Hello from NC!

[KULTULZ]

We have a new development! One of our mechanics realized that the C1TE-C rods DID NOT come out of the Sunliner, they came out of our 57 Skyliner with a 292. We went back to the parts shelves and he located the rods that he actually pulled out of the Sunliner. Lo and behold, they are EDC-6205-As, the correct rods for a 352/360.

The rods are unique to the 352/360HP.

Would I re-assemble the engine correctly? If I had the means. The car does sound correct and the correct engine assembly would make it more valuable IMO unless one was willing to pass it off as something it is not.

KULTULZ, I located a chat board from 2013 in which you participated. There was a guy there that tore down his 352/360 and took pictures of everything. It was awesome! The good news is that our heads and blocks had the same casting numbers. The next thing that I am going to do is look for that "HP" that is on the block that we didn't know to look for (and that you showed me). I"m not sure if that indicates the 360HP engine or not. As stated previously, I have always read that there were no numbers on the block indicating that engine, and this is why it could be readily faked.

Can you post that URL you came across?

As for the stamping(s), there had to be a method of FOMOCO being able to identify the assembly for warranty claims/correct service parts replacement.

How about the wheels and brakes, the 3/8" fuel line? Electric wipers? It needs to be gone over with a fine tooth comb to realize it possible full value.

I am going to refer you to another forum where the knowledge these guys possess and trade is unbelievable. They can even tell you what shift the components were made and whether the worker had sex the night before.

Now that does not give you permission to not keep this board updated. If you do start a thread there, please show the URL here so we can keep up...

- https://www.fordfe.com/332-428-ford-fe-engine-forum-f74182/

- http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?board=2.0

 

[dmsfrr]

6

...
Which brings us to the next question. Should we tear down the engine and put the correct pistons and rods in? We are already going to be upside down on this car (my boss paid way too much for it). We would also have to find the correct pistons bored .30 over. I say "Hell, yes!" ... If the value of the car is mainly based upon the engine, I think that the engine should be intact and the car should drive like it was meant to. I will have this conversation with my boss at some point. ...

I agree. Much of the worth of that particular car is in it being what it originally was, and should be. Being upside down on the car is not the point. The car and engine being as much like they should be is the right thing to do. IMHO (esp since it had the right rods in it to begin with)

Your boss and I are on 'slightly' (haha) different financial scales but here's an example...
My '55 T-Bird retirement project had a worn out older non-original engine and isn't particularly special. For a replacement buildable engine to work from I had the choice of a free complete u-pull-it 292 from a '62 pickup truck located in-town, or a $600 long block from another Thunderbird, 400 miles away.
I decided I wouldn't be as satisfied/proud to own it if I put an engine from a pickup truck in it.
The out-of-town motel had a very nice swimming pool.
.

 

[scicala]

I believe the pistons should be the same as the 352/300 HP engine since they both used cast pistons. The higher compression ration (10.6:1) was because of the smaller 59cc combustion chambers on the 360 HP heads. Pistons should be available and affordable.


Sal

 

[Jlau]

KULTULZ, here is the URL that you requested: https://www.fordfe.com/352-360hp-rods-t96545.html. This is one of the forums that you referred to me. I will keep you posted if I find out anything of interest.

More information discovered this morning! As with the writer of the thread above, we located a stamped number on the engine block. It was located on the driver's side, directly above the oil dipstick. We had to remove the dipstick bracket in order to gain access to the area to clean and photograph the number (see photos). As you can see in the photos, there was a number similar to the number from the thread above, including the identical "HP" marking.

So, does this mean that what I have been told over the past few years (that there are no markings on the 360 hp block to identify it) is not true? We have two such blocks with the "HP" stamp. As you can also see in the photos, our 352/300 Skyliner engine has no "HP." If anybody here has access to one of these engines, it would be great if you could see if it had the "HP" stamp.

 

[rotorwrench]

There is some president for basic ID number or letter stampings on the earlier Fords of the flathead era. In the case of the 1939 Mercury 239 CID engines, they stamped "99" on the front deck surface area of the passenger side that was visible with the cylinder heads installed. It was for ID of the larger CID engine. Only a year or so later they just painted them a different color and discontinued the ID stamping.

I've had experience with the 352 FE engines in the past but never one that had been modified for performance like that. The basic 352 was not a real performer when compared to a stock 310 HP 390 FE. It took little effort to get high horse power out of the 390 and they always had more punch. The historic factor is what makes a special model what it is. A person can say that the car will likely get better mileage with lower compression but it would still not be historically correct. I'd rather have a stock 2V 390 than a doggy 352 any day. I've never seen a romping stomping 352 so that makes that one kind of special even if you do need high octane racing fuel or aviation 100LL gas to get it to run like it should. That's my opinion for what it's worth.

 

[scicala]

This picture reminds me of the Andy Griffith show. I think Elly Walker (Elanor Donahue) had a Comet wagon in one episode.


Sal

 

[KULTULZ]

I believe the pistons should be the same as the 352/300 HP engine since they both used cast pistons. The higher compression ration (10.6:1) was because of the smaller 59cc combustion chambers on the 360 HP heads. Pistons should be available and affordable.

Sal

The MPC shows a dedicated piston (pop-up), it's only having been offered STD, no O/S which means to me (IMO) they were sourced outside.

Do you still have the original piston(s)? There was a manufacturer that could duplicate pistons, especially useful on the MEL Series.

EDIT-

Let me backup a bit... take-out piston shows flat ...

EDT Piston - EDC Rod

... back to the drawing board ...

 

[KULTULZ]

More information discovered this morning! As with the writer of the thread above, we located a stamped number on the engine block. It was located on the driver's side, directly above the oil dipstick. We had to remove the dipstick bracket in order to gain access to the area to clean and photograph the number (see photos). As you can see in the photos, there was a number similar to the number from the thread above, including the identical "HP" marking.

So, does this mean that what I have been told over the past few years (that there are no markings on the 360 hp block to identify it) is not true?

Obviously it is true.

You hear all kinds of things on the internet and swap meets.

Most likely all of the needed info will be found in Service Letters of the period.

 

[KULTULZ]

Also don't forget and to throw a little more confusion into the discussion is that the 1958 early production 332/352 had solids and machined combustion chambers. Ford went to hydraulics and regular cylinder heads with the 58 BIRD release.

 

[KULTULZ]

I am going to refer you to another forum where the knowledge these guys possess and trade is unbelievable. They can even tell you what shift the components were made and whether the worker had sex the night before.

Now that does not give you permission to not keep this board updated. If you do start a thread there, please show the URL here so we can keep up...

- https://www.fordfe.com/332-428-ford-fe-engine-forum-f74182/

- http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?board=2.0

I gave the wrong forum...

Here is the one with the smart guys-

http://www.ford-mel-engine.com/old_forum/www.network54.com/Forum/74182/index.html

ANOTHER EDIT-

The above if the old forum. I have lost track of the newer forum.

 

[KULTULZ]

ADDITIONAL INFO -

TO BE CONTINUED ...

 

[scicala]

"The MPC shows a dedicated piston (pop-up), it's only having been offered STD, no O/S which means to me (IMO) they were sourced outside.

Do you still have the original piston(s)? There was a manufacturer that could duplicate pistons, especially useful on the MEL Series."




Are you sure the MPC shows the 360 HP pistons as being domed ? There is a big different in the combustion chambers in 300 HP and 360 HP heads. 352/300's were 73 cc's and 352/360's were 56 cc's. Both had the same piston to deck clearance too. Seems like almost 20 cc difference is plenty to go from 9.6 : 1 comp ratio to 10.6" : 1.


Sal

 

[KULTULZ]

"The MPC shows a dedicated piston (pop-up), it's only having been offered STD, no O/S which means to me (IMO) they were sourced outside.

Do you still have the original piston(s)? There was a manufacturer that could duplicate pistons, especially useful on the MEL Series."


Are you sure the MPC shows the 360 HP pistons as being domed ? There is a big different in the combustion chambers in 300 HP and 360 HP heads. 352/300's were 73 cc's and 352/360's were 56 cc's. Both had the same piston to deck clearance too. Seems like almost 20 cc difference is plenty to go from 9.6 : 1 comp ratio to 10.6" : 1.

Sal

They are flat top, but have a different Service PN for whatever reason.

You missed my statement retraction earlier ...

Supposed Correct 360HP Assembly Piston Photos-

 

[scicala]

Yep, now that I back tracked I see I missed that comment.


In post #31 the first color picture of the engine isn't 100% correct. It has a replacement carburetor and a distributor with a vacuum advance on it. Owner probably did it for performance improvement.


Sal

 

[KULTULZ]

Yep, now that I back tracked I see I missed that comment.

I need you guys to watch me... I get all nervous and jerky at times....

In post #31 the first color picture of the engine isn't 100% correct. It has a replacement carburetor and a distributor with a vacuum advance on it. Owner probably did it for performance improvement.


Sal

I was wondering when someone would notice the dist. I just got out of the MPC trying to figure it out.

How can you tell the carb isn't correct?

 

[scicala]

The carb has the Holley universal aftermarket throttle lever on it that is the same as used on Chevy carbs. Ford never used that style lever OEM. I believe the Factory original COAE - AA carb was only 540 CFM, so maybe the owner of this engine upgraded to more air flow.


Sal

 

[KULTULZ]

The carb has the Holley universal aftermarket throttle lever on it that is the same as used on Chevy carbs. Ford never used that style lever OEM. I believe the Factory original COAE - AA carb was only 540 CFM, so maybe the owner of this engine upgraded to more air flow.

Sal

You are sharp!

 

[scicala]

"You are sharp !"




No, just a carburetor geek.


Sal

 

[KULTULZ]

The carb has the Holley universal aftermarket throttle lever on it that is the same as used on Chevy carbs. Ford never used that style lever OEM. I believe the Factory original COAE - AA carb was only 540 CFM, so maybe the owner of this engine upgraded to more air flow.

Sal

C0AE 9510-AA

The boy is quick. It shot completely over my head..

The style GM lever being discussed was the same on the great 56 MERC 312 4V WEBER aftermarket carb linkage debate...

 

[KULTULZ]

More information discovered this morning! As with the writer of the thread above, we located a stamped number on the engine block. It was located on the driver's side, directly above the oil dipstick. We had to remove the dipstick bracket in order to gain access to the area to clean and photograph the number (see photos). As you can see in the photos, there was a number similar to the number from the thread above, including the identical "HP" marking.

So, does this mean that what I have been told over the past few years (that there are no markings on the 360 hp block to identify it) is not true? We have two such blocks with the "HP" stamp. As you can also see in the photos, our 352/300 Skyliner engine has no "HP." If anybody here has access to one of these engines, it would be great if you could see if it had the "HP" stamp.

Stamped Date Code - 3-0C22J HP

3= Dearborn Engine Plant (ASSY)
0= 1960
C= MAR
22= Day of Month
J= Inspector Code
HP= Designates 360HP (For 1960 Model Year)

Now put this info with your block/cyl head Casting Date Code(s) and you will have NUMBERS CORRECT.