Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm getting ready to rebuild my 352 fe i'm installing a oversize cam a comp cam 533 lift 228 duration.
One of my coworker who has a 64 gal also said i needed to install adjustable rockers when installing a cam with the much lift is this true?
this coworker isn't one i would relay on that much but don't want any problems after the rebuild!
does anyone know about this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,187 Posts
Moreover depends upon the camshaft design. If the camshaft is designed for solid lifters, the papers accompanying it will say so. With that sort of lift, I doubt it is designed for mush lifters, but best to read the papers first. If not, get ahold of the regrinding firm and ask them.

If you are already set up for mush lifters, you needa find a lot of items if designed for solids.

Wm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,506 Posts
I ran adjustable lifter with the Edelbrock RPM heads. I actually still have them...atleast until I get time to install the roller rockers and new pushrods that showed up last week after 2 months on order. Not a big deal but talk to an engine guru. Would don't want to be much under 1 turn out and no more than 3 turns out depending on the pushrods. Just my 2 cents plus fuel surcharge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
The adjustable rockers subtitute for grinding the non-adjustable rockers to accomodate the length specs of the valve stems and pushrods. Adjustable rockers are good, but not necessary, for hydraulic lifters.

Let me also emphasize, as the other guys have, that you need to make sure ALL the valvetrain is compatible. Just to be safe I ALWAYS order my cams, lifters, springs, and pushrods from the same vendor so that compatibility is more assured.

That much said, the cam you're specifying is going to get a lot more response from a built 390 or 428 than a 352. In short, you're overcamming the 352 unless it's going to be a race engine, in which case a 390 or 428 is going to do much better for you. As is, without a hugely expensive high performance build (for a 352), not only is your fuel economy going to suck, the engine will be an overcammed slug. JMHO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,506 Posts
I don't think it's a "Hate" issue. Why does everyong like women with "D" and "DD" breasts. They're all breasts so why don't men gravitate towards "Nearly A". :^) Not trying to offend any one of the female gender.

There is no replacement for displacement. Fact of life. You can do less to a larger motor to get it to do what you are desiring. I used an FE 360. I just bored and stroked it to get 431.5" of hell fire. No comparison to the old 390. Galaxie is a very very very very heavy car. Did I tell you that the Galaxie is heavy? To make it perform you need to get it moving. Torque gets you moving. Greater the displacement the greater the torque. Good luck.

_________________
64 Galaxie 500 XL (constantly morphing)


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: gbeeler on 10/10/06 5:54am ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
284 Posts
On 2006-10-09 14:52, gbeeler wrote:
I don't think it's a "Hate" issue. Why does everyong like women with "D" and "DD" breasts. They're all breasts so why don't men gravitate towards "Nearly A". :^)
I never thought of it that way, but now that you mention it...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,506 Posts
Redneck philosophy. Simple as it gets and geared towards males. I am suprised Shotrod hasn't given me any crap yet. I still think the 352 block could be a fine platform for a stroker kit. Anybody know what a 352 had for hp and torque numbers? I am just curious. I believe the 390 had 300 hp in '64 but I never paid any attention to the other sizes...except the 427.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
34,854 Posts
The 352 having a 4" bore and 3.5" stroke, went for 225 HP with a 2V @ 4,400 rpm and 300 HP @ 4,600 rpm with the 4V during it's debut in 1959. Both pushing out in the neighborhood of 325 and 380 ft # of tq respectively.

Those #'s didn't change much up untill 1961 with the advent of the 390 and the loss of the 4V option for the 352 starting that year.

The 352 my friend was NO SLUG....

Good Day!

FE
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
The cam on a 352 can be small and kick the crap out of you. A CompCams 252H 206°/206° .050 and .469/.469 on a 110° LSA is as big as I'd run with a non adjustable valvetrain, and you may still need them anyway if the pushrods aren't the right length. But it should be fine. It peaks around 5100 according Engine Analyzer 3.0 at 345 hp with headers and open exhaust, and about 379 lbs ft at 4300, with over 370 from 4000-4700, and over 350 lbs ft from 2600 up. If you install it at 110° ICA, which would be the 4° retard position on the 3- heyway chain, you lose a couple of pounds ft down low, but gain it back and a little more from 4000 up. 383 lbs ft at 4300, and 357 hp at 5200. Just my opinion, but I think this cam will be pretty sweet in a big Gal.

I am running the stock 352 cam in mine with a loose timing chain and headers and its enough to convince me this motor doesn't need much cam to run good. I am changing the chain, but I am going to retard it 4°, because it really seems to like it. Its 7° retarded right now because of the loose chain. At 3500-5000 it is sweet, and its is plenty good down low for cruising and gets good mileage.

That big cam would kill in a 352 Mustang or Falcon though!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,520 Posts
There was a high performance 352 starting in 1958. There is some dispute as to how much horse power it actually developed. Remember that horsepower in those days was measured raw, in the best configuration (now it is measured as the engine is shipped, equipped in the car - pw steering, a/c...everything attached), makes a big difference in the measurement.

The Solid lifter 352, aluminum manifold and small chambered (machined) heads was not a weak sister. It replaced the super charged/ dual carb 312 as Fords performance engine. It must have had something going for it! It in turn was replaced by the 390 hp, same everything only larger. Then the short lived 406 and finally the 427. It's in the book.


352 cubic inch

bore and stroke of 4.00X3.50

engine for the '58 T-bird

four barrell carb @ 300 hp

compression ratio 10.2.:1

cast iron crankshaft

forged steel rods, mechanical-lifter camshaft w/machined combustion chambers or cast chambers by 1959.

By 1960, the 352 HP was available with an aluminum intake manifold producing approximately 360 hp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,506 Posts
Not bad numbers by any means for small displacement. With such a short stroke you would think that it would lend itself quite nicely to a high horsepower high rpm motor.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,514 Posts
On 2006-10-10 07:21, gbeeler wrote:
Redneck philosophy. Simple as it gets and geared towards males. I am suprised Shotrod hasn't given me any crap yet. I still think the 352 block could be a fine platform for a stroker kit. Anybody know what a 352 had for hp and torque numbers? I am just curious. I believe the 390 had 300 hp in '64 but I never paid any attention to the other sizes...except the 427.
I'm here now!!! You pig!!


300 for the Z code 390 and 325? for the R, Q? or whatever the code is for the solid lifter police version.

Had to look up 352 and it says 220 hp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
Point of clarification to all who may have interpreted my comments as being disrespectful of the 352.

First, I own a 352, rebuilt, in a '65 Galaxie. The engine is a smooth and competent performer in a family sized car. It accelerates nicely and gives reasonably good mileage. But it ain't burning up the pavement by any means. And just slapping a camshaft and big carburator on it will only make things worse, right?

Generally speaking, what the 352 is NOT is a best choice within the FE family for high performance applications. The 1960 352 HiPo, despite the solid lifters, bigger cam (though much smaller than the one contemplated by our original poster here) improved intake and exhaust systems, bigger valves, and higher compression was still not as hot a performer as Pontiac's new 389 or Chevrolet's soon-to-be-introduced 409. Therefore the quick introduction of the 390, then the 406, then the 427 FE motors in rapid succession by Ford.

My comment about his wildly overcammed 352 being a gas thirsty slug related ONLY to the poster's SPECIFIC choice of camshaft WITHOUT also increasing stroke, bore, compression, valve size, intake and exhaust tuning. Doing all of that TO COMPLEMENT THE INDICATED CAMSHAFT would make his 352 a solid performer. But at significantly greater cost than starting with a 390 for his build.

And there's nothing controversial about that statement.

Better he hear it from us up front than dump a bunch of money into a gas guzzling poor performer and get turned off on the FE forever. Or, worse yet, criticize the FE in front of a bunch of Bowtie Pukes, reinforcing their ignorance with his own unhappy experience with a seriously overcammed FE motor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
I just wanted it to hit a hard lick!!!! and sound mean as hell!
the rep at doug herbert suggested this cam since i wanted one to hit hard.
its gonna be a cruser! It is a factory 4bbl car i couldn't tell much diff. between it and the 390 as far as drivin it they both felt the same! did you say they droped the 4bbl in 60 feandgoingbroke? how can you tell the diff. between the 352/390?
the vin on the car says its a 352 but it has 390 badges on the front fenders i know someone could easly put them on but it has a 4bbl carb. and the guy i brought it from said it had a 390 but i thought he was mistaken cause he was a bail bondsman & took the car as a bond!


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: madlextech on 10/11/06 10:41am ]</font>
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,514 Posts
On 2006-10-10 17:37, FEandGoingBroke wrote:
LIKE I SAID, 300 HP for the 4bbl 352 up to 1961! THEN they created the 390 out of the SAME engine.... Dropped the 4BBL option for the 352 which put it back to 220 ish Nominal HP until it's demise.
1961 the 390 had 300, 330, 375 and 401 HP options. Want more info just pick up a Motors or chilton from the '60's...


FE
That's where I looked on the 352, I had no clue. Love motors manuals!
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top