Mopar 360 vs Ford 360

-
dibbons

dibbons

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
5,742
Reaction score
3,822
Location
La Paz, B.C.S., Mexico
I just read about a Ford Truck V-8 motor produced in the '70's that had almost identical bore and stroke to the Mopar 360. I wonder if there are any road tests, performance builds, or dyno runs comparing the two motors? Might be interesting to find out.
 
I had a 360 in 1/2 ton long bed Ford. Was realtively gutless and drank fuel like crazy (bad gearing didn't help). I'd still own one if it was a running vehicle, but I'd never build one. Ford has to many other better choices..
 
I had a 1969 ford truck with a 360 4-speed and I think 4.10 gears, it was ok for a truck.
Pulled good, was decent on fuel.
Picked it up for $100 because a friend said his brother dropped the wing nut down the carb, and they pulled the intake off.
Took a chance on it, never found the wing nut, but it ran fine when I put it back together, ran it for a daily driver.
 
dibbons said:
I just read about a Ford Truck V-8 motor produced in the '70's that had almost identical bore and stroke to the Mopar 360. I wonder if there are any road tests, performance builds, or dyno runs comparing the two motors? Might be interesting to find out.
Click to expand...
Really! I had no idea. I’m not a Ford guy.
oldkimmer said:
Ford 360s were dogs and junkers. Kim
Click to expand...
And at one time they all called the MoPar 360 a POs smogger not worth the salt in tears to build.
 
Now, if u put a 390 crank into it u have a 390 with 10.0 or better compression. Makes a motor out of it. Not that 390s were that great either. Kim
 
my brother in law had a 75 F150 SWB 4sp that he bought new... only had around 60k when I drove it. I thought his motor was shot ! It was the biggest dog I ever drove !

I have read that ford would retard their cams for low end grunt and emissions and that if you were to degree the cam and advance it then coreect the timing and jetting they would run pretty decent.
 
mbaird said:
my brother in law had a 75 F150 SWB 4sp that he bought new... only had around 60k when I drove it. I thought his motor was shot ! It was the biggest dog I ever drove !

I have read that ford would retard their cams for low end grunt and emissions and that if you were to degree the cam and advance it then coreect the timing and jetting they would run pretty decent.
Click to expand...
Yes, ford had a timing kit witch advanced the cam 8-12 degrees. I just used to move them 1 tooth on the cam gear. Totally more power. Kim
 
rumblefish360 said:
Really! I had no idea. I’m not a Ford guy.

And at one time they all called the MoPar 360 a POs smogger not worth the salt in tears to build.
Click to expand...

That's what my dad always said about the 360 too. It's a shame that it had a bad reputation for so long.
 
My uncle had a 68 F250 with a 360 and 3 on the tree..........it peaked out at about 100mph and it seemed like you could watch the gas gauge fall as you drive it, hauled 2 ton of feed up hill with out a problem.
 
the ford 360 was a big block but a fair truck engine and would start in cold weather with the best of them back then .
 
The 360 was Ford's FE (Ford Edsel) line. They included engines from 332 cubic inches to the 428. If they were such pieces of ****, Ford certainly had enough time to find that out, since they were made from 1958 to 1976 and put in just about everything Ford, Lincoln and Mercury ever made. The 360 was exactly what it was made for. A truck engine with bottom end torque right off idle. If one you had was a piece of ****, then something was wrong with it. None of them were made for fuel economy. Comparing the Mopar and Ford 360s is pretty pointless since the two engines are totally different in intended purposes. Since the Ford 360 never came with a four barrel carburetor, it got the same respect as the 351M and 400 Ford engines.......none. For those familiar with what those engines can do in good tune, it's no surprise that they were some of the best engines Ford made.
 
360 FEs were slaves. Didn't make enough HP to hurt themselves, run forever. Throw some fresh oil at them once in a while and LOTS of 87 octane at them an they were happy. The 360 crank in the 428 block was sposed to be a real runner. 428s had the biggest bore of all the FEs.
 
mbaird said:
my brother in law had a 75 F150 SWB 4sp that he bought new... only had around 60k when I drove it. I thought his motor was shot ! It was the biggest dog I ever drove !

I have read that ford would retard their cams for low end grunt and emissions and that if you were to degree the cam and advance it then coreect the timing and jetting they would run pretty decent.
Click to expand...

that makes no sense. retarding the cam would move the torque peak up.
 
oliver said:
that makes no sense. retarding the cam would move the torque peak up.
Click to expand...

Ford used retarded camshaft timing for God knows what reason. If you read up on the history of it, some say emissions, some say to reduce cylinder pressure to aid in reducing spark knock. This was certainly true of the spark knock plagued 400 Ford engine. They used the 351C open chamber 2 barrel heads on it. Ford kept trying to reduce the cylinder pressure through dishing the pistons and retarding camshaft timing. Little was known then about quench as compared to now. Had someone had the bright idea to try the 351C 4V closed chamber heads on the 400, that would have solved the problem with quench......and made a 400 monster at the same time. That engine suffered from spark knock issues though, right to its demise in 1982.
 
One thing I know about 360s is that always seem to turn into 390s when the truck is for sale.
 
sr71mopar said:
One thing I know about 360s is that always seem to turn into 390s when the truck is for sale.
Click to expand...

You're right, but the truth is, there is very little difference in the two engines if they are both truck engines and both around the same year. 390 just somehow sounds better.
 
maybe ford retarded their camtiming to match their costumers ?

20180508_080527.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top