360 V8

I do not know what it was about those old 360's because I was around then when they were new but while the engine ran well they all used fuel like thay had holes in the tank. In the first early 70's Honeywell Corp bought a big fleet of Ford work trucks (1000's) power by 360's, within 2 years to had dumped them all because of fuel consumption (they normally kept trucks a lot longer)

-----------------

TheSnoMan snipped-for-privacy@snoman.com wrote in news:p0m0f.8135$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

the 360s weren`t necessarly gas hogs as they were gutless wonders after the first 2 years. (69 and 70 if I remember correctly) The dist were all curved way too slow which contributed to no power and no milage. the 360 were known to have soft blocks that wore to a taper in short time. valve guides also wore quickly. a 390 is always a better choice even if the defects were corrected as power was better and milage no worse. KB

My father inlaw farmed and he bought a 76 ford new 2wd with a 360 in it and it ran okay power wise but it drank fuel big time. A few years later a friend bought a Ford 4x4 with a 351 and a super cab and it was easier on fuel (in the same general use) than the 360 one was. He only kept it for a few years before replacing it with a non Ford 4x4 that used less fuel and had more power too.

Your was a rare exception, not the rule as I have seen ones that did about half those numbers in MPG. 360 Dodges were not much better either.

-----------------

JR snipped-for-privacy@spamlessverizon.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@spamlessverizon.net:

holy cow were you lucky. most 360s got in the 12 to 13 range on the road and worse in town. KB

"I use Amsoil products. " As an enema no doubt.

Nuts to that stuff about the soft block for the 360 vs the 390, they used the _exact same_ block in both the 360 and 390, even had the same casting numbers. The only difference between the two is the rods and the crank. Easy upgrade to make a 390 out of a 360. Both are good, strong, reliable engine, just not very good on fuel. Most people I've seen so far report about 11 to 15 MPG.

You won't see any milage difference between a 360 vs 390. A 302 will get you better mpg, but you can't expect it to pull anything more than the truck itself. The 302 never should have been offered in the pickup, IMHO.

Just my 2 coppers, don't mean to start a flame war with the 302 fans.

.......and the 352!

Spdloader

The 360 was not a bad motor mechanically, just a very thirsty one.

-----------------

My father bought new a 70 model F250 2wd auto with the 360. It had no real power. After about a year we put a Holly 4 barrel on it with cap discharge ingn and duel exhaust. After that you could putch it with the cab over camper on it and it would get up and jump.

dave

snipped-for-privacy@domain.invalid wrote: > Yes and I expect even use more gas >

No doubt about that

-----------------

TheSnoMan snipped-for-privacy@snoman.com wrote in news:3bQ0f.10461$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

yea well I was wrenching in a ford dealership then and we had WAY more

360 eng problems than any other FE. expecially tapered cyl and valve guides wearing out prematurely. KB

You do know that a very high fuel consumption for the amount of power it produces can lead to more wear due to air/fuel mixture washing lube off of cylinder walls and guides. It could happen.

Back in the day any 360 equipped truck seemed also have pretty tall gearing for pulling. My brother's got 10 MPG towing beyong max reccomendations or compleately empty.

bradtx

Actually we found that it got better mileage than before, but I can't remember what the before and after was. We later had a 78 model F350 with the 460 and stock 4 barrel and the 360 did get better mileage.