360 V8

TheSnoMan snipped-for-privacy@snoman.com wrote in news:qFW0f.10618$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

it is possable. I don`t know the reasons but it deff. happened. KB

What you say may be true, but it wasn't limited to the 360. Every 390 I've ever owned(3), needed valve guides by 50,000 miles. And with two of them, I had to keep a case of oil in the trunk because consumption was so high. Those were the good old days:-)

Dave

Totally different engine. The 351C, 351M, and 400 were siblings.

If your comment was about high fuel consumption in those days, you're very correct though. They de-cammed and de-timed everything to meet emissions standards. My understanding is that many of those old gas hogs are quite potent if properly built.

CJB

Now lets add the 302 also. Any car or truck pre unleaded gas did not have very many hardened parts in them. Values and guides where two items that the first thing I do in any pre unleaded gas engine is replace with hardened parts. Cylinder wear was also very poor on these engine

airy wrote:

I've never heard of anyone replacing valve guides with "hardened parts". Pre-unleaded or otherwise. Guides are intentionally softer material, so that they wear instead of the valve stems. And the problem with the valves was with the seats, not the valves. BTW, the 302 came with the hardened seats and no upgrading for unleaded was necessary.

Dave

Refresh my memory, or set it straight :)

Wasn't the tetra ethyl lead > Now lets add the 302 also. Any car or truck pre unleaded gas did not

Yes maybe the guides are a little softer but the 302's etc out of the

60's were just cast iron and really wore fast in comparison to the modern engines were the guides are a lot harder.

Yes I forgot about the seats but the valves were also a problem and a better harder valve was used in the newer unleaded engines.

False the 302 of the 1960's did not come with hardened seats but just the casting machined like a lot of the engines of that time did. Also the valves were very softer. A lot of 302's actually broke a lot of heads off of valves do to the softer valve.

Hairy wrote:

Speaking of "my dad had" ; his 67 F100 Camper Special 390 would pull down about 16 mpg on the hiway at 60-75 if the topper was on. W/o the topper; it was about 12-14 mpg. That 73 LTD 400 definitely showed the screwball smog mods problem; Dad's 71 of same would sometimes hit 20 mpg hiway. It would *always* get at least 16 mpg. It didn't get much city miles...

Unfortunately; both were traded in for less worthy vehicles..

They also were made before massive changes in engine emissons laws took effect in 73 greatly reducing power and MPG. We had a 68 Bonneville he bought new with a 400 4bbl and over 10 to 1 compression and had to have premium to run. He drove it 160k miles in a about 5 years (it was replaced by ford) and it sometime got as high as 17 MPG and trips and that car "got with the program" if you put your foot in it. Before that he had a 66 Caprice 4dr with a 350 HP 396 (dual exhasuts were standard) with a "perfomance" 3.31 posi as I recall and that car was "scarey" and had more power that a family car should have. Never was too good on gas but it was a blast to drive and would regularly get rubber from 1st to 2nd WOT shifting automatically. I would love to have that car restored and in the garage today.

First "new" truck I ever had was a 1966 Ford 1/2 ton , red, it was called a "Daytona Special" by the Ford dealers.

It had a radio, and white sun visors and arm rests on the door. Rubber floor mat.

Had the 360 engine and a three speed on the column, and your right what a gas hog! mine only got 10 miles per gal.

sold that gas sucker after only a year........ in retaliation bought a Volkswagen beetle. By the way, I remember

that the TOTAL price was $1694.00 and I negotiated free undercoating!

And the 24 guage steel still rusted out, right? [:^)

Never had a 360, but as someone mentioned before, the same block was used in a couple of other emgines. I had a 66 f-!50 that had the 352 2bbl 3 on the tree and oil bath breather, (what a pain in the a**). I was lucky to get over 10 mpg. I have had 2 77's, one a F-150, the other a F-250 both 4X4 with the 351 modified. They both got better mileage than the 352. And the 352 was sluggish on take off, and if you pushed it to the floor when going down the highway, about the only thing that moved was the gas gauge. I now have a 88 F-150 4.9 6 cyl with the 4 speed, granny low that gets no more than 15 mpg. You would think a 6 cyl stick would get better than 15 mpg. I know a guy with a Suburban and 350 that gets the same mileage...go figure

The best engine I ever had for gas mileage and overall good preformance was the Ford 351 why I am not sure. Every 302 I had was around 15 to 17 MPG but the old 351 got up to 22 MPG Have a 460 in a F-250 now and it is getting around 12 MPG with or without a load. I also have a 429 that I have gotten 17 MPG with but I have a problem with putting my foot into it so usually end up with around 13.5 MPG.

Just a few comments.

David Coleman wrote:

I see that response to the 300 quite a bit. It's knee-jerk to assume that because it's a six that it gets good milage. Too many guys buy a truck with a 300 thinking they'll get the milage of a Toyota then get disapointed. You have to keep in mind that it might be a six, but it's a BIG six, bigger than a lot of V-8s. And it's one torqey, (I know, no such word. ;) ), workhorse in a full size pickup. 15-17 out of it really isn't bad considering.

My 1980 300 I6 gets 15 highway pulling a trailer (2500 lbs). It gets

18-19 otherwise.

I had a 351 in a 69 f100 that did 15 mpg empty on its best day. Usually 12 mpg.

55 Ford 272 about 18mpg highway. No power anything. Wish I still had that truck.