I am looking at a good Ford F350 to put into service with my landscape
company. It has a 360 V8. I've heard they are gas hogs. But, how much of
a gas hog, I'm not sure of. How would that mileage compare to say a 390
V8 in the same size truck? Or how does it compare to a 302 in an F150?
wicked wrote:
> I am looking at a good Ford F350 to put into service with my landscape
> company. It has a 360 V8. I've heard they are gas hogs. But, how much of
> a gas hog, I'm not sure of. How would that mileage compare to say a 390
> V8 in the same size truck? Or how does it compare to a 302 in an F150?
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 <admin@snoman.com> wrote in
news:p0m0f.8135$QE1.5854@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
> wicked wrote:
>> I am looking at a good Ford F350 to put into service with my
>> landscape company. It has a 360 V8. I've heard they are gas hogs.
>> But, how much of a gas hog, I'm not sure of. How would that mileage
>> compare to say a 390 V8 in the same size truck? Or how does it
>> compare to a 302 in an F150?
>
> I do not know what it was about those old 360's because I was around
> then when they were new but while the engine ran well they all used
> fuel like thay had holes in the tank. In the first early 70's
> Honeywell Corp bought a big fleet of Ford work trucks (1000's) power
> by 360's, within 2 years to had dumped them all because of fuel
> consumption (they normally kept trucks a lot longer)
>
>
> -----------------
> www.thesnoman.com
>
the 360s weren`t necessarly gas hogs as they were gutless wonders after
the first 2 years. (69 and 70 if I remember correctly) The dist were all
curved way too slow which contributed to no power and no milage. the 360
were known to have soft blocks that wore to a taper in short time. valve
guides also wore quickly. a 390 is always a better choice even if the
defects were corrected as power was better and milage no worse. KB
--
ThunderSnake #9 Warn once, shoot twice
460 in the pkup, 460 on the stand for another pkup
and one in the shed for a fun project to yet be decided on
Kevin Bottorff wrote:
> TheSnoMan <admin@snoman.com> wrote in
> news:p0m0f.8135$QE1.5854@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
>
>>wicked wrote:
>>
>>>I am looking at a good Ford F350 to put into service with my
>>>landscape company. It has a 360 V8. I've heard they are gas hogs.
>>>But, how much of a gas hog, I'm not sure of. How would that mileage
>>>compare to say a 390 V8 in the same size truck? Or how does it
>>>compare to a 302 in an F150?
>>
>>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)
>>
>>
>>-----------------
>>www.thesnoman.com
>>
>
>
> 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.
The Ford 360 isn't known for good gas mileage, but they have good
torque(pulling powr). I have a F100 1/2 ton, w/360, 2bbl. carb, AT.
Best on hiway I ever got was 17, around town you're looking at 10-12mpg.
wicked wrote:
> I am looking at a good Ford F350 to put into service with my landscape
> company. It has a 360 V8. I've heard they are gas hogs. But, how much of
> a gas hog, I'm not sure of. How would that mileage compare to say a 390
> V8 in the same size truck? Or how does it compare to a 302 in an F150?
JR wrote:
> The Ford 360 isn't known for good gas mileage, but they have good
> torque(pulling powr). I have a F100 1/2 ton, w/360, 2bbl. carb, AT.
> Best on hiway I ever got was 17, around town you're looking at 10-12mpg.
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 <chowrunner@spamlessverizon.net> wrote in
news:434267EF.E2E0B5FD@spamlessverizon.net:
> The Ford 360 isn't known for good gas mileage, but they have good
> torque(pulling powr). I have a F100 1/2 ton, w/360, 2bbl. carb, AT.
> Best on hiway I ever got was 17, around town you're looking at 10-
12mpg.
holy cow were you lucky. most 360s got in the 12 to 13 range on the road
and worse in town. KB
>
> wicked wrote:
>
>> I am looking at a good Ford F350 to put into service with my landscape
>> company. It has a 360 V8. I've heard they are gas hogs. But, how much
of
>> a gas hog, I'm not sure of. How would that mileage compare to say a
390
>> V8 in the same size truck? Or how does it compare to a 302 in an F150?
>
--
ThunderSnake #9 Warn once, shoot twice
460 in the pkup, 460 on the stand for another pkup
and one in the shed for a fun project to yet be decided on
> JR <chowrunner@spamlessverizon.net> wrote in
> news:434267EF.E2E0B5FD@spamlessverizon.net:
>
> > The Ford 360 isn't known for good gas mileage, but they have good
> > torque(pulling powr). I have a F100 1/2 ton, w/360, 2bbl. carb, AT.
> > Best on hiway I ever got was 17, around town you're looking at 10-
> 12mpg.
>
> holy cow were you lucky. most 360s got in the 12 to 13 range on the road
> and worse in town. KB
>
> >
> > wicked wrote:
> >
> >> I am looking at a good Ford F350 to put into service with my landscape
> >> company. It has a 360 V8. I've heard they are gas hogs. But, how much
> of
> >> a gas hog, I'm not sure of. How would that mileage compare to say a
> 390
> >> V8 in the same size truck? Or how does it compare to a 302 in an F150?
> >
>
> --
> ThunderSnake #9 Warn once, shoot twice
> 460 in the pkup, 460 on the stand for another pkup
> and one in the shed for a fun project to yet be decided on
>
> 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
>
> --
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.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Linear Mode
