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.
Everyone seems to forget that there were 352 4 barrel manifolds. Specifically on the 1958 thru 60 cars and 1664 thru 66 cars. Included in that were the 1960 352 H.P. which with a mechanical cam, 10.6 to 1 compression and a 4 barrel carb made 360 Horsepower at 6000 RPM and 380 ft/lbs of torque at 3400. There were no 4 barrels on the truck motors however.
Exactly!! The X code 352-4V was the only 352 option in the '65 Galaxie.
Exactly!! The X code 352-4V was the only 352 option in the '65 Galaxie.
Right, as Bear 45/70 also mentioned, the 352 was introduced in '58 in cars with 4bbls. Question, did this '65 Galaxie x code 352 have the oil tube in the intake manifold like earlier 58-64's? 1958 10.2 C.R. version shown in photo.
Right, there are tons of old posts on this forum and there will be tons old posts re appearing in the future, but learning is an on going process. What was posted 11 years ago may not hold water today. And what is posted today may not hold water 11 years from now.
In 1958 Ford offered an "interceptor" 352. 300 hp, 10.2 to one CR and a bunch of torque. Came with a "4 venturi " carb. I know the post is old. Just my 2 cents.
Right, there are tons of old posts on this forum and there will be tons old posts re appearing in the future, but learning is an on going process. What was posted 11 years ago may not hold water today. And what is posted today may not hold water 11 years from now.
No offense ,tripleframe but across all forums I’ve ever been involved with, “Necro-posting”, is always discouraged and newbies - as well as those who ought to know better - have to be educated not to do it. You cannot have been involved with forums for well over a decade and not know this. It’s just one part of forum etiquette , though I’m fully aware many could not care less about such things.Far better to start a new thread, of course after being nudged to use the search function first, than to start conversing as if the conversation ended a few minutes, not years, ago.
For edification purposes, why is necro-posting a nono if one is not asking the OP to reply? Such as an educational thread where stats and history are the topic vs personal or opinions
Just to be clear, there is no rule about posting on an old thread. I sometimes give people their own thread for decodes or non-identical problems, especially when I can see that the OP or other important poster is no longer on the site.
It is true that many sites discourage necroposting and bluntly tell people to use the search function.
But this site and the members are very, very, very good about not telling newbies to "learn to use the search function".
Much old thread posting comes from people who found the thread via a google or other fine brand search, and so they pop on to an old thread.
I only make the old thread comment to make people aware of the age. Some people read post 1 and then post an answer to someone who has been gone for 10 years.
Tripleframe rightly points out the millions of old posts. If it was true in '58, it's still true today with respect to how a 352 was outfitted, as Red60 points out.