 - same , 115 CL
78* overlap
.500 net lift .025 lash
C4AE 6250-B
56/88 - 324 Dur, 106 CL
88/56 - same , same
112* overlap
.508 net lift .025 lash
C8AX 6250-D
60/90 - 330 Dur, 105 CL
94/56 - 330 Dur, 109 CL
116* overlap
.600 net lift .025 lash
C5HM 6250-C
320 Dur x .600 lift
From Magazine
C3AZ 6250-D
306 Dur 4V - 8V
C3AZ 6250-K
324 Dur 4V - 8V
.499 net lift .025 lash
Timing @ .050
In 10/56, 246 dur, 113 CL
Ex 58/7, 245 dur, 115.5 CL
96* overlap
This ones says it only needs 280 lb springs at 1.32
-
That spring pressure was with hollow stem intake valves and sodium exhaust valves. Joe-JDC
-
Thank all of you for your hard work and the good information
-
That spring pressure was with hollow stem intake valves and sodium exhaust valves. Joe-JDC
I don't know about that, Joe. I believe that, that cam is the one that came in the factory LR, with 2.09 valves.
Although it doesn't specify (valve stems), the other 324 cam (C4AE 6250-B), is a much hotter cam and they spec it with 2.19 valves, with 305 lb springs @ 1.32. I might agree that those are hollow stem.
-
Thanks all for posting all this cam data.
I’ve been trying to unravel this mystery for sure for years now, as have others.
Here are a couple threads from 12 years ago.
Was the c2az-a 406 cam actually DETUNED for 1962?
081118 thread “FE 1960 352 HP camshaft specifications”
https://www.fordfe.com/viewtopic.php?p=514063#p514063
Note that in this link, Steve Christ (pg85) lists them all as .480 net lift, .286 lobe lift, 352HP and early 390HP, but strangely, .298 lobe and .500 net lift for the late 390HP and 406.
Per x4rdtech in #7, why would Ford have gone from 1-pc retainers in 1960 to the vanilla 2-pc grocery store retainers in 1961? Were they trying to get away with cheap parts and so detuned the cam for 1962? Or maybe that was not a 390HP engine.
Note also the Gas Ronda story. It is so rare to see that kind of courage.
081204 PART 2
https://www.fordfe.com/viewtopic.php?p=517166#p517166
In this thread, Dennis posted the specs on the 352/360HP c0ae-b cam as having the same lift and events as the c3ae-d 427/410-4v cam, that is, 306 duration and .298 lobe lift.
So what’s with the .480 net lift cam?
Same thread, RJP notes that c2az-a with .480 net lift, (the initial 406 cam I’d guess) was also the SERVICE cam for the 352HP and 390HP.
I think it’s pretty clear that the c0ae-b was .298 lobe, .500 net, 306 advertised, same as the 427-4v cam, and used on the 352HP and 390HP. So was the c2az-a 406 cam actually DETUNED for 1962 to only .480 net lift with the c2az-a cam? As I noted already, you’d only lose a couple hp if the duration was kept the same (measured the same way!) so it would be a pretty invisible street backfit for service.
So I think the big issue now is, if the c2az-a 406 cam was .480 net lift, was the DURATION (eg at .050 .100 lobe etc) the same or was that detuned as well.
Maybe Dennis will appear and chime in with some vintage Ford engineering info eg specs on the c0ae-b and c2az-a to compare them!
EDIT, just found this thread from May 2007.
070514 thread, well it looks like Dennis already DID chime in, before the Nov-Dec 2008 threads:
https://www.fordfe.com/c2az-6250-a-has-anyone-heard-of-this-cam-t54635.html
“tbolt2:C2AZ-6250-A converts to a C2AE-6250-A.
The specs on a the C2AE-A cam is same as C0AE-B, except induction hardened and oil quenched lobes.
The COAE-B cam is 306/306 deg, cam lift is .298355" x 1.76 ratio = .525" less lash is around .500".
Regards,
Dennis”
OK then where did the .480 net lift come from??? It’s not just in the Steve Christ book, it’s also in Bill Carroll’s FOOOOOORRD book pg 53-54.
-
Here is some more "Cam Mania"!
It appears that Ford made more cams than I had ever imagined, including at least 3 hydraulics, for the 427.
This is out of a book by, Pat Ganahl. First copy right in '79. It includes the cam markings.
-
Frank,
I think those tables started out in Muscle Parts Supplement #1 from 1969. My dad got me one new for $1.
Knowing him he probably got it free, he just brought the whole set home one day in 1974.
I only see 2 "427" hydraulics in there:
c8az-a = the 1968 427/390hp Cougar cam, same grind as late 390GT & 428CJ.
c8ax-c = the "C" cam, 220-230 duration at .050, .289 .289 lobe. Should say 428CJ not 427 though.
Surprisingly, the "C" cam is listed as NHRA Stock Legal for the 428CJ, even though I never heard of this cam or any "X" part in a factory car. Here is the text from the NHRA Blueprint file:
335 428 .008 Dish w/n .080 A 10.25 cc L 2097/1660 481/490 .026 Outer w Damper 10
NOTES:
10-Optional cam, lift = .527/.527
Not only is the "C" cam listed as NHRA Legal for the 428CJ, but note they show the lift as 527. The only way to get that is to mis-type the lobe lift from .289 to .299, giving .527 "or so" lift. The "C" cam was meant to be used with 1.76 adjustables and hard-ring antipump lifters, set to 0 lash for revs, for .509 lift but not .527 lift. Yet another error in the NHRA files - some a lot worse than this. And, like allowing the 428PI intake as Stock Legal on the 390GT, yet another gift. They gave Chevy some gifts too.
What's NOT in this chart is any info on the infamous c0ae-b and c2az-a cams - the solids start with the c3az-d and c3az-aa 427 solids. These charts DO have .100 lobe lift events, so you can darn near extrapolate to get a good guess at .050 events. Warning though, there are errors in this chart too! Doggone Numbers!
-
Werby,
Yes, I noticed a few errors in that info, like the *C4a5 and that some of the lifts, didn't vive. I thought it would be informative since it had C0 & C2 cams and had the cam markings, to help people that have cams on the shelf they might ID with it
The 3rd Hyd cam, is the C8AX -B in my second picture in post #47, though it has no timing with it but, it shows it did exist.
-
Very interesting but complex discussion.. My head is starting to hurt. lol I think we need to make a call out to collect all these various cams and find someone to run them on a Cam Dr. to sort all these numbers out...
-
Frank,
Good stuff!
I cant find any other info on a c8ax-B cam, but here is a link with the same info you posted.
Was it real? What was it? Nobody knows!
http://www.mustangtek.com/Library6/PDF/ShopTips6-5.pdf
BTW that mustangtek area is full of Shop Tips, including 6-7 which details the 428CJ, noting the “production” version had optional 428PI aluminum intake and the c8ax-C cam. My bet is that these were in factory production as 427 Mustangs. NHRA allowed the “C” cam in Stock Class but not the aluminum intake.
Regarding the c2az-a SOLID cam and a possible detune from the .500 net lift of c0ae-b down to .480 net lift (maybe!) for c2az-a:
Ford did have this habit & the chart you posted from Muscle Parts / Ganahl shows it. Consider the 390/340-6v HYDRAULIC Bird:
1962=c2sz-a 286-286 advertised duration, 165-165 at .100 lobe (“about” 200-200 at .050 lobe)
1963=c3sz-a 270-270 advertised duration, 153-153 at .100 lobe (“about” 186-186 at .050 lobe)
The same 390/340hp-6v Bird engine cam got “detuned” from 1962 to 1963.
Did the change from c0ae-b to c2az-a SOLID cam do this same kind of detuning, with a net lift cut from .500 to .480, and maybe a duration cut too?
The info Dennis has posted says no, but with Ford you never know for sure until you measure.
Royce:
Totally agree on measuring whatever cams we can. Pedigree might be a problem.
RJP and I plan to degree his c2az-a in the car as soon as COVID gets out of here. Whenever THAT is.
-
Werby If you can find a cam Dr. and the cams I would step up to provide some of the shipping costs..as far as pedigree.. Do the cams have the Ford part # on them?.. I may have the 63 6v tbird cam around here somewhere..
-
Well It looks like I own a 60 Starliner 352/360 horse.. The engine is coming out next week. It was represented as "gone through". I am going to pull the heads off to see what that really means.. I am going to check the cam and see if I can determine if it is original..After I re-assemble it, I would like to make a trip to the CC dyno and see if it really makes 360 horse..
Side note: The chicken coupe dyno is actually not in a chicken coupe. It resides in a re-purposed milk house, attached to the FE Power research dept and CNC machining center, that was once a dairy barn...
-
Side note: The chicken coupe dyno is actually not in a chicken coupe. It resides in a re-purposed milk house, attached to the FE Power research dept and CNC machining center, that was once a dairy barn...
Although it does have fowl in there every now and then.
-
Although it does have fowl in there every now and then.
Having been there, I can attest to that.
-
I have been looking at this 60 Starliner 352/360 horse car for a few months.. It is a top quality restoration that fell on hard times when the owner dies and it sat in damp storage fr 7 yr.. I did my due diligence on the special parts that make it a 360 horse and everything checks out.. So I bought it. The engine compartment had really taken some hurt from being damp so I pulled the motor for a re-detail. Once it was out and on the stand I pulled off all the accessories and the intake manifold for cleaning... The engine was suppose to have been recently rebuild and the inside was very clean.. All good so far.. I t had occurred to me that since this seemed like a legit 360 horse with recent freshening wouldn't it be fun to run it at the chicken coop dyno and see if it really made 360 horse. In furtherance of that goal I figured I should check to see which cam i had.. First thing to get my attention was the pushrods were a mix of different styles.. never a good sign of a careful builder. A double row timing chain and a cam retainer plate appeared so now we know it's not the original cam. I pull the cam and to my disappointment about 4 lobes are trashed. On the cam itself there are almost no markings so i have no idea what it is..Now we are looking at tear down so I pull the heads. I put one head on the bench and remove a pair of valves...2.09/1.65 Intake is 5.44 stem length exhaust is 5.375 Short valves have lash caps. These are the correct C0 heads for a 352HP.. Now we know it's really been messed with. I go back and look at the block.. Piston is stamped STD on top but looks bigger than 4 " I put a caliper on it and it measures 4.130.. WTF! This is a B9 block cast in Dec. 59. I can only imagine how thin those cylinder walls must be. I measure stroke and sure enough 3.98...So what we have hear is a cheater/sleeper 428 dressed up as a 352. The engine ran and did not leak water. I am not sure what I want to do next...
-
OUCH! That stinks. Sonic check for sure to see if the block can be salvaged. Maybe after the sonic check, do a half fill of the block, and light hone for some modern piston/ring combination, and build it back to look stock. Hopefully you can salvage the real parts for re-sale, or display. Is the car going to be driven, or for car shows? Start looking for another real 352 short block with correct date. They are around. Joe-JDC
-
As I said, when I first got on this forum, it was common to bore early blocks 1/8 and they survived. Sonic testing, wasn't even thought of in the 60's.
Pull a soft plug and drill test it and see what you have if, a 1/4" drill fits tight, you'd have the same as a 4.25 bore, 427 (1/8 walls), w/o core shift. If a 9/32 drill fits, that would be the same as a 4.28 bore, 427 (.110 walls), again, w/o core shift.
But, my guess is that you'll sonic test it? If so, it will be interesting to know the result.
BTW, you didn't say if it also has the 428 dampener.
-
As I said, when I first got on this forum, it was common to bore early blocks 1/8 and they survived. Sonic testing, wasn't even thought of in the 60's.
Pull a soft plug and drill test it and see what you have if, a 1/4" drill fits tight, you'd have the same as a 4.25 bore, 427 (1/8 walls), w/o core shift. If a 9/32 drill fits, that would be the same as a 4.28 bore, 427 (.110 walls), again, w/o core shift.
But, my guess is that you'll sonic test it? If so, it will be interesting to know the result.
BTW, you didn't say if it also has the 428 dampener.
I’m guessing you may have just mis-spoke on the drill bit test, but just so people unfamiliar with the test get accurate info - a 1/4” drill bit (16/64” ) between the cylinders is just a normal 352/360/390/410 FE block. An approximately 12/64”-13/64” drill bit is a possible 428 cylinder core, and a 8/64”-9/64” bit is a 427 cylinder core.
428’s use a neutral balanced dampener, just like other FE’s. The 428 SCJ uses a larger diameter dampener but still neutral balanced. Only the 428 SCJ has the hatchet spacer behind the dampener.
-
Positive news is hipo blocks didn't get markings until late 60/early 61. Any 59-60 352 block will do. If you want to get fancy you can find one with a date code close to the cars manufacture date.
-
427 wall thickness = 4.63 - .125 (space) = 4.505 - 4.264 (.030 over) = .241 / 2 = .1205 wall thickness
352 bored 4.13 = 4.63 - .25 (space) = 4.38 - 4.13 = .25 / 2 = .125 wall thickness
While the corner strengthening for most? of the 427's helps overall block strength, it does nothing for the thrust side of the cylinder wall.
I'm no way saying it's ideal but, it was done in my era and some people on this forum, have bored the 427's to 4.280 (.11205 wall).
As I said, we didn't have sonic testing, in the "Olden Days" but, at times, ignorance can be bliss.
-
Anybody got a 59 352 they want to part with? I am going to invest in a sonic tester.. I have had 390s that would not go 60 over so I am skeptical..
-
Well a 17/64 bit will go between the cylinders 1/4 goes easily...As they say in our local Polish dialect. She's mighty tin that one is hey
-
Ok.... a member has a B9 block for me.. I should be able to easily find a 3.5 crank.. Is there an off the shelf piston rod combination that works without using stock stuff?
-
I not saying its right but the old days they would run the block and never give it a thought the rods would give up before the block.Their was one i know for sure ran a long time as a 406.
-
I really want to build the right 352 for the Starliner.. I will probably keep the 428 around for some lighter duty application
-
Werby if you want this info for your records....
I have done two List 2112 carburetors recently.
List number 2112 C0AE-9510-AA
Type 4160
Primary
Float Side hung
Booster .140 straight
Angle Channel .138
Pump nozzle .025
Pump type and cam white #1
Idle air bleed .072
High speed bleed .028
Metering block# 2995
Main Jet 64
Power valve 6.5
PVCR .040
Emulsion 2@ .028
Kill Bleed na, emulsion feed .026
Idle Feed restriction .026
Venturi size 1 3/32, 1 3/32
Throttle plate size 1.5 107/116
Secondary
Mechanical or Vacuum? vs
Spring color plain, stiff
Diapghram length 2.2
Float side hung
Booster .140 Straight
Idle air bleed .033
High speed bleed .033
Metering block/plate# 10
Idle Feed Restriction .025
Jet size .075
Fairly rich jetting for such a small carb. If I were to stab a guess at jetting for this size carb it'd be 62/67. My guess is that this was designed strictly for a 1/4 mile time, but who knows what they wanted in 1959.
I have black book entry as well as Master Data sheet for this carb.
Drew
-
Could changes in fuel formulation from 1960 to date have an influence on carb. spefications - calibrations?
-
The other carbs of the era were NOT the same.
-
I sure would like to find the guy who put this engine together.. I just measured compression distance..... .170! add the thick .045 FelPro and it's at .215 Some quench.... If it had big chamber heads it could burn kerosene...
-
Are the pistons marked?
-
Anybody able to identify this cam? Those are the only markings I can find..
Piston is at TDC
-
Royce , I have crank & a set of the late 352 Hipo rods with large rod nuts. They can go with the 59 block I pm you about. Mike
-
Cam looks like elgin melling or wolverine all made by melling i think.
-
The .170 deck clearance, is very odd.
If the stroke is 3.984, then the CH would be about 1.52 for 6.488 rods or around 1.47 with the original rods. Ford didn't make anything with those CH nor, can I find any other engine with that kind of CH but, they look like mass produced, cast pistons.
-
Cam looks like elgin melling or wolverine all made by melling i think.
I agree...My 1st thought was Melling. I've run a couple of their cams. One of note is the cam that I have in my Fairlane, 427 M/R, it is a reproduction 324deg/.500" with milder timings.
-
Lobe lift was .300
-
Royce, I have a standard 360 crank if you need it. Nothing special but was in decent shape. Let me know if you don't find local, was too nice to toss but can't think of why I would use it
-
I’ve got a freshly ground 352 crank, Royce, if you need something.
-
I have a 20 yr old Melling catalog for FE's their stock replacement part #'s are SYB-6,8,13, 22 or 23. Only the SYB-6 is mech.
For performance cams, all listed are hyd and they are 5 digit's, all starting with 24, i.e. 24302, their hotest cam and a 24104, also listed as MTF-4. None have a suffix. Also none list a .300 cam lift. .295 x .31 and a .320 for their 24302 cam.
I was surprised that they didn't list any of the Ford FE mech lifter profiles as they did list a SB LeMans cam.
TRW's cams, '78 - '89, have part #'s of TM or TP and 3 digits, no suffix's. TP are performance cams and have several Ford profiles.
Elgin's current catalog #'s have a E prefix and a P suffix, 3 and 4 digit's, in between but, no 1027
-
Werby if you want this info for your records....
I have done two List 2112 carburetors recently.
List number 2112 C0AE-9510-AA
Type 4160
Primary
Main Jet 64
PVCR .040
Secondary
Jet size .075
Fairly rich jetting for such a small carb. If I were to stab a guess at jetting for this size carb it'd be 62/67. My guess is that this was designed strictly for a 1/4 mile time, but who knows what they wanted in 1959.
I have black book entry as well as Master Data sheet for this carb.
Drew
Drew, thanks for all that detail.
I have one but have not got into it yet.
It also looked to me like it was jetted for open headers and then some, so the confirmation with your numbers helps.
Most of the early HiPo Ford packages were jetted rich, but this seems the richest of the bunch.
I remember from my days of running the big 429 Lima Fords, they liked really rich jets - maybe because the intake tract was so huge.
Well, these early 352 ports are just as big as 427 LoRiser ports so maybe it was the same phenom and they like over-rich jets when racing with open pipes.
IIRC Hot Rod mag commented on the 390/401-6v setup that Ford left it jetted the same as their full power runs.
I'd be tempted to drop about 3 sizes all around for street &mufflers use with the iron manifolds.
The carb also seems too small at ~540cfm, I wonder how a 720cfm 427 carb or 735cfm 428CJ carb would do on there.
-
What was Holley's biggest carb in 1960?
-
Maybe the suffix which looks like an M on that cam means mechanical.. Judging by the rest of the parts in there it might be a PAW or some other no name white box unit..
-
I think I found a crank locally but thanks for the offer guys. I have not pulled the pan yet but i can see C3 rods in there.. That piston is a mystery. The top looks like a factory FE piston. nobody else uses a 4.13 bore as standard. I'll measure again with a dial indicator but my caliper says .170 down the hole.. maybe it's a rare tall deck block for export only..
-
What was Holley's biggest carb in 1960?
Near as I can figure:
390cfm = 1957 312/245
450cfm = 1958 383/312
550cfm = 1958 383/330
600cfm = 1958 430/360
So Ford could have gone up to 600cfm for the 352/360hp.
Strangely, the Dec 1960 article on the new 390/375 (600cfm) says NOT to backfit the big 600cfm carb to the 352/360hp. Both seem small to me.
715cfm = 1963 427/410
780cfm = 1965 427/410MR
850cfm = 1967 427/L88 maybe
950cfm = 1968 427TP 3bbl maybe
1050cfm = 1969 429 Boss Dominator maybe
Just guessing on those last few.
-
Could be Ford knew that the 360 HP rods & valve springs wouldn't play nice with a larger carb.
-
May be the pistons are 428 industrial.
-
Werby, your list misses a few factory ringers like the -DT and -BF List 2953
I agree tho, if given the task of carbureting the 352HP, I’d be starting with the 715.
-
Isn't there a big Autolite in there for the 58 430.. Did the 60 430 use an AFB?
-
If memory serves me correct, the couple of intake I have looked at, the holes were smaller than the butterflies of the 600 cfm Holleys, and would be a big hinderance to flow and create turbulence. The throttle blades would not open properly? I have a very old Holley here that I will look at tomorrow and see if I can identify the year/vehicle/throttle blades sizes. Joe-JDC
-
I am told that the largest 4100 Autolite carb. came on the high torque '58 Merc. 383 at 669 cfb with a 1.10 venturi.
-
They made the the 4100 as large as 674 cfm and a 1.19 venturi.
http://mustangtek.com/carburetors/FordCarburetors.htm
From my 1960 Ford Shop Manual, it looks like all the 300 hp, 4v's, that year were 4100's. My manual doesn't have the 360 hp engine in it.
-
If memory serves me correct, the couple of intake I have looked at, the holes were smaller than the butterflies of the 600 cfm Holleys, and would be a big hinderance to flow and create turbulence. The throttle blades would not open properly? I have a very old Holley here that I will look at tomorrow and see if I can identify the year/vehicle/throttle blades sizes. Joe-JDC
With early iron intakes the throttle bores are indeed smaller than carb's throttle plates and most likely create transition turbulence. Early intakes [EDC?] also have what appears to be a pretty swoopy looking runner system with a plenum [and runners] similar to the later high performance aluminum manifolds. In the early 70s with one of these manifolds I scribed and bored the 4 throttle bores out to 2.125" each on a radial drill press and ran a 715 Holley. The setup worked great, no interference with throttle blades, no bore restrictions and the manifold/carb setup would pull hard to about 5400-5500 on a mildly built 390 with a 406 solid lifter cam. Only drawback to that manifold was the weight. Performance was on par with most FoMoCo aluminum manifolds I've used.
-
The Holley I have is a R-4548, which is listed as '61-67 352-428 carb in the Holley reference manual. Joe-JDC
-
The Holley I have is a R-4548, which is listed as '61-67 352-428 carb in the Holley reference manual. Joe-JDC
My old Colt Industries book shows that carb as a service replacement for 302-390-428 and 429 and judging by pri. jetting [22R-40-57] and a #30 sec. plate with .064" main/.029" idle] it would seem to be about a 450 cfm carb at best.
-
Isn't there a big Autolite in there for the 58 430.. Did the 60 430 use an AFB?
Not that I'm aware of; but I am aware of the Holley's appearing on the '58 Mercury's with the M.E.L. 383's, and 430's (LIST: 1405A & 1740A, Ford #EDJ-9510-A & #5750897) but except for some early photos of say perhaps pre-production '60 430 installations they seem to have all received the Carter's? There is a Holley "List" number 1850A and a FOMOCO stamped number Holley, which based on literature supposedly was intended for the 430 in '59 & '60, and actually quite commonly encountered in the used market, but I haven't found them on any "proper" 430 M.E.L. cars? ???
But maybe I just didn't get the memo? ::)
Scott.
-
I have a 1850 with the 6 digit FoMoCo part number somewhere. When I get into the shop today or tomorrow I'll find it and post the actual numbers. The Colt book has this as a 1958-61LIncoln 430, 1958-59 Merc. 430 and 59-61 T-bird 430.
-
I have a 1850 with the 6 digit FoMoCo part number somewhere. When I get into the shop today or tomorrow I'll find it and post the actual numbers. The Colt book has this as a 1958-61LIncoln 430, 1958-59 Merc. 430 and 59-61 T-bird 430.
If it’s a List 1850 it’s probably this one with the 7 digit “boxcar” number.
(https://i.postimg.cc/kMwC8X50/3402-E17-C-5-EF6-4-B35-A525-6-B9-DEC979352.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/xqkBVQM5)
-
If it’s a List 1850 it’s probably this one with the 7 digit “boxcar” number.
(https://i.postimg.cc/kMwC8X50/3402-E17-C-5-EF6-4-B35-A525-6-B9-DEC979352.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/xqkBVQM5)
Yep, #5752426, that's the number I didn't remember. :)
Scott.
-
Yep, just checked my carb, same FoMoCo number as yours....I never heard it referred to as a "Boxcar" number. New to me. Date code on my carb is 183.
-
Werby, your list misses a few factory ringers like the -DT and -BF List 2953
I agree tho, if given the task of carbureting the 352HP, I’d be starting with the 715.
C4AF-DT yes I looked in my table, have that down aa 850cfm.
Was that as early as 1964-1/2, for the NASCAR HiRiser maybe?
I'm also showing 780cfm (up from 715cfm) for the late 63 and 64 427 LoRisers, does that sound right?
I do remember our 58 Merc 430 Bulldozer came with a 600cfm Holley 1850 - don't recall if it was a "boxcar" number or EDC or what. I still have one of those Boxcar 1850 carbs though, the best running 600 Holley I've got.
-
They made the the 4100 as large as 674 cfm and a 1.19 venturi.
http://mustangtek.com/carburetors/FordCarburetors.htm
From my 1960 Ford Shop Manual, it looks like all the 300 hp, 4v's, that year were 4100's. My manual doesn't have the 360 hp engine in it.
I think there's some "Grade Inflation" in those 4100 CFM numbers. IIRC Pony started doing that. If you rate the carb at 2.0" Hg or 2.2" Hg instead of the more common 1.5" Hg, then they're about right.
Bob Sprowl flowed some 4100s a while back - dry flow, not wet. He got
1.08 = 440-450cfm at 1.5" Hg dry
1.12 = 500-520cfm at 1.5" Hg dry
I use
1.08 = 440cfm wet
1.12 = 500cfm wet
1.19 = 553cfm wet
I do show the big 1.19 4100 as only used on the HiTorq 1958 383/330 Merc, which came with either the ~550cfm 1.19 Autolite 4100 or a 550cfm Holley, so the 2 sizes jive.
Given that sizing in 1958 for the low-revving MEL (550cfm for 330hp, 600cfm for 360hp rated), you'd think the 352/360hp would have earned the 600cfm version. Maybe they just didn't want to embarrass the 348 Chev too badly. Or the funny looking ram-induction Mopars.
-
That does make since, based on their venturi size. Also, based on the venturi size, the 4100 seems to flow a bit better than the Holley.
-
If someone has a 4100 that is in good shape, I would be happy to test it against the stock Holley
-
C4AF-DT yes I looked in my table, have that down aa 850cfm.
Was that as early as 1964-1/2, for the NASCAR HiRiser maybe?
I'm also showing 780cfm (up from 715cfm) for the late 63 and 64 427 LoRisers, does that sound right?
The DT and BF I have heard from trusted folks that bought Sohc's new and they had those carbs on them. Of course it's been 50-60years, so who knows. Either way, they never came on a production car, sounds a lot like factory ringers.
62: 2652 550cfm
63: 2652-1 550cfm
Late 63+ 2804/2805 600cfm
65+ for MR 715's BC/BD 3300/3001
BU/BT's were 780 as were a handful of others. Lotsa other random ones like List 2919 showed up for whatever reason. 3255 and 3255-1 were really hugely different as well, seems like they made a bunch for some specific purpose but they were never widespread. I've got all this filed, or at least what I've seen so far, as lotsa Ford carbs pass through here.
-
Royce, I'm got two 1.12 and maybe a 1.08 but, no 1.19. Let me check them out and I'll get back to you.
-
The date code on my Boxcar 1850S is 453.
3-digit date code is
Year
Month (A=Nov B=Dec)
Week
So mine is 1964 May 3rd week
922 = 1959 Feb 2nd week
183 = 1961 Aug 3rd week
Looks like they made a lot of these Boxcar 1850s. No wonder if they all run like mine, fastest 600 Holley I have., in fact, the fastest 500-600cfm ANYTHING I have.
I do have a 352/360hp carb, have not run it yet at all let alone in a Shootout.
Need the right engine & the right time.
I have done lots of carb shootouts on the GTECH.
Most recent was on a 285hp 390, basically a bone stock 390/300 build.
Shakira, my best 735 Holley, won but barely
Snooky, my best 500cfm Autolite 1.12, was 2nd.
An un-named c4af-r 500 Autolite 1.12 came in a very slow 3rd until I swapped boosters, then a very close 3rd.
I didn't have time to run my Boxcar 1850 in that shootout but pretty sure it would have won.
The car sure didn't need that whole 735cfm, so the fact that the big Holley won tells me that the Autolite 4100, even my best one, is just maybe 1% shy of being the equal of a downleg Holley, but will not outrun it.
CFM for CFM, the Autolite 4100 will outrun the Carterbrock AFB, making about 3% more apparent power when run on the clock. My best Autolite 4100 will make about 1% more power, cfm for cfm, than my best Autolite 4300, but most Autolite 4300s are "just ok", like about the equal of a Carter AFB. However, I do find that carbs are all over the map. Drew probably knows why but sometimes I cant sort it out. Some are down as much as 10% on power (derived from the GTECH), and the 4100s show a particularly high spread. Even the Holleys can show maybe a 3% spread between a "just ok" Holley and my best ones.
When my carbs win a Shootout they get names, like Shakira, Freckman, Snooky, Tia, Tamera, Fiona, and Melinda or MEL for short (the 430 carb). The others run "Good" but not "great".
I wish there was an easier way to clean boosters. A curse upon whomever pushed putting water (ethanol) in our pump gas.
-
I would say that is a excellent showing for a 1.12, 4100, since it's down 275 cfm and 100 cfm to the 1850, even if the 1850 would have won.
It also shows the the 4100 is a extremely efficient since the total venturi area is 3.94 sq in vs the 1850's 5.16. That's 126.77 cfm per sq in for the 4100 and 116.72 for the 1850. Both with 1 9/16' throttles. Not only that but, they are much lighter.
The boosters are huge on the 4100 and looking down the bore, it looks like they would restrict flow but, they must give better atomization and higher velocity flow?
They were/are looked down on but, I have heard, over the years, that they give better mileage than the Holleys.
-
I typically have 40-60 of the first 1850’s in here. 58-65 is the year range I’ve seen.
Nice units. Even the -1 is worth running over any modern 600.
-
I've got a 1.19. It was OK but I've moved and it will take be a day or two to find it.
-
Bob You want to sell or loan it.. If you just want to loan I will give it a good tune up..
-
Send me a message with your address and I get it to you as a loan until your done with it.
-
My friend Rick Martin dug out a cam he was sure came out of a 61 HiPo 390 Do the casting numbers help identify it?
number on it is XBA backwards and fomoco ,lift is about 470 before lash
-
Can somebody direct me to a site that lists all the parts that would come on the 360/352 that would be different than the standard 352.
I don't know of any site that lists the differences,but the old Hot Rod article was fairly accurate,a buddy of mine had a 60 sunliner 360 horse car that he bought from the 2nd owner that had owned it since 1962 he had been trying to get the car for years,anyway,when we disassembled the original motor we compared what we took off to another 1960 352 engine he had and to what the article said,and found that the oil pan,oil pump and pickup tube were different,also the harmonic balancer,the camshaft,lifters ,pushrods,rocker arms,cylinder heads,intake and exhaust manifolds,distributor,fuel pump,timing cover,and starter were all different.While the generator itself appeared to be the same as the standard engine the pulley was the large diameter hi po pulley as used on the later 390HP,406 and 427.The starter looked the same as the standard but the cable stud was clocked at a different position which was actually done by the drive end plate.The block had a B9AE casting number and we could find nothing unique about it except that oil pump passage seemed to be opened up a little but we weren't sure if it was factory.The crankshaft didn't seem to have any special attributes and the connecting rods were even the narrow beam rods,but we had heard the change to the wide beam rods was a mid year change and his car was pretty early.The oil pan had different baffles in it and while the main sump was the same depth as standard the slanted area behind it was a little deeper,the oil pump didn't have the extended relief valve passage like the later hi po pumps but it did have slightly bigger inlet and outlet holes than a standard pump.The timing cover looked similar to the earlier stamped steel timing covers but had a timing pointer to match the heavier harmonic balancer.The lifters, pushrods,and rocker assemblies all appeared to be the same as the 58 dumbell lifter pieces,and the fuel pump was the AC type with the remote mount cannister fuel filter.It also used a 6 blade fixed cooling fan similar to those used on the later Hi po's.From what I understand there were running changes thru the model year but this is what we observed on his car.He was able to document his car by being fortunate enough to find the build sheet behind one of the door panels.It had all the externally visible clues of a hi po car,3/8 fuel line,different starter cable routing,big brakes,big bearing 9 inch,shorty cast headers complete with original exhaust with muffler shop installed lakes plugs so we were fairly certain it was a real Hi po and then he found the build sheet and clinched it.
-
Does anyone know if the fuel line routing was changed for the 3/8 hipo application?
-
Fuel line looks the same. I held a 5/16" and 3/8" side by side, no difference, just size.
-
Does anyone know if the fuel line routing was changed for the 3/8 hipo application?
The previous response is spot on same routing,and while swapping to a larger preformed line is a piece of cake while the body is off frame,it is much more difficult with body on frame,it entails removing the driver side body mount bolts and loosening the passenger side bolts and jacking up the driver side of the body since it crosses over the frame rail twice.
-
360HP 352 that was very competitive in the PNW back in the early '60s
-
Where is that "Like" button :)
-
Great thread guys! I haven't been around in awhile but I really enjoyed this thread! Keep up the 352-360 & 390-375/401 talk!! We will be building a 390-330 this winter and a 390-375 after that....
-
I went to Dad's and dug around and found what we believe to be an original 352-360 camshaft. If someone is putting together a group of camshafts for the Cam Doctor we would be more than willing to send it to be checked. Just let me know and we will send it your way.
-
Jody, I'd be interested in the results of that, so we can purchase the proper cam for our Starliner project.
-
I believe earlier in this thread Werby or Royce were considering doing this. Hopefully they will answer up. I may also be able to dig up an original 1961 390-375/401 camshaft. Neither are for sale but we could loan them out as long as they are returned.
-
Would you be willing to share the markings on the cams?
-
I got my hands on a 61 390 375 cam that I sent for a Cam Dr exam.. Werby is the expert on this but the consensus seems to be the 352/360 and the 390/375 are the same cam?
-
Would you be willing to share the markings on the cams?
The 352-360 has C0AE on the end with orange paint between the front lobes. We haven't dug out the 390-375 yet. I've always thought the two cams were the same but I have seen it also questioned.
-
No paint and no numbers on the one I have Just XBA cast into it..
-
Would you be willing to share the markings on the cams?
The 352-360 has C0AE on the end with orange paint between the front lobes. We haven't dug out the 390-375 yet. I've always thought the two cams were the same but I have seen it also questioned.
One thing you can do quickly before cam doctor is just measure the lobe lifts with a 1.5" mic.
I do this on all cams, all 16 lobes, then (years) later you can compare the wear on each lobe.
The main controversy on the early cams is that some places list a .480 net lift, which would make this cam different from the 427 cam's .500 net lift.
Other than that the known "advertised" durations are all the same, just measured differently. Some places say 306-306 advertised, others 274-274 advertised. Of course .050 is not published anywhere so a full measurement would be good to get the history right.
-
The motor in this 352/360 Starliner I purchased was allegedly "freshly rebuilt". It was stuck from sitting but broke free pretty easily and started right up. The engine needed to be re-detailed so I pulled it.. While out i thought i would check the heads and see what cam was in it as well.. I got me a genuine Frankenstein FE here.
C0AE D heads but set up with CJ valves. Springs seem like stock 352
B9 block bored to 4.13. At least 1 cylinder is .060 in spots.
Cheap Cast replacement standard bore 428 piston with a compression hght of 1.66
C3ae C rods with 13/32 nuts
Cam had no identifying marks It's not Ford It has 3 lobes ground off. about .500 lift on a good lobe. Shop converted the block for cam retainer plate.
crank is 2UA.. with a couple slugs of Mallory in it. Finished off with a Ford windage tray
Have not pulled the crank yet, but plenty of damage to the rod bearing and crank journals.. I would sure like to meet the shop that screwed this thing together. (Somewhere in the Chicago area) The oil pump screen has a nice coating of RTV "worms" and there is a very thick layer moly assembly lube in the bottom of the pan..I bought the car with questions about the motor since it has been sitting and was stuck.. So it's not shocking it had internal issues, but the parts selection is laughable.. I am sure the owner thought he had a real hot FE.. I think he only drove it a few times before he died.. Another 100 miles and it would have self destructed .
-
Would you be willing to share the markings on the cams?
The 352-360 has C0AE on the end with orange paint between the front lobes. We haven't dug out the 390-375 yet. I've always thought the two cams were the same but I have seen it also questioned.
One thing you can do quickly before cam doctor is just measure the lobe lifts with a 1.5" mic.
I do this on all cams, all 16 lobes, then (years) later you can compare the wear on each lobe.
The main controversy on the early cams is that some places list a .480 net lift, which would make this cam different from the 427 cam's .500 net lift.
Other than that the known "advertised" durations are all the same, just measured differently. Some places say 306-306 advertised, others 274-274 advertised. Of course .050 is not published anywhere so a full measurement would be good to get the history right.
Where is the XBA? I will take a look and see if I missed that.
-
It typically will be between the last lobe and the last journal.