I was reading that 360 pistons were left over 410 piston design. Is this true and can someone give the the piston height of a 360 piston?
Thanks.
Oh yeah some one on this forum had said that a 360 block couldn't be used for a 410 build. I thought the 360 and 390 blocks were the same and the same bore as the 410 so what would be differant?

 

Posts 16 and 18, and be sure to go to the link on 18:

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/8...uestion-2.html

410 pistons are not used in the 360. It is said above they were used in the 390 resulting in a sunken piston and low compression (same situation as the 360) which was Ford's formula for a long-lasting understressed (gas hog, low-po) truck engine.

The 360, 390 & 410 all have a 4.05 bore. Thus, either the 360 or 390 can be made into a 410 with the addition of the 428 crank.

What would have been different is the 410 was a high compression 4v, and the manifolds and accessories were no doubt different in it's Mercury car applications.

 

That seems to match with my recollection of things, thanks 85e150six4mtod (what a mouthful! and I can't rep you so soon or I would).

Keep in mind, when building a motor, that if the pistons sit too far below the deck of the block, you can deck the block, and mill the intake side of the heads, and make up for the outrageous deck height on some 360's. When I built the last 390 for my highboy, with TRW flat-top pistons, I used a 360 block. The deck height was pretty high, something like .060" or even more. I told my machinist to deck the block, down to .020" or so above the pistons, which also gave him an excuse to square the block. He milled the heads, and while I had no room for the cork or even rubber end-seal gaskets for the intake, RTV made that pointless anyway.

Of course, this makes the block and heads a matched set, but it's better than milling the intake which makes the intake almost useless for the next build

OK, rambling off.

 

Krewat thats extreem!
I was wanting the compression height of 360 pistons to play the math game in a 410 set up. Not good!! But the emissions 390 pistons, short rod and 428 crank looks great. I had been hearing that 410 pistons were hard to find but those EM 390 pistons are a dime a dozen. The 410 build seems quite reasonable with only needing standard parts and good volumetric efficiency. (if a 428 crank can be considered standard)
That quench area seems to be about .028 or so. Am I correct that I would look for a gasket to push that out to between .035 and .045 torqued?
I have not figured the comp ratio on that yet but it looks like around 10ish, what would the best cr range be and still use pump gas without seeing the power go bye bye?
One other thing do you remember what the compression height was for the TRW pistons. Did you order according to truck or car?
These the ones? TRW L2291's have a compression distance of 1.776 if so then thats the same as 360 pistons and the car 390 pistons are 1.760 Hmm close. Thats why the 360's bring those emissions 390's back to life. Even less deck height.

 

I was trying to follow what your saying, so are we talking about .008 or so of milling? With those pistons. what was the compressed height of the gasket and then I will leave you alone LOL

 

I am new to figuring FE motor math but as I was looking at 410 comb's and came across a 361 Piston and figured it useing a 360 set up.

This combo. I found some 361 pistons (Compression Height: 1.882 (361 2.6 dia recess .17 deep) I know the head chambers are much bigger on 361's (lowers overall CR) but the comp height is greater and when used with a 360 head volume (I used 72cc *dt3*) 352 crank, long rod I came up with -.002 deck clearance. I added a .04 gasket for (.038 deck clearance). Then I figured the volume of the piston recess (2.3cc) and deck clearance volume (1.2cc) 3.5cc for those 2 added to the head volume 72cc total 75.5cc. Times 8 cylinders and overall I came up with 8.84 CR out of a 360 FE. I found another 361 piston with .16 recess height and estimated it at around 9.5CR.

Anybody want to check my math? I am not sure about the deck clearance volume.

 

Wrist pin size an issue going FT to FE?

 

Well I wondered that too. Also I looked at the original 361 pistons and they had full skirts and 4 rings not very promising. But these Silvalite pistons have cut back skirts, 3 rings and it looks like the same size wrist pin. Look at this. I couldn't see any other size issue. Let me know if I am missing something. Thanks.

<TABLE style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 2.25pt outset; BORDER-LEFT: 2.25pt outset; BORDER-TOP: 2.25pt outset; BORDER-RIGHT: 2.25pt outset; mso-cellspacing: 1.5pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184" class=MsoNormalTable border=1 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt" vAlign=top>V8 360
5.9 L
4.050(IN)
102.9(MM)

FORD
ENGINE<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
</TD><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt">1968-76

8.2<o></o>
</TD><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt">Truck engine. Four valve reliefs. Pin I.D..700".

APPROXIMATE HEAD VOLUME=8cc

Comp. Ht. 1.760
Pin Dia..9752 Offset<o></o>
</TD><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt">1131
Std.
.020
.030
.040
.060<o></o>
</TD><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt">1-5/64
1-3/32
1-3/16<o></o>
</TD><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt">C8TZ6108A<o></o>
</TD><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt">C6AE6110C
C8AE6110AA<o></o>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<o></o>
<TABLE style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 2.25pt outset; BORDER-LEFT: 2.25pt outset; BORDER-TOP: 2.25pt outset; BORDER-RIGHT: 2.25pt outset; mso-cellspacing: 1.5pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184" class=MsoNormalTable border=1 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt" vAlign=top>V8 361
5.9 L
4.050(IN)
102.9(MM)

FORD
ENGINE<o></o>
</TD><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt">1964-78

7.2<o></o>
</TD><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt">359/361 C.I. Sim. to 3142 exc. offset pin and no iron top groove. Replaces 1151(Part No. change only).

APPROXIMATE HEAD VOLUME=17cc

Comp. Ht. 1.882
Pin Dia..9752 Offset<o></o>
</TD><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt">3137
Std.
.020
.030
.040
.060<o></o>
</TD><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt">1-3/32
2-5/64
1-3/16<o></o>
</TD><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt"></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

Dished pistons???

The idea has been looked at before. I think the weight was one factor, and the truck pistons had a dish that would be counter-productive.

That is from memory though, we all know what memory is worth.

 

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Well that’s what I posted these pistons are not stock truck pistons. They have cut back the full skirts (weight) and in my calc I picked a set that has a tall compression height and figured in the dish volume. And last original FT pistons had 4 rings and these only have 3 like FE. I think they run areound 50 each. The posts I have read were centered around the availability of a suitable piston for the 360. The # I don't understand is the head volume they list?? <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" (APPROXIMATE HEAD VOLUME=17cc) I could be all wet but so far it looks good unless I am not figuring the volumes correctly. Now if that 17cc is the dish volume that would be bad. But I came up with like 1.2cc. With 2.3cc clearance vloume and 72 or so "73"360FE head volume for a total of 75.5 cc. Thats good! If it's right.