460 Budget Build for Fuel Mileage

supervel45 wrote:And I know Christmas is over but, you need this.



https://www.ebay.com/itm/315018044817

If those are the right carbs and there are no issues with any of it, I don't think thats too bad of a price for a complete tunnelwedge setup.

1EFF100 wrote:

supervel45 wrote:This should make it worse.

Look at the torque numbers the 4 Barrel versions put out. Not too shabby. They had good compression also, even the 2 Barrels.

https://www.enginefacts.com/ford352/

One catch is you will need hardened exhaust seats for a daily driver.

Yeah, I'm not so sure those numbers are legit. lol. Although I have read that the early '60s performance versions of it ran pretty strong.

A buddy of mine had a 60 Sunliner real deal 360 horse 352HP car and that thing would rip he ended up selling a few years ago. Back in the 90's I had a 64 Galaxie 500XL 4 dr hardtop that had the 352 4V with a cruiso, it was bone stock and while it wasn't exactly a rip snorter it was by no means a dog either it had enough power to make it enjoyable to drive which I did daily for 3 or 4 years.IIRC seems like it got mid teens mileage driving it back forth to work.Bruce surely you remember Brents project Junky Junk.

1EFF100 wrote:

supervel45 wrote:This should make it worse.

Look at the torque numbers the 4 Barrel versions put out. Not too shabby. They had good compression also, even the 2 Barrels.

https://www.enginefacts.com/ford352/

One catch is you will need hardened exhaust seats for a daily driver.

Yeah, I'm not so sure those numbers are legit. lol. Although I have read that the early '60s performance versions of it ran pretty strong.

^ They look like the same Ford numbers I have seen out there for decades.

The Number I Don't believe is on the 375HP/429SCJ. I suspect it was 50-75HP underrated.

Pretty good writeup on the 352 360HP HiPo Thunderbird Special. It was Ford's first V8 to break 1 HP Per Cubic Inch.

https://www.motortrend.com/features/super-rare-superstar-1960-ford-starliner-360hp-high-performance-v-8/

supervel45 wrote:This should make it worse.

Look at the torque numbers the 4 Barrel versions put out. Not too shabby. They had good compression also, even the 2 Barrels.

https://www.enginefacts.com/ford352/

One catch is you will need hardened exhaust seats for a daily driver.

OR, D2TE heads, which have Induction hardened exhaust seats.

427John wrote:

supervel45 wrote:And I know Christmas is over but, you need this.



https://www.ebay.com/itm/315018044817

If those are the right carbs and there are no issues with any of it, I don't think thats too bad of a price for a complete tunnelwedge setup.

No, It says 1850's in the add.

I saw Holley a 3300 and 3301 on Fakebook market, the small 427 Carbs, asking was 2,200 and they sold pretty quick. No telling what the final price was.

Randy, I thought about the 1972 to 76 360/390 truck heads and hardened seats, are the chambers bigger then the 50's and 60's heads, or is it just different pistons, excluding the 352/360HP Head?

supervel45 wrote:

427John wrote:

supervel45 wrote:And I know Christmas is over but, you need this.



https://www.ebay.com/itm/315018044817

If those are the right carbs and there are no issues with any of it, I don't think thats too bad of a price for a complete tunnelwedge setup.

No, It says 1850's in the add.

I saw Holley a 3300 and 3301 on Fakebook market, the small 427 Carbs, asking was 2,200 and they sold pretty quick. No telling what the final price was.

Randy, I thought about the 1972 to 76 360/390 truck heads and hardened seats, are the chambers bigger then the 50's and 60's heads, or is it just different pistons, excluding the 352/360HP Head?

The D2TE-AA heads are mostly an updated C8AE-H head with the hardened exhaust seats.Same chamber and port sizes which in both cases is a little smaller than the earlier big port heads, they also have the lower exhaust port placement common to all of the later small port heads.

427John wrote:

supervel45 wrote:

427John wrote:

supervel45 wrote:And I know Christmas is over but, you need this.



https://www.ebay.com/itm/315018044817

If those are the right carbs and there are no issues with any of it, I don't think thats too bad of a price for a complete tunnelwedge setup.

No, It says 1850's in the add.

I saw Holley a 3300 and 3301 on Fakebook market, the small 427 Carbs, asking was 2,200 and they sold pretty quick. No telling what the final price was.

Randy, I thought about the 1972 to 76 360/390 truck heads and hardened seats, are the chambers bigger then the 50's and 60's heads, or is it just different pistons, excluding the 352/360HP Head?

The D2TE-AA heads are mostly an updated C8AE-H head with the hardened exhaust seats.Same chamber and port sizes which in both cases is a little smaller than the earlier big port heads, they also have the lower exhaust port placement common to all of the later small port heads.

Can you use any of the early cast factory shorty headers on them, are or they 3 bolt or something?

How are the prices on the factory performance exhaust manifolds now?

rmcomprandy wrote:

1EFF100 wrote:

supervel45 wrote:^ What Dave Said, About the 428.

Or Find a Cheap Throw Down 352 to Play with.

I do have a 352 I could build, but in my research, it seems FEs don't get great mileage regardless of their cubic inch. Of course, like what I'm attempting to do here with a 460, I suppose could be applied to the 352.
Or I could go all-out mileage and build a 302 using the same philosophy, and maybe get 25 or more miles per gallon.
But the torque just won't be there with the smaller engines. Although years ago, I had a '72 Ranchero GT that the previous owner had shoehorned a stock 2V 352 into and it actually felt pretty torquie.

I nave seen great mileage results from a 360FE truck engine with D2TE heads with more compression, using that same grind 208 ELGIN camshaft; Number E-1159-P for an FE. And, an O.E.M. cast iron 4-BRL.intake from a 390.

I can't find that cam anywhere, Randy. I did find a Howards cam that's pretty close. Would it be an acceptable replacement?  https://www.summitracing.com/parts/hrs-250021-11

1EFF100 wrote:

rmcomprandy wrote:

1EFF100 wrote:

supervel45 wrote:^ What Dave Said, About the 428.

Or Find a Cheap Throw Down 352 to Play with.

I do have a 352 I could build, but in my research, it seems FEs don't get great mileage regardless of their cubic inch. Of course, like what I'm attempting to do here with a 460, I suppose could be applied to the 352.
Or I could go all-out mileage and build a 302 using the same philosophy, and maybe get 25 or more miles per gallon.
But the torque just won't be there with the smaller engines. Although years ago, I had a '72 Ranchero GT that the previous owner had shoehorned a stock 2V 352 into and it actually felt pretty torquie.

I nave seen great mileage results from a 360FE truck engine with D2TE heads with more compression, using that same grind 208 ELGIN camshaft; Number E-1159-P for an FE. And, an O.E.M. cast iron 4-BRL.intake from a 390.

I can't find that cam anywhere, Randy. I did find a Howards cam that's pretty close. Would it be an acceptable replacement?  https://www.summitracing.com/parts/hrs-250021-11

Competition Products sells Elgin Cams!!

Neither of these are a 208 at .050". They Fall on Either Side of That. They are 206 and 212 Single Pattern.

Only one shown in to be in Stock, Between the Two Cams

https://www.ebay.com/itm/176052455451

Cheaper on Amazon

https://www.amazon.com/COMP-Cams-33-222-3-Camshaft-260H-10/dp/B000N5OLHK/ref=sr_1_9?crid=1VLPW7IFVQOCJ&keywords=comp+cams+252h-10+390+ford&qid=1704952156&sprefix=compcams+252h-10+390+ford%2Caps%2C89&sr=8-9

^ CompCams 260H-10

Can't Find a CompCams 252H-10 in Stock Anywhere. It is 206/206 at .050".

I'd Rather the 260H10 and get the performance with a small compromise in gas mileage.

What Year is Your 352?

I don't believe the Early Models had a Cam Retaining Plate or They Had Something Different Going on in The Camshaft Department.

PS: You may be waiting awhile for that Out of Stock Howards Cam. Summit is Getting Very Good at Pushing those Expected Dates Forward.

supervel45 wrote:Neither of these are a 208 at .050". They Fall on Either Side of That. They are 206 and 212 Single Pattern.

Only one shown in to be in Stock, Between the Two Cams

https://www.ebay.com/itm/176052455451

Cheaper on Amazon

https://www.amazon.com/COMP-Cams-33-222-3-Camshaft-260H-10/dp/B000N5OLHK/ref=sr_1_9?crid=1VLPW7IFVQOCJ&keywords=comp+cams+252h-10+390+ford&qid=1704952156&sprefix=compcams+252h-10+390+ford%2Caps%2C89&sr=8-9

^ CompCams 260H-10

Can't Find a CompCams 252H-10 in Stock Anywhere. It is 206/206 at .050".

I'd Rather the 260H10 and get the performance with a small compromise in gas mileage.

What Year is Your 352?

I don't believe the Early Models had a Cam Retaining Plate or They Had Something Different Going on in The Camshaft Department.

PS: You may be waiting awhile for that Out of Stock Howards Cam. Summit is Getting Very Good at Pushing those Expected Dates Forward.

I saw those two Comp cams in my Comp Cams catalogue.
My 352 is a 1962 out of my friends old 4 door Monterrey. All you do is pop 2 of the front oil galley plugs out and tap them for the cam retainer plate. Done.
I wasn't necessarily going to order the Howards cam from Summit, it was just easy to link it for the specs.

supervel45 wrote:

427John wrote:

supervel45 wrote:

427John wrote:

supervel45 wrote:And I know Christmas is over but, you need this.



https://www.ebay.com/itm/315018044817

If those are the right carbs and there are no issues with any of it, I don't think thats too bad of a price for a complete tunnelwedge setup.

No, It says 1850's in the add.

I saw Holley a 3300 and 3301 on Fakebook market, the small 427 Carbs, asking was 2,200 and they sold pretty quick. No telling what the final price was.

Randy, I thought about the 1972 to 76 360/390 truck heads and hardened seats, are the chambers bigger then the 50's and 60's heads, or is it just different pistons, excluding the 352/360HP Head?

The D2TE-AA heads are mostly an updated C8AE-H head with the hardened exhaust seats.Same chamber and port sizes which in both cases is a little smaller than the earlier big port heads, they also have the lower exhaust port placement common to all of the later small port heads.

Can you use any of the early cast factory shorty headers on them, are or they 3 bolt or something?

How are the prices on the factory performance exhaust manifolds now?

The cast header manifolds were designed with use with early high exhaust port heads, the bolt pattern is still the same 8 bolt vertical pattern just the port oultlet location was moved lower on the later heads, usually manifolds will seal up on either the early or late heads but it would be good to double check, now headers on the other hand can be problematic getting a good seal. Most pickup truck headers are flanged to mate up to later low port heads, cars apps for a 390GT tend to be low port while 428CJ and earlier Galaxie 352/390HP,406 and 427 should be high port.

Since this thread has kind of derailed towards the FE, what would your opinion be on going with a 410? I have a 1U 428 crank I could throw in the 352 block and bore it to a stock 390 bore. Instant 410.
Would kind of bridge the gap between the 352 and 460. Better economy than the 460 and more torque than the 352, it would seem.
As the old saying goes, have your cake and eat it too? Maybe?

1EFF100 wrote:

rmcomprandy wrote:

1EFF100 wrote:

supervel45 wrote:^ What Dave Said, About the 428.

Or Find a Cheap Throw Down 352 to Play with.

I do have a 352 I could build, but in my research, it seems FEs don't get great mileage regardless of their cubic inch. Of course, like what I'm attempting to do here with a 460, I suppose could be applied to the 352.
Or I could go all-out mileage and build a 302 using the same philosophy, and maybe get 25 or more miles per gallon.
But the torque just won't be there with the smaller engines. Although years ago, I had a '72 Ranchero GT that the previous owner had shoehorned a stock 2V 352 into and it actually felt pretty torquie.

I nave seen great mileage results from a 360FE truck engine with D2TE heads with more compression, using that same grind 208 ELGIN camshaft; Number E-1159-P for an FE. And, an O.E.M. cast iron 4-BRL.intake from a 390.

I can't find that cam anywhere, Randy. I did find a Howards cam that's pretty close. Would it be an acceptable replacement?  https://www.summitracing.com/parts/hrs-250021-11

I buy them directly from ELGIN but, there are other outlets.

There are probably other cams in the marketplace which are pretty close.
However, I will only recommend those which I have actually used.

rmcomprandy wrote:

I buy them directly from ELGIN but, there are other outlets.

There are probably other cams in the marketplace which are pretty close.
However, I will only recommend those which I have actually used.

That Howard's Cam looks to be really close however, it would need to be installed advanced an additional 2/3 degrees from where it is ground.

I have had Bullit special grind one for me to use in a big block Chevy, trailer towing engine which worked very, very well for mileage and part throttle power; it looks to have specs close to that Howard's cam.
Lobe number H272/280 ... it was not inexpensive, though.

272@.006" - 208@.050" - 115@.200" - 110 separation; ground 6 degrees advanced 104 intake center-line - .280" lobe lift.

1EFF100 wrote:Since this thread has kind of derailed towards the FE, what would your opinion be on going with a 410? I have a 1U 428 crank I could throw in the 352 block and bore it to a stock 390 bore. Instant 410.
Would kind of bridge the gap between the 352 and 460. Better economy than the 460 and more torque than the 352, it would seem.
As the old saying goes, have your cake and eat it too? Maybe?

Depends on which one you have the most parts for imo….. economic 101

dfree383 wrote:

1EFF100 wrote:Since this thread has kind of derailed towards the FE, what would your opinion be on going with a 410? I have a 1U 428 crank I could throw in the 352 block and bore it to a stock 390 bore. Instant 410.
Would kind of bridge the gap between the 352 and 460. Better economy than the 460 and more torque than the 352, it would seem.
As the old saying goes, have your cake and eat it too? Maybe?

Depends on which one you have the most parts for imo….. economic 101

It's a draw. I'll be using the same block, just different crank, rods and pistons. The block will need the same machine work regardless.

1EFF100 wrote:Since this thread has kind of derailed towards the FE, what would your opinion be on going with a 410? I have a 1U 428 crank I could throw in the 352 block and bore it to a stock 390 bore. Instant 410.
Would kind of bridge the gap between the 352 and 460. Better economy than the 460 and more torque than the 352, it would seem.
As the old saying goes, have your cake and eat it too? Maybe?

If I wanted gas mileage, I'd skip the 410 and stay 352. We had a 9/1 compression 2 Bbl.  400 Ford in a Galaxie and it did pretty good on gas mileage, 14-16 Highway, with the old real gasoline. On the 400 that was like John was talking about, back when the speed limit was 55. In trucks the 400's always burned more gas then the 351's in my experience.

Just a wild guess, I'd say 12-14MPG on the 352 and 10-12 on the 410 with the new 10%+ Alky gas we have around here now. Maybe a tad more with the manual 4spd. As for the 25 MPG you mentioned with the 302, I don't see it happening. If you got 18-20 with it, that would be an accomplishment in my book.

With all that said, a 410 is a very appealing build.

If you really wanted something different, how about a 383 FE, if it is workable?

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/uem-1129-020/make/ford

I guessed those 4.020" 4 valve relief Flattop pistons at -8cc, or 2cc per valve relief.

With a 390's 3.78" stroke crank and 390 short rods it comes out to 383.82CID and 10.16/1 Compression with a 0 Deck Block, a 69cc Head and a 4.1"(Not Sure on the Correct FE Head Gasket Diameter, Need to Check That) Head Gasket at .041" Thick.

Even if it was Doable, Since you have a 428 Crank the 410 makes more Sense.

Baby Cam, a 2.72 gear and a 31" Tire would be my go to with the 410, and what you have now (28" 3.08) with the 352, Plus the Comp 260H-10 Camshaft, to try and even up the Highway Mileage between the two.

PS: It Looks Like Summit is Trying to get Rid of Those .020" 352 Pistons, as they are Much Cheaper ($269.76) then the .030" and .040" ($419.99) Versions of the same Piston.

The Only Longer V8 Crankshaft I know of, then a 410 or 428's 3.98", in a common Ford V8, is the 400's 4.00" Stroke. They have the lowest rated torque RPM Output, Lower then a 460, at (400CID)-2,200 RPM. The old 429/460's were rated at 2,600 or 2,800 RPM from memory.

I hate to point out the obvious but the 410 will put you back to basically the same engine you have in there now. 80 thousands difference in bore size won't make an appreciable difference in fuel mileage. If you plan to use a different cam and induction to get there you could do the same thing to the 428 and get pretty much the same results.

427John wrote:I hate to point out the obvious but the 410 will put you back to basically the same engine you have in there now. 80 thousands difference in bore size won't make an appreciable difference in fuel mileage. If you plan to use a different cam and induction to get there you could do the same thing to the 428 and get pretty much the same results.

John, will a 1.816" Compression Height Piston work with a 390 Crank and Rods, or will they come past the Deck of a stock block 352?

They have a nice 9.48/1 Compression on a .000 Deck 352, Stock 3.5" stroke, at least.

OP is the 352 Apart, and if so how much ridge if any? Could it just be Re-Ringed?

427John wrote:I hate to point out the obvious but the 410 will put you back to basically the same engine you have in there now. 80 thousands difference in bore size won't make an appreciable difference in fuel mileage. If you plan to use a different cam and induction to get there you could do the same thing to the 428 and get pretty much the same results.

Yes, I realize that John, but the 428 is tentatively sold. I'd like to run the small port D2TE heads as well not the ported C6AE-Rs on the 428.
I'd just as soon start from scratch on a different engine and build it specifically for the mileage purpose. And honestly, the 428 runs so good how it is, I just don't want to mess with it.

supervel45 wrote:

427John wrote:I hate to point out the obvious but the 410 will put you back to basically the same engine you have in there now. 80 thousands difference in bore size won't make an appreciable difference in fuel mileage. If you plan to use a different cam and induction to get there you could do the same thing to the 428 and get pretty much the same results.

John, will a 1.816" Compression Height Piston work with a 390 Crank and Rods, or will they come past the Deck of a stock block 352?

They have a nice 9.48/1 Compression on a .000 Deck 352, Stock 3.5" stroke, at least.

OP is the 352 Apart, and if so how much ridge if any? Could it just be Re-Ringed?

Since they are .040-.050 taller than 390 pistons my guess is they will stand proud but close enough that you can mill the tops to zero. Or possibly run a very thick head gasket.

427John wrote:

supervel45 wrote:

427John wrote:I hate to point out the obvious but the 410 will put you back to basically the same engine you have in there now. 80 thousands difference in bore size won't make an appreciable difference in fuel mileage. If you plan to use a different cam and induction to get there you could do the same thing to the 428 and get pretty much the same results.

John, will a 1.816" Compression Height Piston work with a 390 Crank and Rods, or will they come past the Deck of a stock block 352?

They have a nice 9.48/1 Compression on a .000 Deck 352, Stock 3.5" stroke, at least.

OP is the 352 Apart, and if so how much ridge if any? Could it just be Re-Ringed?

Since they are .040-.050 taller than 390 pistons my guess is they will stand proud but close enough that you can mill the tops to zero. Or possibly run a very thick head gasket.

Not sure on that. Going by the Google Numbers too.

http://www.wallaceracing.com/rod-length-calc.php#google_vignette

http://www.wallaceracing.com/Calc-Deck-Height-rod-length-new.php

Deck 10.17"
Compression Height 1.816"
Deck Clearance .000

Rod Lenght  Comes Out To 6.4340"

They may be 332 Pistons? They Compute with a 6.540" Rod and a 3.3" Stroke Pretty Good

https://uempistons.com/product/1962/Silvolite-Piston-Set-1129.STD

^ They Claim 352 5.8L on Their Website. I Sure Can't make them work with the 352 Numbers I have.

Probably Doing it Wrong, I Hope.

This Spec. Table in the Link Below, Shows the 352 CH at 1.836-1.842  VVV

https://www.mercurystuff.com/fe-engine-specs.html

Also The SilvOLite Flat Top Pistons Show 4cc Total for The Four Valve Relief's, (Not 12cc's That I Guessed At) If Anybody Comes along and Reads this and tries to Calculate Compression on a FE 352.

supervel45 wrote:

427John wrote:

supervel45 wrote:

427John wrote:I hate to point out the obvious but the 410 will put you back to basically the same engine you have in there now. 80 thousands difference in bore size won't make an appreciable difference in fuel mileage. If you plan to use a different cam and induction to get there you could do the same thing to the 428 and get pretty much the same results.

John, will a 1.816" Compression Height Piston work with a 390 Crank and Rods, or will they come past the Deck of a stock block 352?

They have a nice 9.48/1 Compression on a .000 Deck 352, Stock 3.5" stroke, at least.

OP is the 352 Apart, and if so how much ridge if any? Could it just be Re-Ringed?

Since they are .040-.050 taller than 390 pistons my guess is they will stand proud but close enough that you can mill the tops to zero. Or possibly run a very thick head gasket.

Not sure on that. Going by the Google Numbers too.

http://www.wallaceracing.com/rod-length-calc.php#google_vignette

http://www.wallaceracing.com/Calc-Deck-Height-rod-length-new.php

Deck 10.17"
Compression Height 1.816"
Deck Clearance .000

Rod Lenght  Comes Out To 6.4340"

They may be 332 Pistons? They Compute with a 6.540" Rod and a 3.3" Stroke Pretty Good

https://uempistons.com/product/1962/Silvolite-Piston-Set-1129.STD

^ They Claim 352 5.8L on Their Website. I Sure Can't make them work with the 352 Numbers I have.

Probably Doing it Wrong, I Hope.

This Spec. Table in the Link Below, Shows the 352 CH at 1.836-1.842  VVV

https://www.mercurystuff.com/fe-engine-specs.html

Also The SilvOLite Flat Top Pistons Show 4cc Total for The Four Valve Relief's, (Not 12cc's That I Guessed At) If Anybody Comes along and Reads this and tries to Calculate Compression on a FE 352.

Center to center length on 390 rods is 6.49 .050 shorter than than 352/360 rods at 6.54.