79 uhaul f350
#1
#3
You can, but why would you want to? I'd rather have the 330. If I were going for a different engine family, I'd probably go with the 460 in a one ton box truck.
Like Bullitt said, it will be easier to swap in an FE because you shouldn't have to modify anything. The 400 (and 460) will at least take different towers and a different bellhousing.
#4
#6
The 330 is not overly powerful, but it is rugged and can stand up to a lot of abuse. Why not just run it for the time being, see how you like it, and save that 400 just in case you need it for the CC.
Yes, swapping out towers and bellhousings is probably all you will have to do. Maybe the radiator, too depending on the size and hose routing...but even so, it would not be all that difficult. The 4 speed is what will save you, as it works will most if not all manual bellhousings. You won't have to swap that like you would an auto.
#7
The 330 is useless in a normal truck. With an extremely low governor, extremely restrictive manifolds and carb, the thing is a boat anchor. The block is good to use for a rebuilt 390 or 428, but that's about it.
The easiest route is an FE.
The 400 or 460 would need perches, mounts, bellhousing, might have to relocate the trans crossmember (forwards or back can't remember)
If you already have the 400, then most of the cost and battle is done.
Josh
The easiest route is an FE.
The 400 or 460 would need perches, mounts, bellhousing, might have to relocate the trans crossmember (forwards or back can't remember)
If you already have the 400, then most of the cost and battle is done.
Josh
Trending Topics
#8
#9
I wouldn't expect to see a 330 in a 1-ton. The last time I rented a 70s Ford U-Haul it was a '76 and had a 360 2-barrel with a 4-speed. Then again that was 1996 and I was a stupid 18-year old who thought roasting all 4 back tires in granny gear was cool.
I thought the 330 was an HD engine, found in 500/550 and up trucks? Mostly the cabover C-series?
I thought the 330 was an HD engine, found in 500/550 and up trucks? Mostly the cabover C-series?
#12
Here's some U-haul info from another website...
359FT and 389FT were special fleet engines. U-haul was pushing to reduce costs, so Ford defined a low-cost formula for creating FT engines in special fleet applications sometime around 1973. The result was an engine with a cast iron crankshaft instead of the FT steel crank, and a governor installed (on all?) which reduced the redline about 500RPM below the governed 361FT and 391FT engines to prevent any opportunity for warranty issues resulting from the less robust crankshaft. The lower RPMs resulted in less horsepower output and longer life. U-haul bought them in quantity, and the rest is history.
359FT and 389FT were special fleet engines. U-haul was pushing to reduce costs, so Ford defined a low-cost formula for creating FT engines in special fleet applications sometime around 1973. The result was an engine with a cast iron crankshaft instead of the FT steel crank, and a governor installed (on all?) which reduced the redline about 500RPM below the governed 361FT and 391FT engines to prevent any opportunity for warranty issues resulting from the less robust crankshaft. The lower RPMs resulted in less horsepower output and longer life. U-haul bought them in quantity, and the rest is history.
#13
330 in 1979 U-Haul
Here's some U-haul info from another website...
359FT and 389FT were special fleet engines. U-haul was pushing to reduce costs, so Ford defined a low-cost formula for creating FT engines in special fleet applications sometime around 1973. The result was an engine with a cast iron crankshaft instead of the FT steel crank, and a governor installed (on all?) which reduced the redline about 500RPM below the governed 361FT and 391FT engines to prevent any opportunity for warranty issues resulting from the less robust crankshaft. The lower RPMs resulted in less horsepower output and longer life. U-haul bought them in quantity, and the rest is history.
359FT and 389FT were special fleet engines. U-haul was pushing to reduce costs, so Ford defined a low-cost formula for creating FT engines in special fleet applications sometime around 1973. The result was an engine with a cast iron crankshaft instead of the FT steel crank, and a governor installed (on all?) which reduced the redline about 500RPM below the governed 361FT and 391FT engines to prevent any opportunity for warranty issues resulting from the less robust crankshaft. The lower RPMs resulted in less horsepower output and longer life. U-haul bought them in quantity, and the rest is history.