I drove a 360 FE for years, the FE is a great engine, but why the heck are they such notorious gashogs ?
Seems I must have talked to a dozen Ford truck owners over the years with 360s and they all got 10-11 just like mine did. I tinkered with mine many times playing with the carb, timing, bought a fuel economy guage, still could barely do 12. The truck was not low geared, either.
By comparison my 81 has a 351M and is 4wd 3/4 ton and it can pull 15 with the air running.

 

I know exactly what you mean Bill! i drive my 66 w/a 352 everyday and at almost 400 bucks in gas every month i should buy something else.... prolly be money ahead!

 

The base engine was designed in the late 1950s when fuel cost about 10 cents a gallon. No one cared about fuel economy. Power was what it was all about back then.

 

Yep what bear said, trucks were used to haul things and for farm use no one really cared about mileage just dependability. I laugh everytime i see Bears avatar, damn kids and their hot rods as he is shaking his cane as they pass by hahaha.

 

With the 360, it was a combination of low compression, cam, and from 1972 and up, cam timing. That, and the 2bbl carb they put on them.

A small 600CFM Holley vacuum secondary, all other things being the same, gave me much better gas mileage on the highway, and that was with a '74 highboy with 4.10 gears and 31" tires. I think it went from 10 or so to 15 on the highway if I was nice to it.

And yes, I used a 4-to-2 bbl adapter

If you were to up the compression a bit to say, 9-9.5:1, a decent "rv" cam (degreed correctly), and a 600CFM holley vacuum secondary, the good old 360 would do better.

But by that time, why not go with a 390

 

It is a funny avatar. I heard that the FE's combustion chambers contributed to poor fuel economy, it just seems they were a little extra thirsty. Co worker had a International pickup with a 304 and a factory 5 speed and it got purtee good fuel economy for a 1960s truck. The GMCs in the 60s had a fine V6, but they were gashogs too. Just seems to me some engines even with similar size do better. I know gearing and all that helps, but still.

I'm keepin an eye out for a cheap Escort, Tempo or whatever in case we a big price increase in fuel (I hope I'm wrong) I like going junkin, fishin and out for country drives but it's not practical when your trucks are gashogs and fuel cost is an arm and a leg.

 

[quote=Econoline 150;8913028]It is a funny avatar. I heard that the FE's combustion chambers contributed to poor fuel economy, it just seems they were a little extra thirsty. Co worker had a International pickup with a 304 and a factory 5 speed and it got purtee good fuel economy for a 1960s truck. The GMCs in the 60s had a fine V6, but they were gashogs too. Just seems to me some engines even with similar size do better. I know gearing and all that helps, but still.

The thing about the combustion chambers, if one were to use the Edelbrock heads at about 9.1 compression, a performer intake and a 600 cfm carb with duraspark II or other aftermarket ignition could I then expect say 14-16 mpg?

 

On my 360s I never did the adapter thing. Was always able to find a 4V manifold when I wanted one. However I did the bigger 2V a couple of times, up to a 650 CFM and the mileage just got worse. That's because of how carbs work. A Holley tech rep at a race in Tulsa said it best,

"A lot of little holes is better than a couple of big holes."

That's why the 4V's smaller holes work better.

I also agree with, "if you do the same things to a 360 and a 390, the 360 will never come close to preforming anywhere close to the 390."

 

I hope to find out in the next couple of months, as I'll have a similar setup installed by then (hopefully):

'69 F100
390 (10:1ish)
C6 (Super Streetfighter) w/2500RPM stall
3.73 gears
Performer RPM top-end (port-matched)
Comp ***** Thumpr cam
Speed Demon 650cfm
Performance Distributor

I'll be able to report back fuel economy then...

 

I honestly don't know, but I'm sure the Edelbrock heads are an improvement in many areas over the stock heads.

 

Dogone Bear, I didnt know you were a cheby lover...You must love the Quadrajet carb then,,,LOL err or is that quadrajunk. I've rebuilt about 50 of them and I dont think any two were the exact same...I hate em.

 

Actually I hate the Q-Jet. I worked on thousands of them as the marine industry loved them. However I only ever met one guy that had the magic touch with them when it came to high performance. I leaned more to multi carb set ups like this gem that work great on one of my CJs.

 

I THINK the consensus a few years back was that the Edels can be matched with a stock set of C8/D2 heads, with porting, and bigger valves installed. The big difference is the aluminum helps with detonation.

However, by the time you pay someone to do all that work to a stock set of heads, the Edels were the same (or close in) price.

If it were me, to do all over again, what I did with the 390 for my highboy, I'd say "buy the Edel heads". Much easier. And much cooler looking

 

Since aluminum helps with detonation then a higher compression could be used with a lower octane, say 9.5 and 87 octane? Am I on the right page here?

 

That's the idea, but how much? I dunno, and no one has ever done a real scientific comparison on the FE that I know of.