Cam selection for my 289

Discussion in 'Classic Mustang Specific Tech' started by mattj25, Mar 23, 2008.

  1. the cam you have is basically the same cam that was in my 351 interceptor from the factory...nuttin' special. i swapped mine for a comp magnum, 292 duration/ 510 lift. it has a nice lope at idle, yet smoothes out just off idle. btw, ford motorsports has discontinued all smallblock flat tappet cams, they are rollers from here on out. also, congrats on the young owners awards, i showed my son (12 years old) the picture in mustang monthly, as the tahoe turquoise was the color of the 66 i drove in high school.
  2. You need more cam with that kind of compression, a good start would be Comp's 280H. As for springs, you'll need to see what you have now, plus what studs are on the heads. Have they been converted to screw in types? For just about anything hotter than the 268H, you'll need screw in studs, guide plates will depend of what 289 heads you've got. If they're the pre April 66 heads, they'll have pushrod guide slots and won't need guide plates under the screw in studs.
  3. I wouldn't swap the cam until you had the heads ported or bought better ones.

    It will sound good but run like a dog . . .
  4. I used to use a Edelbrock RPM in my 289 and it performed well with the stock heads. Sounded awesome!
  5. 280h cam kit part#
  6. Which intake do you have?

    Edit: I looked on the CD site. I think it should work fine with the RPM cam.
  7. a weiand X-celerator
  8. If you don't like the 268H, then don't use the Edelbrock 2122. You won't be able to tell the difference between the two. I'm puzzled on just what you want here. You want the big cam sound but think the 280H is "too much" ? And you're not satisfied with the 268H? The X303 is way more cam than the 280H, only main difference between the two is the LSA. A roller is probably what you want, but to get one in a 289 block, it's going to cost you another $600 at a minimum, that's not including the cost for the screw in studs and springs to match the cam.
  9. I love the 280H but I think it was way too much. It had my engine and pipes shaking like crazy. I didnt know the X303 was more than that but thanks for telling me. Thanks for your help.
  10. I put one of these in my 68 DQ 4sp car;

    Sounds real cool, but I broke a lot of valve train parts getting it together right.

    There is so much more to building a car than just a big cam! It all has to work together, cam, fuel, transmission, rear end gears, exhaust, safety equipment, like seat belts and stuff! It all looks good on paper, and then somebody gets an eye poked out!
  11. You're wrong, it doesn't all have to "work together" (as in the "matched parts" you always hear about). Every combo of parts has it's own set of results. There's no reason the 280H was not streetable for mattj25's car. It's all in the tuning. You have to take the time to make it all come together. Like everyone says Holleys and multiple carbs require constant attention. Nothing is further from the truth. Want the "big cam" sound ? Look no farther than a B303 roller, by it's specs, it's the smallest of the Ford Racing "alphabet" cams but it's got a healthy lope at idle.
  12. All I'm saying is that a lot of folks put in a huge cam, don't change anything else, and wonder why the car is slower than it was.
    (I think the 280H is an excellent package)

    I put an XE274H in my 69 351 W. It was a dog, wouldn't even turn over the tires! Then, (it's a long story) after I found out all the specs and what the cam needed to work, I started swapping parts.
    3500 stall? Check. 3.73 or higher gears? Check.

    Now, it's hard not to turn the tires. I've got an RPM air gap intake and 670 holley,complete MSD ignition, shift kitted FMX and 3.89's. But, since I installed the cam without knowing all the specs, I'm afraid to spin my motor over 4500 for fear of ruining my valve covers.

    The cam alone will not make it a race car, any more than putting a '750 double pumper' on a stock 289, even though Shelby 289's ran a 715 cfm.

    You can't tune in a gear ratio, or a power band.
    Sure, you can swap parts as you go, but it's better to have a clear plan and a clear understanding of what you want.:shrug:
  13. So they imply that the 374rwhp was on the motor with gt40p heads and a 306?

    Why didn't they just come out and say its got a plate . . . ?
  14. <a><img src=""></a>
    what plate?
  15. It's a solid lifter cam conspiracy I tell ya...

    Idle sounds very rough in that video and then in other parts of the video it sounds much smoother. Put a 270S in your 289 and be done with it. If ya want more testosterone, use a 282S...a very good cam for a 289.
  16. You could have skipped all the other parts and just cured the slow take off with just the gear swap. There was no need for a 3500 stall converter. A milder one would have done nicely. The one in my 77 Comet is probably less than a 2000 stall and with it's 3.50 gears Z303 cam all it takes to break the tires loose is a twitch of the gas pedal.
  17. no n/a 306 is making that power . . . more torque than HP, please.

    the numbers fall in line with spraying 70-100 on it.