Well, obviously I like the numbers off that ’71 better. Hopefully the ’73 was at least close in gross if not the same.

What’s odd though, is cleanLX’s door tag showing only 180HP with his ’69 390 and my ’69 360 showing 175HP. Only 5HP difference between the two motors? And that’s quite a bit off from the book showing 255 in ’71.

Thanks for all the info everyone! I have a cam question too, but I’ll start a new thread for that.

-CE

 

From '67 thru '70 there was a Premium fueled 2V 390 that made 280 hp and that is probably it as there was never a 180 hp 390 or even a 352 in the '60's. There was 375hp 390 4V in '61 and '62. There as a340 hp 3X2V 390 in '63 and a 401hp 3X2V 390 in '61 and '62.

 

Okay, that makes sense then. TY

 

I have a 73 F100 that was the stock 390 when I got it. I was thinking the stock hp was 185...I could be wrong though....I know this...for a 390 it was a dog. It ran just fine...just didn't have the neck jerking power I would expect from a 390. As many others have said, it's easy to turn it into a screamer.

Tracy

 

Yep, I stand corrected, I went out and looked at the tag, 185 cert. net. hp. not 180.
Now, all those engines you speak of.... were they truck engines or car engines?
I thought all the truck FE's were down around 8.2:1 compression?

 

I'm not positive but I also think all the trucks were low compression engines. The 60's car 390's are a different story. My dad had a 66 galaxie 4 door sedan 390...a family car...it was stock 330 hp. The car sat for years on the farm till he finally had a junkyard pick it up...I wish he'd have kept that engine.

 

Those were the car motors. The 1960's light truck engines were 360 was 8.4 CR and 215 hp @ 4400 and 327 ft/lbs @ 2400. The 390's were 8.6 CR and 255 hp @ 4400 and 376 ft/lbs @ 2600. The 361 and 391 were weaker yet, 361; 7.4 CR and 210 hp @ 4000 and 345 ft/lbs @ 2000. The 391 was 7.4 CR with 235 hp @ 4000 and 372 ft/lbs @ 2000. Then of course there was the 361 Edsel motor at 303 hp @ 4600 and 400 ft/lbs @ 2800. The compression was 10.5 :1 in '58 and 9.6 : 1 in 1959.

 

Oh please don't be fooled by those low numbers.
390 FE engine in general can make a real ground pounding stump jumping truck engine. In late 60's 390 mustangs could be beefed up easy to run in the 12's
Just a little work and it will surprise ya.
Rusty is right, about the low compression restrictive exhaust.
We are in the middle of beefing up my sons 390 in his 76 4x4.
I expect some real improvement.
I owned a 428 CJ in my youth. And it may surprise some to know that the early 428 CJ, actually had 390 GT heads.
You put GT heads on that 390 and some headers, large exhaust pipe. Pick a good camshaft based on your driving needs. And i think you are going to think you awoke a sleeping giant....
LOVE FORD BIG BLOCKS
including 385 series

 

Sorry, but I was racing in the 60's a lot and there were no stock 390's anywhere near the 12's. Even the 428CJ only bumped into the high 13's. And no, there was never a CJ with the 390GT heads. The 428 V4 and PI ran them but the CJ's all ran the 427 heads. Oh yeah, I owned several 428CJ, both auto and 4 speed cars and both with 4.30 rears and even the 4 speed notchback Cobra I ran, which never lost to a Mustang BTW, only ran 13.90s with street tires. With headers, monster cam and a 6 pack off a 406 did jump into the 12.60s easy enough, but the car was also lighter by 350 lbs by then and the suspension was pure drag race also. Super Stocks back then were anything but stock and can't be counted as stock anything. Also raced a '66 Merc Cyclone (with fiberglass ram air hood) with the 390GT and 4 speed and 3.91 rear and even slicks would not dump it into the 13's. Best it ever ran was a 14.10 and that was with slicks, street tires put it in the high 14.60s.

 

Bear

I think you misunderstood my post...
I was saying that the 390 that were beefed up...
Although it would have been nice to have a 390 Mustang or any engine in a mustang that went 12's out of the box.
The point i was making is that the low published number that was being discussed. Shouldn't scare anyone off a FE block.
Oh and I did check my research and your right it was the 427 head....(sorry for error)
This little note highlights is about a Mustang back in the day

In 1967, Popular Hot Rodding acquired a 390 Mustang GTA fastback as a project car. With a C-6 automatic and dead 3.25 gears, they baselined the car at 14.10 @ 100 mph. For the next six months, they changed gears, intakes, carbs, cams, headers, tires and a variety of other items that you or I might swap out on our cars, that transformed the car into a truly fast street machine, eventually posting a best of 13.29 @ 103 mph. All during the test, the project Mustang GTA remained a daily driven street car reliably bringing its driver to work and home every day while leaving the shifter in drive. On the weekends, it was a nasty race car that won more than it's share of races. Month after month, the author stated that the 390 GTA was not only competitive but embarrassed many cars with bigger engines. After 17,000 miles and 350 passes down the track, it was retired.

 

If you notice they only added 3 mph to the GTA. Mph is a reflection of horsepower and they didn't really raise it that much. The ET change is torque and most of that came from gear changes and tires. There were many build ups of the 390's and 428s, and as always all it takes is money. But the best one I ever saw was a build up of a 240 I-6, 4 speed Mustang. With added compression from pistons and a 300 crank and major head work along with headers and a Boush Fuel Injection (cost more than the rest of the project including the car) and they ended up with the same rear wheel horsepower and torque numbers and ET's as a 428CJ Mustang. Stock numbers mean little as the Ford preformance books show how easy it is to add power. Just swapping to the CJ manifold and carb are good for 17 hp @ 4500. The addition of the 390GT (428CJ) cam is good for another 35 hp @ 5000. Then the CJ heads on the 390 boost another 21 hp and headers for 15 hp. The total with the hydralic cam is 88 more horsepower, with the SCJ cam it's 101 horsepower. Going with one of the mechanical cams, pop up pistons and a 428CJ crank for the 410 CID got you anywhere from 129 to 145 over the stock 315 horsepower. But the usual set up back in the bad old days was headers and a bigger carb which didn't help much without the manifold (780's were way to popular and were really to much for a stock cam and head setup). The average guy was lucky to see 25 extra horsepower. The serious guy without major money did his own head porting, either found some of the 427 cast iron exhaust manifolds (good for the same 15 hp as tube headers, but heavy) and if lucky came up with a 3-2V or a 2-4V manifold and carbs. The tri-power worked best, I know I tried both. The quickest street legal Ford in Kansas and Oklahoma in 1971.

 

Well the door tag on my 70 390 FE 250...says 180hp @ 4000rpm...and doesnt give a Tq rating?

Russ

 

what about a 4v truck 390? or was that ever an option?

 

In 1972 the horsepower rating game changed, all the numbers dropped a bunch. Prior to 1972 a 390 pickup truck motor was rated at 276 hp @ 4400 and torque was 376 @ 2600 but there were no truck 4 barrel engines, all 2 barrel with an 8.6:1 compression ratio. A 390 car motor with 4 barrel was 300 hp @ 4400 but the compression was about 9.5:1.

 

interesting. im buying a 76 truck with a 390(or so i was told) it has an iron intake, and a 4v.
hmm..i wonder what it really is.

oh and to the OP, sorry for the thread jack, but i figured it was along the same lines. and instead of starting another thread....