Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Performance, Engines & Troubleshooting > Other Ford Engines > 401, 477, & 534 SD Engines
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


Welcome to Ford-Trucks Forums!
Welcome to Ford-Trucks.com.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Ford-Trucks Forums community today!





 
Reply
 
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #46  
Old 10-27-2007, 07:57 PM
Econoline 150's Avatar
Econoline 150 Econoline 150 is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 561
Econoline 150 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louisville Joe
I think the Ford Super Duty engines compared well with the competition for the most part. They were among the first big-inch gassers that had become popular in the late 1950's. The story is that moonlighting engineers from International helped design it, and based the design off of the big Lincoln V-8. The competitors to the Super Duty was as follows: International had the V-401, V-477, and V-549. These were pretty good performers, maybe not quite as reliable as the SD's. Some 549's had dual ignition, with twin distributors and 2 plugs per cylinder. The Internationals suffered from cracked heads and oil leaks, and International tried to make a diesel out of the 549. About as good as the Olds 350 diesel! Dodge used heavy duty versions of the 361 and 413 to power their heavy trucks. These were great engines, but more in the league of the Ford 361 and 391 FT V-8's. Dodge offered the International 549 as a special order option in the late 60's. GMC had their V-6's. These went all the way from a 305 inch job for the small truck to 351, 379, 401, 432, and a 478 for the large trucks. I think these were about as good as a large truck gas engine ever got, and the 478 was equal to the 534 Ford in performance. Very short stroke for their displacement allowed them to build torque fast at low R.P.M.'s. Way overbuilt, the larger versions were 900+ pounds, and the crank was very short and fat. The 305 didn't do much in the pickups but eat a lot of fuel. GMC made diesel versions of the 351 and 478, and they didn't need to beef up the block. From 1960-65, GMC offered a 702 cube V-12, which was basically 2 351's end to end with a common block, crank, and cam. Monster had 4 cylinder heads. Pretty rare, usually only found them in large fire trucks and Air Force mobile missile launchers. In 1966, the V-12 was dropped, and GMC added 2 more cylinders to the 478 creating a 637 V-8. This was built as a gas or a diesel. 600+ ft. lbs.. Chevy had the 348, 366, 409, and 427. They were all pretty tough, but again more like the FT Ford V-8's. Chevy used some of the GMC 478 V-6's in the larger trucks. There was another large gas V-8, the REO. I don't remember the displacement, but I heard tell it was quite an engine. White used it in later years after they bought REO out.
You're talking about the DV550 & 9.0 diesel. The earlier DV550s seemed to have a bad rep the latter 9.0s were decent, but not great. They did start well in the cold. Heard plenty of good stories about the 266,304, 345, 392s but none about the 549. Id put the Ford 534 over the IH 549 also.
I almost bought a low mile 60s GMC with a Toro-Flow diesel recently heard they were not great on power, but did great on fuel.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-09-2008, 04:47 PM
less less is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,301
less is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
My FIL had a mid 70's Ford (F700 I think, maybe F600) Grain truck out on the farm. I used to help him by driving it during harvest time. He had the 370 gas V8 and 5 speed standard (Clarke?), 2 speed axle and I recall when it was fully loaded you couldn't miss a shift or chances are, you would have to stop and build up the momentum, once again.

I used to think that the little old 370 cube V8 was too small for the heavy grain loads (overloads?)...but it really was the little engine that could. It did the job.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-19-2008, 01:10 AM
scroob scroob is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 908
scroob is starting off with a positive reputation.
I never understood the 370. I used to drive a boxtruck that had one. No power, no torque. When getting on the freeway, plan to yield or get killed. The thing had an automatic tranny, and was always revving at it's absolute max to keep moving. It drank gas, and couldn't get out of it's own way. What the hell was Ford thinking? Destroke the marvelous 429, put lousy crap heads on it with tiny valves, and call it a truck engine? This had to be one of the worst mistakes Ford ever made.

By contrast, I once drove an old U-Haul field manager's rig (remember the old U-Haul rigs that had trailers stacked up top and bottom like a car hauler?) It was a '63 Ford with a 330 and a governor. That freakin' thing would haul, and if you stood on it a few seconds after the governor kicked in, the governor would give up and it would really rev. I had a ball driving that truck.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 04-19-2008, 12:57 PM
less less is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,301
less is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scroob View Post
I never understood the 370. I used to drive a boxtruck that had one. No power, no torque. When getting on the freeway, plan to yield or get killed. The thing had an automatic tranny, and was always revving at it's absolute max to keep moving. It drank gas, and couldn't get out of it's own way. What the hell was Ford thinking? Destroke the marvelous 429, put lousy crap heads on it with tiny valves, and call it a truck engine? This had to be one of the worst mistakes Ford ever made.

By contrast, I once drove an old U-Haul field manager's rig (remember the old U-Haul rigs that had trailers stacked up top and bottom like a car hauler?) It was a '63 Ford with a 330 and a governor. That freakin' thing would haul, and if you stood on it a few seconds after the governor kicked in, the governor would give up and it would really rev. I had a ball driving that truck.
The 370 I drove was in a Grain Truck, with the standard transmission. It was working real hard, but as most grain truck , only was on the highway when we took it to a grain elevator , which was not too far. Mostly it was moving in first to third gear on the fields and around the farm yard, or down old mud farm roads.

You don't need a real power house for this application. We also used to have a '50's International grain truck, probably the equivalent to something like an F500 of those days. The cornbinder had a 226 inch straight IH six.

I can't imagine a medium duty F series with a 370 and one of those old automatic transmissions-what a power sapper that must have been.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 04-20-2008, 06:46 PM
Econoline 150's Avatar
Econoline 150 Econoline 150 is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 561
Econoline 150 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scroob View Post
I never understood the 370. I used to drive a boxtruck that had one. No power, no torque. When getting on the freeway, plan to yield or get killed. The thing had an automatic tranny, and was always revving at it's absolute max to keep moving. It drank gas, and couldn't get out of it's own way. What the hell was Ford thinking? Destroke the marvelous 429, put lousy crap heads on it with tiny valves, and call it a truck engine? This had to be one of the worst mistakes Ford ever made.

By contrast, I once drove an old U-Haul field manager's rig (remember the old U-Haul rigs that had trailers stacked up top and bottom like a car hauler?) It was a '63 Ford with a 330 and a governor. That freakin' thing would haul, and if you stood on it a few seconds after the governor kicked in, the governor would give up and it would really rev. I had a ball driving that truck.
I think the 370 & 429 had the same stroke: different bores
__________________
Bill Lloyd

1981 Ford F250 4 x 4 351M 4 speed
1993 Aerostar 3.0 V6 5 speed
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 04-24-2008, 10:54 PM
Rheems1 Rheems1 is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7
Rheems1 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Hi there, new to the board also... I am a volunteer firefighter and have driven many different firetrucks with different motors in them. I figured I would throw my 2 cents in on this topic. I can remember a Ford C/Hamerly tanker I drove.. it pulled 2,500 gallons of water through a 5 speed transmission.... it was slow as sin... I mean SLOW (as has been noted here)...you used to try to come up with the best way to get to calls without doing hills. It was retired in 1998 with 38,000 miles on it, it still ran but it was starting to limp pretty badly. The Kennett Fire Department in Chester County, Pa had another Ford C tanker (with a Bruco body) that had the 429 Ford in it... they said that it drove much better than thier pumper (which had a 534 in it) and would routinely go faster than it (the pumper carried 1,000 gallons of water compared to the 2,000 on the tanker). Both seem like good motors to me..... I have another friend that has a 1961 Ford F-700 with and American LaFrance body on it... it is supposed to have a 332 in it.. but everyone who looks at it says that there is no way it is a 332.. it is to small and it is Gold in color (which I guess the 332 never was)... it moves the truck pretty well though (300 gallons of water in a 1,000 gallon tank). Moving to Cornbinder power... there was a ladder truck at one of the fire schools around us that had an I-H 549 motor in it.... it was very loud and sound like it was moving pretty well... but it was also slow. Plus it had TERRIBLE overheating problems... on a fire department ladder truck... a hydraulic pump is run off a PTO from the transmission... so the drive engine also powers the ladder on it. The engine runs at about 1,700rpms when you are using the ladder (activated by a high throttle switch)... if you ran the ladder for more than 10 minutes the manifold would glow red and you could cook on it. I couldn't imagine this was normal... but I saw it in another piece that had the International 549 motor in it.. if you pumped with it (pump is PTO driven) for any amount of time the manifold would glow red and you would have to keep the engine covers open (which didn't help that much it didn't seem). Continental made alot of large gas engines for the fire service as did Hall-Scott, Waukesha and Lycoming... Lycoming motors were standard in American LaFrance fire trucks from 1948 through 1959 (the 700/800 series pieces).. most of them were Lycoming J V12 motors with dual ignition (of course).... they were airplane motors basically.. if you lost your engine book from American LaFrance... you were up a certain creek without a paddle.... the only person who could really tune it up was an airplane mechanic.... another gashog but a very powerful motor. FWD, Ward LaFrance, Hahn, Peter Pirsch and Maxim all used Waukesha gas motors as standard equipment on thier pieces (unless you speced a diesel at which point you got a 6'71 Detroit). Those were all some very tough, bulletproof motors (although the Waukesha had a problem with throwing rods and/or self destructing if worked to hard). The 543 Ford always seemed a bit doggish for it's functions.... if you compare it to some of the GMC V-6 motors of that time it is sort of hard to fight for the Ford motor... although they were built tough. I can remember having a Ford C/Hahn pumper that I drafted (pulled water from a pond and than a river) with for 6 hours... we moved 3 million gallons of water in that time.... she was running pretty high up in the RPM range (around 1,900 or so) but it didn't overheat or cause problems... it just pumped merrily away. That piece had a Ford 534 in it as well... good motors for the fire service.

Dave Fritz
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 04-25-2008, 01:42 AM
Econoline 150's Avatar
Econoline 150 Econoline 150 is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 561
Econoline 150 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Back in 2000 before gas went through the roof I borrowed a friends 370 powered short dumptruck to haul some filldirt. All I had to do was fill it back up when I was finished.
I couldnt believe how much gas it drank; even for a medium duty is was really bad: using that truck with todays gas prices would make a fat wallet thin !
__________________
Bill Lloyd

1981 Ford F250 4 x 4 351M 4 speed
1993 Aerostar 3.0 V6 5 speed
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 07-11-2008, 12:16 AM
billy12360 billy12360 is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: darrington wash
Posts: 979
billy12360 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.billy12360 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
for the dodge motors, they had a 478 CI and a 549 in 1970-1971 trucks, but im not sure of the HP or torq.

for international

they had the same 2 motors

the 478 from 65-71 put out 234 at 3600 rpm and 431 at 1800 rpm

the 549 from 61-71 put out 257 hpat 3400 and 505 of developed torque at 2000 rpm

source is from chiltons truck repair manual 61-71

any other motors some one wants me to look up?
__________________
1963 ford f-100 with 292 Y block 2 barrel carb. headers ran into 2 1/4th pipes, connected to cherry bomb turbo mufflers elec. fuel pump.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-02-2008, 07:56 AM
SCRAPIRON1947 SCRAPIRON1947 is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7
SCRAPIRON1947 is starting off with a positive reputation.
A little insight

I was still young when these old engines were in vogue, but the diesel was coming on strong. We should remember that in the middle 50's to late 60's that gasoline was still inexpensive, and most of the construction work was done by local companies, or the prime contractor used the local owner-operators to get things done. The big gas V-8's were a lot cheaper to buy and maintain than a diesel, and diesels were not as reliable as they are now. The big names in my part of the world were the 534 Ford, and the 549 Binder. The Dodge diehards would run a 413, and then there was always the silly guys who would drag out a 409 chevrolet, but most soon learned that GM stuff was there to be repaired, and not worked. The big V-6 GMC was a power house, but used more fuel than the 534 (If that is possible) and were hard to keep cool when the going got tough. The 534 was a standard when it came to irrigation wells in the 60's 70's 80's, and in fact, there are still 534's pumping water in SW Kansas, and doing a fine job of it. I also remember reading truck sales brochures in 1966. The last few remaining Emeryville and the new CO 4020 International still maintained the 549 as its standard engine, and the R-200 had a 461 as standard, and optional 549. Of course, you could get a diesel as an option. These engines were not meant to be hot rods, they were built to pull,and they did that very well.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10-05-2008, 06:09 PM
Harley48's Avatar
Harley48 Harley48 is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Pocatello, Idaho
Posts: 68
Harley48 is starting off with a positive reputation.
I worked for a small road construction company during the summers of '67 and 68.' The firm had three 1963 Ford T850 trucks with 534 engines and 5 speed main transmissions and 4 speed auxiliary transmissions.. These trucks had 10 yard dump bodies on them. They were also used as semi-tractors pulling 20yard belly dump trailers for most of one of the summers. They had 3 1956 or '57 GMC 10 yard dump trucks which, originally had V8's in them but had been converted to gas burning 478 cu. in. V6's with 5X3 transmissions. They also had 2 1965 GMC 10 yard dump trucks with 351's (way underpowered) and 5X3 transmissions. They, also, had one AutoCar semi-tractor with a 220 Cummins and 4X4 transmissions. The Fords would outpull all of them but , the 478 GMCs were pretty strong for their size. I really enjoyed the sound of the 534's. The secondaries in the Holly 4150 carbs were vacuum operated and would open at about 2500 rpm. Shifting those heavy duty Spicer transmissions, especially split shifting, was interesting since none of the gears were synchronized but, kind of fun once you got the hang of it. The 534's WERE hard on fuel. I don't remember for sure but, I think they got about 2 mpg when worked hard.

Last edited by Harley48; 10-05-2008 at 06:12 PM. Reason: additional information
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-05-2008, 06:14 PM
Harley48's Avatar
Harley48 Harley48 is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Pocatello, Idaho
Posts: 68
Harley48 is starting off with a positive reputation.
I forgot to mention that the 534's were governed at 3,000 rpm.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-07-2008, 05:54 PM
iceman101 iceman101 is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3
iceman101 is starting off with a positive reputation.
477 vs 534

Is there a difference in pistons on these to super duty's? I am looking at replacing a piston and can't find anything for a 477 but I can find them for a 534. I was wondering if they were interchangeable.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-08-2008, 08:10 PM
Harley48's Avatar
Harley48 Harley48 is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Pocatello, Idaho
Posts: 68
Harley48 is starting off with a positive reputation.
477 Piston

Evidently, there is a difference between a 477 piston and a 534 piston although the bore of the two engines is the same. The part # for the 477 piston assembly is B8QH 6108-CA and for the 534 it is B8QH 6108-DA. These are for standard size pistons for 1962-74 years. I would think the pistons are NOT interchangeable. Maybe a parts guru will be able to tell us what the difference is.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10-14-2008, 09:18 PM
Louisville Joe Louisville Joe is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 603
Louisville Joe is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
What I remember most about the 477 and 534 Super Duty was that the ones made before 1972 or so ran pretty good, but after that they got worse and worse due to the emission controls. Rheems1 was right on about the big Internationals running hot, I saw the exhaust manifolds glowing red on them after a hard pull. Biggest problem I saw with the big GMC V-6's was the carburetor. They used an oddball Stromberg that wasn't really big enough. You used to be able to get an adapter to run a big Holley 2bbl. on them, and it would really wake them up. The last year for the V-6 was 1974, so you didn't see that engine get worse in the later years. I remember when Ford dropped the 534 in 1980 (very few were still being ordered by then, mostly fire apparatus). The 429's ran a lot better then the 534's at that time.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10-19-2008, 08:41 AM
Harley48's Avatar
Harley48 Harley48 is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Pocatello, Idaho
Posts: 68
Harley48 is starting off with a positive reputation.
The big (478's) GMC engines were interesting. They wound up slowly but, they wound up about as fast loaded as they did unloaded and would lug very well. Another summer I drove a mid 60's GMC 10 yard dump truck powered by a 478 ToroFlow diesel with 5X3 transmissions. I thought they were economical but not very powerful. Another construction company was hauling out of the same gravel pit as ours was. They had Chevy's with 409's. Many a time when I pulled out on the paved highway I'd have one of those Chevy's on my butt and I'd try to keep ahead of it with no success. They would blow the doors off of the ToroFlow. Maybe under a hard pull it would have been different but, on the open road it was no contest.

Oh yes, I had a typo on an earlier post about 534 rpms. The governed speed is 3,200, not 3,000.
Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2008, 08:41 AM
 
 
 
Reply

Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Performance, Engines & Troubleshooting > Other Ford Engines > 401, 477, & 534 SD Engines

Tags
477, 534, beast, ci, cubic, engine, ford, gaa, gas, inch, motor, pickup, pulling, sled, truck, v8

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need info on 391/429/534 "heavy" ford truck engines ac7880 1967 - 1972 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks 12 09-28-2011 09:52 AM
BMW x5 Diesel fzrider998 4.4L Ford Diesel 25 01-14-2011 06:12 PM
2011 6.7 PSD VS. 6.2 GAS engine jerseyphil Super Duty & Heavy Duty 4 08-15-2010 05:14 PM
exchanging 429 for 534 Dsand 401, 477, & 534 SD Engines 1 11-01-2006 09:29 PM
'05 Gas Engines-6.8LV10, 8.1LV8 & 6.1LHemi... MountainHound Ford vs The Competition 86 07-23-2004 01:11 PM



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 AC1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup