I'm researching mid-90's thru early 2000's F250s to replace my venerable '66 F250 with a 300 six in it. I ALSO have a '69 F250 with a sweet-running 360 C6, but I've decided that I need a later model with 4WD.

Looking up HP/torque specs for the 360 (my '69), 5.8 ('96 HD), and 5.4 ('97 New Body Style), I've found that the 360, way back in '69, was rated at HIGHER HP/Torque than the 5.8! 215/375 vs 210/310 for the 5.8!!

The torque advantage of the 360 is significant, and makes me wonder why the 5.8 (really a 351) was adopted over the old 360. Are my numbers correct?

The 5.4 is admittedly a better engine than the previous 5.8 @ 225/335, but still falls short of the old 360 in torque.

I'm on the bubble between a '96/'97 F250 HD with the 5.8 vs a '97/'98 F250 New Body Style with a 5.4, but maybe if I can do without 4WD I should just keep my old '69?

 

Reading further on this subject, I came across this interesting write-up in Wikipedia, regarding Ford's current mega-billion engine development, and it's old 427:

In 2010, after spending billions of dollars for engineering and tooling, Ford introduced a completely new and redesigned engine for use in its trucks. Referred to internally as the Hurricane during development, it is now being marketed as Boss. The engine initially displaced 379 cu in (6.2 L), though the potential for larger displacements was engineered into the design. It had SOHC's actuating the valves via roller-tipped rockers, a bore spacing of 4.53 inches, a stroke of 3.74 inches, a bore of 4.015 inches, and a deep-skirted thinwall casting block with cross-bolted mains.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-6.2_43-0 sizset="false" sizcache05942158643759923="40 110 324" jQuery183025844100525357233="159">[43]</SUP> The 1950s-designed 390 FE had a bore spacing of 4.63 inches, a stroke of 3.78 inches, a bore of 4.05 inches, and a deep-skirted thinwall casting block. The SOHC version of the FE with cross-bolted maincaps, developed in 1965, had single overhead cams actuating the valves via roller-tipped rockers. A 427 cu in (7.0 L) version of the new Boss engine was put together, and tested. It produced 700 hp,<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-SevenSevenSeven_44-0 sizset="false" sizcache05942158643759923="40 110 325" jQuery183025844100525357233="162">[44]</SUP> equal to the horsepower produced by Ford's 1965 427 cu in (7.0 L) SOHC FE.

Note the similarities in geometry and output between the "new" 427 and the 1965 version; the more things change, the more they stay the same!!

 

keep in mind that the way torque/HP is calculated changed pretty drastically in the 70's- the '69 numbers cannot be used as straight comparison.

 

From info given to me by Numberdummy:

Standard Catalog of Light Duty Ford Trucks / krause.com / ISBN: 0-87349-411-3 (out of print).

1973/76 F100/350 360 =

145 net HP @ 3,800 RPM

264 ft. lbs. net torque @ 2,200 RPM

Early 360s were not drastically different than later. Low compression and sunken pistons were there from day one. I doubt the cams changed. Ignition timing may be less advanced, EGR may have been added.

Not sure which HP/TQ standard was used for the above, but the gross vs. net ratings can be pretty large. 20% is thrown around as the "standard" difference, not sure that is right.

Understanding Gross vs. Net Horsepower Ratings

 

There's a vast difference between the 73-76 motors and the late 60's motors. The SAE net figures are really misleading to say the least. The retarded cam timing in the 70's didn't help matters either. Nor did the stock boxy exhaust manifolds the std Fe's were cursed with. Be that as it may, a 3 valve 5.4 would run rings around any 360 ever made. And I'm just going by my experience with my 06 Stang's 3V 4.6. The roller 351W was a step in the right direction, but saddle one with factory gearing (E4OD and 3.08's) and it's pretty much a dog. (had that with my 95 F150) If I had a truck with a 360, the first thing I'd do would be to stroke it with a 390 crank, rods and pistons. THEN, you'd have the equal to the V10 both in HP and torque. Bout the same mileage too.

 

Not so sure there is a vast difference between a '68 360 and a '76.

If you are talking a '68 390 car motor vs. a '76 pickup motor, yes, vast difference.

 

The mid 60's 352 (that's the pickup motor) had 352 ft/lbs of torque @ 2800. SAE net figures changed a lot of the numbers, but not 100 ft/lbs. (compared to your post of 264@ 2200)
The 360 was never a powerhouse, but the late 60's version was nowhere near 145 hp, which by the way was the same figure for the late 70's 302's. Ford pickup truck hp/tq numbers from the 70's up to the end of the pushrod motors in the mid 90's never did make much sense. Look at the numbers for the 351W between 93 and 95. They didn't change one bit, although it got a major cam upgrade with the F4TE roller. Ditto for the 302 in this instance (same cam upgrade for both)

 

Did the PU motor and the car motor have the same specs? Same 9+ CR?

FE Series Engine Specification Chart

 

Probly did. But when the 360 came out, Ford started using the shorter pistons in the pickup motors to drop the comp ratio. That wouldn't have changed the torque figures drastically though, certainly not by 100 ft/lbs. I've seen different numbers in torque for the 390's that don't jibe with the ones posted there. In High Performance Engine parts, the 2 bbl motors are listed as having 400+ ft/lbs. So who's to say what figures are the correct ones today ? Like I said, I've never believed the factory numbers for either HP or TQ to seem correct for the pickups and vans.