You Opinions Please!

[factorystock]

That simple,durability and longevity. It would last 2 or 3 times longer than any 327, 350 or 396. For some pickup owners and truck fleets, driving fast isn't the top priority. It would be like having a gas engine that lasts almost as long as diesels in the 60's and 70's.

['72customdeluxe]

if you want to get specific, fuel, oil changes, and front suspension wear on a heavy truck motor could go a ways towards a rebuild after 100k+ miles

[67chevy1series]

f ixed
0 r
r epaired
d aily

[67_C-30]

There is not, nor will there ever be, a more economical engine for a fleet truck than a 350 Chevy. Price of parts, parts availablity, price of accessories, economy and dependability is second to none. You can completely overhaul a 350 for less than half of a BBC, and probably a 1/3 of the price of a truck specific engine. The money saved on parts, repairs, maintenance and cost of operation over the life of truck cannot be matched with 350. I think the majority of people out there would view the 366 in a pickup much like the FE/Modified Fords and GMC V6's of the era are viewed now - uneccessary. Most of the 366's would have been pulled in favor of 350's by now if they were ever offered in a pickup. Don't get me wrong, I love the old GMC V6's because of their uniqueness and cool factor, but if I used my dump truck for my business, I would have put a SBC in it by now.

[Bob B.]

Originally Posted by factorystock

That simple,durability and longevity. It would last 2 or 3 times longer than any 327, 350 or 396. For some pickup owners and truck fleets, driving fast isn't the top priority. It would be like having a gas engine that lasts almost as long as diesels in the 60's and 70's.

GMC had that in the V-6, and as soon as the small blocks showed up in late '67 they outsold the V-6 by large numbers.

[skoffice]

I work with an old man that's built both engines, Chevys that can beat Fords, Fords that can beat Chevys. My boss is a die hard Ford man and knows just about every trick in the book for those Fords. He actually built the engine in the GT F-100 on the previous page. But I asked him one day and he said he has no opinion on which one is better than the other. Either way you can keep making the next one better. One thing I'd like to point out, has anyone seen the similarities between the LS series engines and the old FE's? you might be suprised at how similar they are. Evenly spaced ports, cross bolt main caps (like the 427 FE), higher ratio factory rockers, front oil pump, firing order, block skirts, oiling system, hell you can even buy a timing cover that uses a Ford distributor and fuel pump!

[factorystock]

I realize most people on this forum are light duty people and don't have too much experience or knowledge of trucks over 1 ton. Most probably never heard of a 366. I assure you, in commerical trucks in the 2 ton thru 5 ton category, the 350 comes in a distant third behind the 427 and 366.The 350 propels light duty vehicles just fine, but for rugged heavy use, theres room for improvement. Chevy realized this, and took action for the '66 model year. The 366 and 427's utilize many heavy duty componets as well as high grade steel through out and have gear drives just like diesels.

[Bob B.]

Over the years, I have driven and worked on several 366's from late 60's models through 90's. They were one of the best medium duty gas V-8's around. I also drove a few Ford 361XD's, and they were slugs. Pretty reliable, but nowhere near the power of a Chevy 366 or Dodge 361.

[factorystock]

Aside from engines, there are other interesting facts during this era. The rear axle ratio coverage on Fords seems to be more complete.Comparing 1970 trucks, Ford offered a Dana 3.73 ratio on F 250 and F 350 trucks. Chevy did not offer this ratio on c 20 and c 30's. When you compare 1/2 ton rear axles,Ford and Chevy built their own axles, but offered Dana also. The Ford 9" has a much better reputation in racing and off road than the Chevy integral.

[sean1969c10]

I like both but when it comes down to it, the Chevys have more value around here. I had a 67 F100 with a swaped in 360. I had a friend at the time that had a SWB 1969 C10 with a 396. I loved that Chevy but at the time I needed transportation and I figured if I bought the Ford, I wouldn't mess around with it because I didn't have any speed parts laying around for it. This worked pretty well, eventually the cab mounts gave out in the Ford and I parked it. At the time I didn't know how to weld so the truck sat while I gained experience. When it came time to fix the Ford, I found that I could buy one in good shape for much less than I could fix mine for. I ended up buying the 69 C10 I always wanted and around here they quite expensive in fair to good shape. I tend to like all old trucks so that old Ford still has a soft spot in my heart but, I am a hard core Chevy guy first and foremost.

Sean

[67_C-30]

Originally Posted by factorystock

I realize most people on this forum are light duty people and don't have too much experience or knowledge of trucks over 1 ton. Most probably never heard of a 366. I assure you, in commerical trucks in the 2 ton thru 5 ton category, the 350 comes in a distant third behind the 427 and 366.The 350 propels light duty vehicles just fine, but for rugged heavy use, theres room for improvement. Chevy realized this, and took action for the '66 model year. The 366 and 427's utilize many heavy duty componets as well as high grade steel through out and have gear drives just like diesels.

Having driven both extensively in up to 2 1/2 ton trucks, I can say without a doubt that the truck spec 350 is not that far behind the 366 at all. The 366 (pre 72) was rated at 235 HP @ 4000 and 345 TQ @ 2600. The same year truck 350 was rated at 250 HP 4600 at and 345 @ 2800. (The 366 was rated 200 HP @ 4000 and 280 TQ @ 2800 and 350 was rated at 175 HP @ 4000 and 280 TQ @ 2400 after '72) The power pretty much a wash, and the 350 truck engine had 4 bolt mains, a 5140 steel crank, so they were very durable as well. You had to spin the small block a little harder, but the SBC's lighter design didn't mind it. The timing chain was the biggest difference in SBC's vs the BBC truck engines and you had to chain those more often in bigger trucks, but it wasn't like they ate chains often.

Now the 427, that's a whole nother beast. It was making 410 TQ (pre 72) and still 360/370 after '72. It had the cubes to go with the large, heavy package. They ran very good, and were strong. Every truck I've driven with 366s were just adequate and reminded me of a small block powered medium truck.

I have no experience in anything bigger than a 2 1/2 ton truck, but I'm sure that in the same size and weight truck doing the similar work, that a 366 will outlast a 350. However, up to that point, I have seen the 350 hold it's own with the 366 in power and durability. We started out talking about pickups, and this has strayed off topic, but this is my basis for saying that a Ford's big medium duty based engines were pointless in a pickup. I stand by the fact a 350 will do everything an FE will do in a pickup, and do it better.

Just for comparison's sake, I checked out Ford's medium duty truck engines. The pre 72 330 was rated at 186 HP @ 4000 at 300 TQ @ 2000. The 361 was rated at 210 HP @ 4000 and 327 TQ at 2000. This pretty much means you had to get up to a 391 cu in Ford to match the horsepower and torque of the 350 or the 366. You had to get up the Super Duty 477 (which was a massive beast) to match the 427. As usual when you stop looking at Ford's slanted advertising (remember that Ford has outsold Chevy in truck sales since 1981, as long as you leave GMC out of it) and start looking at real numbers, you'll see that GM offers better power at a better price.

Oh, and one last thing. Let's compare the 327 truck spec engine vs the 330 Ford whydontwe? The 327 truck engine made 220 HP at 4400 and 320 TQ at 2800 vs the 330's 186 HP @ 4000 and 300 TQ @ 2000. I guess we know now why Ford was bragging about the bigger crankshaft and deep skirt block, huh?

[JRBECK64]

Bought this one for $200 and it spent 3 months in my garage and then I had $7K to work on my Chevys. Couldn't pass up the Money making opprotunity.
Before



After



I found restoring Fords to be a major pain exspecially when it comes to finding parts.

[flashed]

I was offered a 71 longbed today for $1500 ,has auto with a 390 and supposed to be in good shape. I plan to go look at it but probably wont buy it.

[DT1]

Built Ford Tough...

YouTube- Ford Truck is Ford Tough in Mr. Majestyk

[factorystock]

Originally Posted by 67_C-30

Oh, and one last thing. Let's compare the 327 truck spec engine vs the 330 Ford whydontwe? The 327 truck engine made 220 HP at 4400 and 320 TQ at 2800 vs the 330's 186 HP @ 4000 and 300 TQ @ 2000. I guess we know now why Ford was bragging about the bigger crankshaft and deep skirt block, huh?

Lets compare. It appears you are comparing a high compression 327 light duty pickup engine, not a low compression 327 medium duty truck engine.Chevy states 185HP not 220HP. The 330 and 327 have very similar torque and HP ratings, just the SBC is not as beefy.This is why GM didn't punch out a 327 block up to the 366 range. This is why the "real" 366 was developed. My earlier posts quotes a GM engineer saying it was developed to compete agianst the 361HD Ford.So clearly GM felt a need to make a more huskier engine than the small block in medium duty trucks.

[67_C-30]

Originally Posted by factorystock

Lets compare. It appears you are comparing a high compression 327 light duty pickup engine, not a low compression 327 medium duty truck engine.Chevy states 185HP not 220HP. The 330 and 327 have very similar torque and HP ratings, just the SBC is not as beefy.This is why GM didn't punch out a 327 block up to the 366 range. This is why the "real" 366 was developed. My earlier posts quotes a GM engineer saying it was developed to compete agianst the 361HD Ford.So clearly GM felt a need to make a more huskier engine than the small block in medium duty trucks.

No, I was comparing the ' 66 - '67 High Torque 327. It had a 8.5 : 1 CR. The '63 - '65 High Torque 327 was the one rated 185/305. Your literature must be dated '63 or maybe '64 because it talks about the 327 replacing the 283 Taskmaster. The high compression 10.5 : 1 327 was rated at 275HP at 4800 and 355 TQ @ 3200. This information was taken from MOTORS Truck and Diesel Repair Manual, Vol. 26 published in 1973. GM basically did punch out a 327 block up to the 366 range when they introduced the 350. The arguement could be made that the 350 got a large journal crank, but so did every other SBC in 1968 including the 327, so its a moot point. The funny thing is that Chevy didn't upgrade to larger journal size because of failure, they did it so that they could cut costs by putting cast iron crankshafts in the masses instead of using the small journal steel cranks.

Just to clarify my point here, I'm not arguing that there wasn't a need for heavy duty truck engines. Its just that the SBC's were a such durable little engine that they did very well in trucks up to 2.5 ton, which is why they continued to be installed in medium duty trucks long after the 366 was introduced. The 366 didn't replace the SBC's in medium duty trucks. This discussion originally started over Ford putting big, heavy, low powered, gas guzzling medium duty based engines in light trucks, and said that I thought it was unnecessary. I stand by that.

[Bob B.]

I think we are kind of missing the point behind offering the 327 and 350 in the C-50 and C-60. Of course the 366 was a more durable engine, but it was also more expensive. The Small Blocks were perfectly adequate for a farmer with a stake bed or small grain truck that would never see better than 40 m.p.h. and only be used a few months out of the year. Remember that Ford built a lot of F-600's with the 300 6 cylinder and Dodge built a lot of D-600's with 318's. Chevy also offered the 292 and 307 in C-50's. There was a market for cheap slow medium duty trucks!

[Ole Blue 68]

I picked up a '71 longbed for $1300 last month. It was such a good deal I couldn't turn it down. Even though it's all manual, I have to say it's a good driving truck that gets pretty good mpg (2 barrel 302).

I'll still take my Chev though.