Ford Forums is the premier Ford Forum on the internet. We discuss all Ford models on the forum. Registered Users do not see the above ads. Please Register - It's Free!
>
> 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.
"ToughOldFord" <55Cadillac@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1128486007.167204.82660@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Kevin Bottorff wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>
ToughOldFord wrote:
> Kevin Bottorff wrote:
>
>
>>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 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
On 4 Oct 2005 21:24:00 -0700, "ToughOldFord" <55Cadillac@charter.net>
wrote:
>
>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?
>
>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.
liteflyer 1 wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
> On 4 Oct 2005 21:24:00 -0700, "ToughOldFord" <55Cadillac@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>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?
>>
>>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.
>
>
>> 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
user@domain.invalid wrote:
> Yes and I expect even use more gas
>
> liteflyer 1 wrote:
>
TheSnoMan <admin@snoman.com> wrote in
news:3bQ0f.10461$q1.4615@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
> ToughOldFord wrote:
>> Kevin Bottorff wrote:
>>
>>
>>>the 360s weren`t necessarly gas hogs as they were gutless wonders
>>>after the first 2 years. (69 and 70 if I remember correctly) The
>>>dist were all curved way too slow which contributed to no power and
>>>no milage. the 360 were known to have soft blocks that wore to a
>>>taper in short time. valve guides also wore quickly. a 390 is
>>>always a better choice even if the defects were corrected as power
>>>was better and milage no worse. KB
>>>
>>>--
>>
>>
>> Nuts to that stuff about the soft block for the 360 vs the 390, they
>> used the _exact same_ block in both the 360 and 390, even had the
>> same casting numbers. The only difference between the two is the rods
>> and the crank. Easy upgrade to make a 390 out of a 360.
>> Both are good, strong, reliable engine, just not very good on fuel.
>> Most people I've seen so far report about 11 to 15 MPG.
>>
>
>
> The 360 was not a bad motor mechanically, just a very thirsty one.
>
> -----------------
> www.thesnoman.com
>
yea well I was wrenching in a ford dealership then and we had WAY more
360 eng problems than any other FE. expecially tapered cyl and valve
guides wearing out prematurely. KB
--
ThunderSnake #9 Warn once, shoot twice
460 in the pkup, 460 on the stand for another pkup
and one in the shed for a fun project to yet be decided on
Kevin Bottorff wrote:
> TheSnoMan <admin@snoman.com> wrote in
> news:3bQ0f.10461$q1.4615@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
>
>>ToughOldFord wrote:
>>
>>>Kevin Bottorff wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>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 360 was not a bad motor mechanically, just a very thirsty one.
>>
>>-----------------
>>www.thesnoman.com
>>
>
>
> 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.
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.
>user@domain.invalid wrote:
> > Yes and I expect even use more gas
> >
> > liteflyer 1 wrote:
> >
>
>No doubt about that
>
>-----------------
>www.thesnoman.com
Linear Mode
