The 360 is also 5 valve. The 430 engine was actually based on the Maserati v8 that had been introduced in the GT as the 'old' dino style v8 would not pass newer emissions requirements (or so the story went at the time). The 348 has it's issues in the gearbox so it's a tradeoff. If the 355 hasn't had it's headers or valve guides done, it's a potential issue. If the 348 hasn't had it's gearbox gone through, it's a potential issue. Either way is potentially expensive.
My bad on the 360 part ....the 348 had the electrical issues pop up, never heard of a tranny issue on 348s as for the 355 the headers melting is not an "if" it will happen ,it's a given "when" it will happen ...and it always happens before 50,000 miles. All of them have their own little sore spots, but overall , the 348 is proving to be a tad less expensive to own via service .... For the dollar difference , the 348 gets the go ahead from me, especially when you drive one without that lazy steering they added in the 355....and let's not even discuss the potential f1 costs the 355 has to contend with in the later models.
Used to but.... I think we might have found the equalizer for the later cars Yes, but.... I dont think so, with almost all of the problems understood I expect the values to increase. The 360/430's are a completely different car and appeal to a completely different ownership group.... for the most part.
If one doesnt mind having the engine at 5k+ at all times, torque is of no consequence. Torque is what pulls you out of the corner, HP is the difference between 160 MPH and 175. I care little about what these fool things will go in a straight line, I care how well they will hunker down and pull out of a corner on the way to the next... thats torque. The arguement of which is better is age old.... and there is no winner declared yet. I used to build all of the race engines for max HP but that only worked at Road America and Donnybrooke... torque engines win everywhere else..... I was converted.
Naw, just a putz that has a hard time believing I can duplicate what we recently made. I have preached for many years that the Ferrari engineers very rarely let much on the table. I still believe that but....... My team of design debate folks have slapped me back to reality so many times, they want hard numbers and all I have is the old butt-o-meter and a bill for rear tires at this point. Time will tell if its an anomaly or if I can duplicate it at will. Upside is I no longer believe the later engine with the 5.2 is as restricted as I once believed it was. PS... dont do the Turbonators.... 'someone' already tried that, you dont want to go there!
Not hard to keep a 355 over 5k rpm (which I'm sure you know)...It cruises at almost 4k rpm on the highway. You ever plot the average HP used over a lap of your 'max HP' engines vs. the 'torque' engines? It would be cool to see at RA vs. the other tracks. I don't think chasing peaks of either HP or torque is that valuable, but that may just be me.
Sure isn't Pete, they live very nicely up in the high range. The key is to make an entire rev range not just useable, but highly functional throughout. In racing you tune to optimize any asset required for a particular track. Cam timing changes for each track are already in the notebooks... anything for an advantage. Broadening out a torque band far wider, where time wasted shifting between corners is no longer needed... THAT is an asset! RA & Donnybrooke required huge duration cams... anything with long legs for the long straights where HP rules, torque is only needed at turn 5 and 10. My IMSA 348 has a torque band that is maybe 1100 RPM wide Max, up in the 6500 to 8000 range with the Sprint engine. While it still pulls very nice at 10K, make one minute mistake and you become a mobile chicane. All HP and no torque... great for a seasoned Pro driver who doesn't make mistakes and always has his foot to the floor. For the engine builder to be driving this engine in anger, knowing what the cost is to live at 9000-10,000 RPM..... there is sound reason why the builders make questionable race drivers, we put a cost to how a car is being driven and that doesn't win. I know that engine has 4 hours life span, very little torque (but incredible HP).... a wonderful experiment where I learned a lot.... but not a valuable asset for anyone but a Pro. In the canyons out my back door, there are sections a mile long where having torque means no shift is required. You use the torque to pull you out of the corner and then rely on the HP to string it out to the next braking point. Really a matter of semantics, but a 355 with torque, where HP is not sacrificed... then you have a proper package. One of the reasons I like the original header design and the realized variable exhaust length...... torque, it already has nice HP.
Skirting the edge of acceptable for street but with the original flywheel / clutch..... I expect it to be useable. A step up from these, used with the 10 pound clutch / flywheel was a complete no-go for the street. Idle will be a bit cobby but they are a serious hoot come about 5K with the ported H intake. The std intake should bring that down to about 3800-4200 I suspect. This set of cams has been so many different things, I would have to look back and review my notebook to see what grind it is now. Still searching for just the right combination as the this combustion chamber design poses some unique challenges with overlap.
348 & 355 owners all get along really well in the UK Photo taken yesterday Image Unavailable, Please Login
And just when I thought that the "Mata Horn Peak" was excluseive to Switzerland you had to post these pics.
No, those amount to the Foot Hills. The ones coming out are the BIG lumps where the heads had to be relieved to the point where things get thin, just to make room for them to turn. I should never have listened to the old CanAm motto "Where Excess is barely Adequate".... it seems to have been a bad influence on me. If that isnt bad enough, I sent my spare 355 cams to my cam design engineer and he called asking how much aluminum was available to be removed from those heads. One day we will grow up.....
I love this article: https://drives.today/articles/792/comparison/1989-ferrari-348-ts-vs-1994-f355-gts/tim-pitt.html I don't want to start another new eternal debate... It is simply to share this nice article and to show that time is finally going, little by little, being fair with the Ferrari 348.
