When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Just out of curiosity i'm looking for the TQ/Hp
onthe following motors
1963 240
1986 302
1986 300
1971 351
360
1986 370
1974 390
1978 400
460
Thanks
Dusty
I can give you the factory HP ratings on some of the engines, others were specific to trucks and I don't have the blueprint specs for trucks prior to '91.
I don't have a listing for a 240 prior to '65 but in '65 it was rated @ 150HP @ the flywheel.
In '71 there were 3 351C variations: 240HP, 280HP and 285HP, and one 351w: 240HP. All @ the flywheel. The 360 was a truck motor so I don't have any specs for it.
In '74, the 390 was no longer in service for car use, truck only.
This book lists the '71 version of the 360 engine at : 215bhp@4,400rpm & 327 lb./ft. of torque@2,600rpm.The '86 version of the 300 cid I-6 it lists as : 120(net)@3,000rpm &250 lb./ft. of torque@2,000rpm.I know I have a book with the 1974 390 engine's ratings,but couldn't find it, so these ratings are for the 1972 390 engine:201bhp@4,400rpm/163(net)@3,600rpm.This particular book doesn't list torque ratings(it's a different source book than the other one with the 300&360's ratings),but the 390FE should have more torque than the smaller 360FE.If I remember correctly,the 1974-1975 390-2V engine had 156(net) horsepower.I'll have to find that book.Hope this helps.
(source = High Perf. Ford Engien Parts Interchange by Geo. Reid)
1974 - 390 cu. in
265 HP @ 4,400 and 401 ft.lbs @ 2,600 w/2bbl
275 HP @ 4,400 and 405 ft.lbs @ 2,600 w/2bbl-PI (??)
315 HP @ 4,600 and 427 ft.lbs @ 3,200 w/4 bbl
320 HP @ 4,600 and 427 ft.lbs @ 3,200 High Perf.
I know the above conflicts with Degideo's info, but....
1978 400M - 158 HP @ 4,000 and 276 ft.lbs. @ 2,000 w/2bbl
460 224 HP @ 4,400 and 357 ft.lbs. @ 2,800
(the 460 figures don't make a lot of sense when compared to the 390 figures,.....that's what this source says though...)