dyno wish

[Joe-JDC]

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

[blykins]

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.

[frnkeore]

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.

[blykins]

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. 

[My427stang]

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

[plovett]

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! 

[Falcon67]

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. 

[mbrunson427]

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?

[WerbyFord]

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?

[Royce]

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..