300hp 289?

[v8only]

you're absolutely right, and I won't argue with you on that point.

The cam alone is not going to get him to 300 hp....Leave the ported 351w heads for more mild applications. If he would have built his bottom end up with a lot more compression, and a more serious cam, then that would have gotten him closer to 300hp with those heads...but running 9:5 stock compression ratio likely won't cut it on a 289

http://www.mustangsandmore.com/ubb/BudgetSmallBlock.html

If you bumped your compression ratio up to 11:1, with those heads and a better cam (it's not gonna sound anywhere near stock though) you'd be close to your goal.

if a new bottom end is not in store then the only way you'll make it up is with a LOT more head, as I mentioned.

some heavily ported gt40 irons may fit the bill, and still give that bone stock appearance

keep in mind though, from the way he's speaking, he obviously dyno'd it still with no accessories on it...the old school method. He's essentially talking about building a higher compression 289 than what came in the hipo cars...he's figuring 25-30 extra horses on top of the 271 that they came with stock. however, that 271 # by today's standards is more like 175......so even with his formula, and more compression, it's HIGHLY unlikely that the 351w heads will get you where you want to be.

I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, just trying to keep you from blowing wads of cash on it.

My honest suggestion is to pick up a later 5.0 roller block, and drop a set of used gt40 irons on it. It'll cost you $500-700 out the door for everything, you'll have 300 honest to god HP, and it'll look identical to the vintage 289 that came out of it. You can even make that HP figure with the stock roller cam that's in the engine, so it'll idle like a stock engine too.

the 289 engines just don't cut it any longer as a viable STREETABLE performance engine

 

[D.Hearne]

..but running 9:5 stock compression ratio likely won't cut it on a 289

Why not ? It's done all the time with 302's. With even less compression. Look at the stock HO 302's, they only had a 9 to 1 ratio. The right cam will compliment the 9.5 compression, not handicap it. You're only looking at 13 less cubes here. Nothing that's going to keep him from his goal. I whole heartedly agree with starting with a roller 302, but you're seriously under rating the 289. They didn't earn their reputation for nothing. Many, many were built using the same 351W heads that put out more.

 

[v8only]

With all due respect, the 302's never did it until 1985.

The 302's were pushing 175HP and less from 1984 to 1964.

it wasn't until the roller cam blocks came into effect that the 302/5.0 engines started picking up a ton of HP with the low compression ratio.

you'll never get that kind of power out of a flat tappet vintage block unless you run a lot of compression and a lot of cam...that's all there is to it. This isn't a debate that 289's can't make the power, they CAN. The argument is about streetability, and unless you want your car to lope like a race car, and run 91 pump gas constantly, the 289 is not the block you want to start off with for a 300hp+ combo.

 

[2+2GT]

Again, he's going for period correct, and Ford was selling 351W heads as a 289 upgrade about 5 minutes after the 351W engine was introduced. With a little cleanup, it would be equal to the GT40 head, because basically the GT40 head is the 351W head. Now, I would have, as Ford recommended even then, used pop-ups to get back to, say 10:1 compression. Oddly, not that expensive, especially if you're already buying pistons.

The cam is real limiting, something taller and longer is in order, the C9OZ-C is a period piece, so that's within the idea, too. The 480 carb is a problem, even with an upgrade cam the carb will be done at 5000, even though the cam is good to 6. Ford recommended the Cobra intake, which actually stands up pretty well even today. The traditional carb is a Holley, although they can be a pain. The Edelbrock is the Carter AFB, and of course they were available before the Mustang was, so that's OK, too.

 

[2+2GT]

the 289 engines just don't cut it any longer as a viable STREETABLE performance engine

Huh? The only difference between the 289 and 302 is the 11 cubic inches from changing the 2.870" stroke to 3". Anything that you can do to a 302 can be done to a 289.

 

[zookeeper]

Wow, lots of info here, some good, some iffy. A 289 was a stout motor in '65 and a stout motor now. Anyone who thinks there's a night-and-day difference in a 302 and a 289 needs to wake up. If you want some beans out of your small block, I recommend a bit more cam (I love the 268XE in my car and cannot think of a better street cam for a mild SBF), a better intake (try an older F4B Edelbrock, you won't be sorry) and something like a 600CFM Holley vac secondary and some Tri-Y headers and you'll be amazed at the increase in both power and mileage. It was good enough for Shelby in '65 and good enough today.

 

[htwheelz67]

The 351w heads are fine, I've made great hp on a 351w with ported c9oe's and chevy valves.
I'm sure 65fbe2 wont want to yank the cam from his new engine, as far as cams go, no cam from 1969 will come close to modern cams, not that the performer cam is real modern but it is decent for low end and mileage, you dont want to go too high comp with iron heads, 9.5 is good especially with a mild cam, induction and exhaust are the bottlenecks in his combo.

BTW if you want to keep the stock look on the dist, use a duraspark dist and a 74-76 cap which looks just like the stocker, most are blue but I painted one black before, you can hide an ignition box behind the glove box. You will not make power with that intake, you will not find any engine with that stock intake making any big power.

Try-ys are period correct but go the 1 5/8" versions, I've seen edelbrock and wieand manifolds with the names ground off and painted engine color and even I with 30 yrs working on mustangs had to do a double take, the new summit racing carbs are like the old holley 4010's which look much like the old 4100's and priced nice, you can hide any carb under a stock air cleaner and cut out and install steel screen at the rear half of the air cleaner where it wont be seen and add a k&n.

 

[Hack]

Modern aluminum heads will do a lot better than old cast iron stuff. When I read that a set of heads are "ported", I immediately want to know who did the work and what their goal was. Porting only helps if it's done correctly for the application. I agree with 50 hp or more typically between a really good set of iron heads and out of the box aluminum. If the irons aren't done well or don't match the other components, you can get 100 or more HP bolting on aluminum heads. If looking stock is really important, you could paint the aluminum heads or just settle for less HP.

Matching all the components to the power goal is also a key. The exhaust might also be too restrictive to make your goal. You might want to port the exhaust manifolds at a minimum.

IMO to make 300 hp under 6k rpm NA with 289 cubes you need compression, a very good set of heads and for all the components to be right. Yes, it's going to be easier to make 300 hp or more with 347 cubes, especially if the ports are hogged out by someone who isn't an expert or with a different goal than what you have for this engine. It would also be easier if you don't mind having a lumpy idle.

A lot of good points above. You need to get everything right to make that goal.

 

[2+2GT]

Wow, lots of info here, some good, some iffy. A 289 was a stout motor in '65 and a stout motor now. Anyone who thinks there's a night-and-day difference in a 302 and a 289 needs to wake up. If you want some beans out of your small block, I recommend a bit more cam (I love the 268XE in my car and cannot think of a better street cam for a mild SBF), a better intake (try an older F4B Edelbrock, you won't be sorry) and something like a 600CFM Holley vac secondary and some Tri-Y headers and you'll be amazed at the increase in both power and mileage. It was good enough for Shelby in '65 and good enough today.

Yeah, the chief advantage the XE268 has over the Ford C7FE-A Cobra LeMans is the Comp is hydraulic. Of course, the Cobra mechanical is more stable at high rpm, so you pay your money and take your chance.

The Cobra intake specs pretty well, too. This old chart lists the Performer and Cobra but not the Performer Plus. The "Tiger" was the aluminum version of the stock iron 4V:

 

[2+2GT]

Yeah, those iron-head (not even 351W head) 289 cars really sucked for power:

 

[mrmustangman357]

if you are worried about stock appearance why did you go with an RRS front end? you can bolt stuff on your motor and put the stock stuff on the shelf, just like the suspension. I don't understand how you would desire stock appearance in one category but not stock appearance in another

 

[v8only]

Yeah, those iron-head (not even 351W head) 289 cars really sucked for power:

couldn't agree more, though I understand your sarcastic tone...

we had a BONE stock 289 66 mustang, down to the smog pump in daily driver original condition, and my bro had no problem at all beating it in his 1991 ford escort.

 

[2+2GT]

Yeah, those iron-head (not even 351W head) 289 cars really sucked for power:

couldn't agree more, though I understand your sarcastic tone...

we had a BONE stock 289 66 mustang, down to the smog pump in daily driver original condition, and my bro had no problem at all beating it in his 1991 ford escort.

You'll notice the car in the photo was NOT bone stock The Escort and the GT350 R model had one thing in common- low weight.

Now, suppose you add a C5OF-E distributor, C3OZ-C cam, Tri-Y's, Cobra intake and Holley, export brace and Monte Carlo bar, lowered upper arms and 1" sway bar, HD shocks, lightweight transmission, and try that race again. You see, the performance upgrades in cars like the Shelby helped create the engineering that went into the design of the Escort.

My sarcastic tone comes from repeatedly hearing how aluminum heads add a scazillion horesepower. The only real difference is aluminum heads by their nature are HP units. No one has ever bothered to make low-performance aluminum heads. However, an iron head done the exact same way will flow the same as an aluminum head- air doesn't care. The only real advantage aluminum has is light weight, which of course was one of the secrets of the success of the GT350R- They even used a weaker aluminum trans just to reduce weight.

The guy wants to keep stock, or at least period, appearance, so suggesting aluminum heads is a non-starter, no matter good they are. Dissing his iron heads won't change that.

 

[D.Hearne]

With all due respect, the 302's never did it until 1985.

The 302's were pushing 175HP and less from 1984 to 1964.

it wasn't until the roller cam blocks came into effect that the 302/5.0 engines started picking up a ton of HP with the low compression ratio.

you'll never get that kind of power out of a flat tappet vintage block unless you run a lot of compression and a lot of cam...that's all there is to it. This isn't a debate that 289's can't make the power, they CAN. The argument is about streetability, and unless you want your car to lope like a race car, and run 91 pump gas constantly, the 289 is not the block you want to start off with for a 300hp+ combo.

302's no till 1985 ? I guess you forgot the 68 4 bbl 302 and the 69-70 Boss 302's? The 289 Hi-po was doing it before then with the stock heads

 

[Hack]

You'll notice the car in the photo was NOT bone stock The Escort and the GT350 R model had one thing in common- low weight.

Now, suppose you add a C5OF-E distributor, C3OZ-C cam, Tri-Y's, Cobra intake and Holley, export brace and Monte Carlo bar, lowered upper arms and 1" sway bar, HD shocks, lightweight transmission, and try that race again. You see, the performance upgrades in cars like the Shelby helped create the engineering that went into the design of the Escort.

My sarcastic tone comes from repeatedly hearing how aluminum heads add a scazillion horesepower. The only real difference is aluminum heads by their nature are HP units. No one has ever bothered to make low-performance aluminum heads. However, an iron head done the exact same way will flow the same as an aluminum head- air doesn't care. The only real advantage aluminum has is light weight, which of course was one of the secrets of the success of the GT350R- They even used a weaker aluminum trans just to reduce weight.

The guy wants to keep stock, or at least period, appearance, so suggesting aluminum heads is a non-starter, no matter good they are. Dissing his iron heads won't change that.

With all the performance stuff and lighter weight of the 1966 Shelby - rated at 306 HP, the car was 6.6 seconds 0-60 and 15.2 at 93 in the quarter mile.

For a 2780 pound car, that comes out as about 180 HP at the flywheel. So, go ahead and make a copy of that car's engine and race any car made in the past 10 years. Believe that your odds aren't good!

The HP ratings published in the 60s were so far off! Modern aluminum heads can make a genuine 300+ HP at the flywheel and easily without 10:1 compression and 100 octane gas. Maybe you're sick of the truth but that doesn't change the facts.

 

[Hack]

302's no till 1985 ? I guess you forgot the 68 4 bbl 302 and the 69-70 Boss 302's? The 289 Hi-po was doing it before then with the stock heads

1970 Boss 302 was 0-60 in 6.9 seconds - standing quarter mile in 14.6 at 98 mph.

That's about 220 hp. The Boss 302 engine probably made more power than that on the top end, but made up for it with a REALLY weak low end torque curve.

Sorry to go OT on this thread, but people tend to glamorize the performance of our cars and I really felt the need to do some mythbusting.

 

[woodsnake]

Why not do it the easy way?
Pull and save all the original, date coded pieces, block, manifolds, (intake and exhaust);

And put on a more modern 'cheaper' engine, trans and rear end. As has been pointed out, roller motors are cheap and easy these days.

Save the original stuff under the bench for that rainy day when you sell the car.....

It's not rocket science, it's resto-mod.....

 

[Helmantel]

He's right, at Gross vs SAE...

that 289 you're starting with is 150 HP in reality. You're trying to add another 150 hp with a small cam and old out dated iron heads.

the 289 is a problem from the getgo. To make any power out of that block, you need to run more than stock compression, and run a bigger cam, which is going to make you unstreetable to a large degree, then run aluminum heads.

you're better off starting with a 5.0 roller block. 225 + iron gt40 heads = 300-325 flywheel horse all day long...+ it'll look damned near identical to that 289.

To the poster who said that it wasn't worth the upgrade from iron gt40's to aluminum's, I could not possibly disagree more.

while I'm a huge advocate of iron gt40 and gt40p heads, and in fact, run those heads on 3 of my vehicles, the difference between a set of iron gt40 heads and the SMALL afr 165 heads is about a full 50 hp.

In the original posters scenario, he's running a stock 150 hp block with a tiny cam, and out dated 351 heads, and needs to gain another 150 hp. the ONLY way that's going to happen is with a GOOD set of aluminum heads and a real good cam. At that, with the 289, he may still not make his goal.

65fbe2...the reason you made 400 hp with a 347 stroker, is that you started with a 5.0 block to begin with. stock for stock, the 5.0 blocks make damned near 100 REAL hp over the vintage blocks. you can throw garbage at the 5.0 blocks, and they make good power quick.

Dyno that engine as is, and you'll find you have maybe 200 at the wheels, give or take a little/

the 351w head swap on an otherwise stock shorblock with a small cam was good 20 years ago when we had nothing on the market that was better. Nowadays, it's just about the worse way to go if you want to make serious power, such as what you want to do.

A 289 needs really good heads to make 250-275 hp but a stock 5.0 makes an easy 325 with GT40 heads? You make it sound like the real problem is the block. He already uses a 302 crank, so the only differrence between his shortblock and a 5.0 is the taller lifter bosses.
Although being able to use a roller cam sure is an advantage, it doesn't mean that a non-roller block is hopeless. Besides, you can use roller cams in older blocks too with either a reduced base circle (which I have, but I feel the it makes the cam flexible, so I don't recommend it) or special lifters (expensive).

Although the old factory ratings don't mean too much, you can still use them as a reference. The numbers are just numbers. The A code performance is the baseline and GT350 performance is the goal. If you call the baseline 225 HP and the goal 300 or use more realistic numbers doesn't really matter. As long as you don't expect the 2008 Mustang GT performance from a 289 build up to Shelby specs....

The new engine performs only slightly better than the old one, which is not really surprising, because except for maybe the heads, everything is either stock or a slight improvement over stock. None of the components seem really wrong for the application, they are just all a bit too mild to make a huge improvement over stock. Almost all components (intake, carb, cam, headers) on a 306 hp Shelby engine are higher performance, except for the heads.

Before I would change anything, I would put it on a dyno and tune the carb and the ignition. I'm sure there are quite a few hp hidden there. Although it may never make 300 hp, the parts lists still looks like it should be a nice engine for the street. Just not a race engine.

 

[Decurion]

View attachment 253247

 

[htwheelz67]

a 5.0 HO in SAE ratings makes about the same hp and more TQ than a 289hp, The 289hp makes hp up high while the 5.0 makes it lower rpm. Also the 5.0 has low tension rings, hyd roller and better (not much) flowing heads, the performer package on a stock 302, (cam,carb,int and headers) makes about 225hp, adding the performer heads adds about 20-25 more.