Author Topic: 360 horse 352  (Read 5443 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RJP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
    • View Profile
Re: 360 horse 352
« Reply #30 on: September 10, 2020, 12:02:44 PM »
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.

Joe-JDC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Truth stands on its own merit.
    • View Profile
Re: 360 horse 352
« Reply #31 on: September 10, 2020, 03:58:47 PM »
  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
Joe-JDC '70GT-500

wayne

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile

allrightmike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: 360 horse 352
« Reply #33 on: September 10, 2020, 04:37:36 PM »
Looks like Karol Miller invented the first spintron, just imagine what a weapon he could have been had he owned a dyno!!

WerbyFord

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: 360 horse 352
« Reply #34 on: September 10, 2020, 08:32:06 PM »
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.



« Last Edit: September 10, 2020, 08:35:26 PM by WerbyFord »

RJP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
    • View Profile
Re: 360 horse 352
« Reply #35 on: September 10, 2020, 10:29:23 PM »
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. ;)

RJP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
    • View Profile
Re: 360 horse 352
« Reply #36 on: September 10, 2020, 10:49:30 PM »

turbohunter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2158
    • View Profile
Re: 360 horse 352
« Reply #37 on: September 11, 2020, 06:14:56 AM »
Had no idea about Vicki Wood. Thanks for the link.
Marc
'61 F100 292Y
'67 Fairlane
'66 Mustang Injected 428
'66 Q code Country Squire wagon


shady

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 743
    • View Profile
Re: 360 horse 352
« Reply #38 on: September 11, 2020, 07:54:30 AM »
the pic of  her standing with her Fairlane is awesome. It even has the factory mufflers.
What goes fast doesn't go fast long'
What goes fast takes your money with it.
So I'm slow & broke, what went wrong?

wayne

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
Re: 360 horse 352
« Reply #39 on: September 11, 2020, 09:41:32 AM »
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.

wayne

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
Re: 360 horse 352
« Reply #40 on: September 11, 2020, 12:50:14 PM »
WerbyFord can you tell how much hp it would take run 150 in that 60.

Joe-JDC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Truth stands on its own merit.
    • View Profile
Re: 360 horse 352
« Reply #41 on: September 11, 2020, 04:46:42 PM »
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
« Last Edit: September 11, 2020, 04:48:41 PM by Joe-JDC »
Joe-JDC '70GT-500

allrightmike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: 360 horse 352
« Reply #42 on: September 11, 2020, 05:56:53 PM »
The Carol Miller-Singer dragster won top eliminator NHRA nationals with a supercharged Lincoln engine.

RJP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
    • View Profile
Re: 360 horse 352
« Reply #43 on: September 11, 2020, 06:46:00 PM »
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.

WerbyFord

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: 360 horse 352
« Reply #44 on: September 11, 2020, 07:33:46 PM »
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)