[Drick]

Sounds like its built pretty good post pics when you get the motor in there would be pretty cool to see that motor in the car

[22sprague22]

hi zero uhh that 352 is was getting it comes with a four speed and i was woundering if it was slide up into my mustang. cause i know for a fact that t5 wont hold it for very long. but i was woundering if you would no what modifactions i would have to do to fit it in thier of even if i could.

[1slo5.0]

We had a 66 Galaxie with a 352. What a turd. The 352 is an FE series big block which is the same engine family as the 390, 406,427 and 428. The heads suck and they are heavy. A stock 5 liter will run circles around a 352.

[22sprague22]

hi uhh i was woundering if i could put that four speed im getting to put in my mustang if it would fit and what modifacations i would have to make cause that t5 wont hold it for very long and i dont want to tear it up.

[22sprague22]

i dought a stock 5.0 will run cirles around a stock 352 in a sn 95 body style. pluse with a tubular k memeber bar and alluminum heads and sheet metall intakel. 5.o doesnt have a chance. im not saying a well built one wouldnt but it would have to be one hell of a 5.0.

[zero]

i dont think ive ever heard of the swap youre attempting. but id be willing to bet youre going to be doing some serious modifications. a t-5 would hold that 352. its holding my 351W.. but not much longer. if you want to be fast, that old four speed from a truck just isnt going to do it for you. g-force makes some good strong transmissions. go take a look

[5literJeff]

Originally Posted by 22sprague22 i dought a stock 5.0 will run cirles around a stock 352 in a sn 95 body style. pluse with a tubular k memeber bar and alluminum heads and sheet metall intakel. 5.o doesnt have a chance. im not saying a well built one wouldnt but it would have to be one hell of a 5.0.

Why would you doubt that a stock motor design that is over 47 years old and known for being a dog/workhorse would not be up to par with a performance high output engine that is half its age and featuring much superior technology straight from the factory?

Roller cam mean anything to you? Fuel injection for improved low rpm torque and superior gas mileage... Electronic ignition which is much more voltage then the old points and condensor... I could go on and on but honestly you should have gotten the point already.

The "FE" series was so great it was removed completely from the ford lineup.

Tubulur k member bar? Aluminum heads? Sheet metal intake? Whats that have to do with stock? You saying a 5.0 cant have those too? Even with all that your still putting shiny parts on a turd. You can polish a turd all you want but it still stinks at the end of the day.

The old FE engines were crazy heavy. Way heavier then a 5.0 and not near as much hp stock for stock(unless we are talking a 428 cj or scj or a 427 side oiler, etc).

You could use the FE's intake manifold alone as an anchor for a barge. And thats probably a much better use of it then putting it in a 352 in a mustang.

[1slo5.0]

Originally Posted by 22sprague22 i dought a stock 5.0 will run cirles around a stock 352 in a sn 95 body style. pluse with a tubular k memeber bar and alluminum heads and sheet metall intakel. 5.o doesnt have a chance. im not saying a well built one wouldnt but it would have to be one hell of a 5.0.

Well if you really believe that, fine. Make the swap. Stock for stock the 5 liter will destroy a 352 and I'll put a month of my salary on it.

Not stock with sheet metal intakes, etc? Dollar for dollar a 5 liter will still beat up on a 352. There is not much available for those motors in the aftermarket and what is available is much more expensive than small block parts. Besides that the 5 liter engine alone is about 100 pounds lighter.

Its your car, do what you want. But you won't be impressed with a 352.

[22sprague22]

352 cubic inch

bore and stroke of 4.00X3.50

engine for the '58 T-bird

four barrell carb @ 300 hp

compression ratio 10.2.:1

cast iron crankshaft

forged steel rods, mechanical-lifter camshaft w/machined combustion chambers or cast chambers by 1959.

By 1960, the 352 HP was available with an aluminum intake manifold producing approximately 360 hp. thats stock for a 352 identical motor im getting except it is electronic ignition. so that bump the ponies up a little more. and if i remeber right my motor that is in the mustang now is only pushing 240 horsepower and thats with fuel injection and everything else. so the 352 is not a dog by any means.

[1slo5.0]

Originally Posted by 22sprague22 352 cubic inch bore and stroke of 4.00X3.50 engine for the '58 T-bird four barrell carb @ 300 hp compression ratio 10.2.:1 cast iron crankshaft forged steel rods, mechanical-lifter camshaft w/machined combustion chambers or cast chambers by 1959. By 1960, the 352 HP was available with an aluminum intake manifold producing approximately 360 hp. thats stock for a 352 identical motor im getting except it is electronic ignition. so that bump the ponies up a little more. and if i remeber right my motor that is in the mustang now is only pushing 240 horsepower and thats with fuel injection and everything else. so the 352 is not a dog by any means.

Go ahead and put it in your car then.....

Just some FYI, the 360hp 352 was more than just an aluminum intake. The common 352 engines were 200 to 300hp depending on the year. Even at 360 horsepower, you are also adding 300 pounds of engine plus the extra weight of the transmission that you will need to bolt up to it. Good luck...

[5literJeff]

Originally Posted by 22sprague22 352 cubic inch four barrell carb @ 300 hp By 1960, the 352 HP was available with an aluminum intake manifold producing approximately 360 hp.

It was not making 360 horsepower as we define horsepower today. I would be extremely suprised if it even made 240 at the flywheel.

From Wikipedia:


SAE gross horsepower
Prior to 1972 most American automakers rated their engines in terms of SAE gross horsepower (defined under SAE standards J245 and J1995). Gross hp was measured using a blueprinted test engine running on a stand without accessories, mufflers, or emissions control devices. It therefore reflected a maximum, theoretical value, not the power of an installed engine in a street car. Gross horsepower figures were also subject to considerable adjustment by carmakers: the power ratings of mass-market engines were often exaggerated, while those for the highest-performance muscle car engines were frequently understated.

Starting in 1971 automakers began to quote power in terms of SAE net horsepower (as defined by standard J1349). This reflected the rated power of the engine in as-installed trim, with all accessories and standard intake and exhaust systems. By 1972, US carmakers quoted power exclusively in SAE net hp. The change was meant to 'deflate' power ratings to assuage the auto insurance industry and environmental and safety lobbies, as well as to obfuscate the power losses caused by emissions-control equipment.

SAE net ratings, while more accurate than gross ratings, still represent the engine's power at the flywheel.