289 power???

I was looking at a 1966 stang with matching#'s whih we all know means less then stellar power, My question is how much power can be made without a power adder? I can affor to rebuild just about everything from crank to carb. is 400 hp doable?

It sounds reasonable. I mean stock power wasn't impressive but it was decent and a complete performance rebuild should be able to do the trick.

400 horsepower is a stretch for the little Ford. Of course it can be done, but will you be able to actually DRIVE it when it's done? It will be quite "rowdy" (the cam and compression necessary for the power level).
I would consider a "stroker" kit to get there easier. The 331 (or 332, depending on who's catelog you read) is the hot ticket. It ends up as the same bore/stroke combination as a .030 over 327 (Chevy). Good revver. The 347 kits are popular, too, but the rod/stroke ratio isn't very good. This can lead to durability problems.
A solid roller camshaft and aftermarket intake/exhaust are also necessary. You'll need some serious rear gear to support it.
The 289 heads will also be "too small". Don't waste a bunch of time or money trying to get them upgraded. Modern aluminum heads, or World Products "Windsor Jr." heads will breath well enough for your purposes.
Hope this is helpful.

Jim

I own 1966 mustang 289 v8 fullt built motor. Its not race built just performance parts so it still drives nice if you consider nice not being able to hear or see out of the mirrors lol. I will give you a quike list of what is done to it I might and probaly am missing some things but this will give you an idea. By the way I am somewhere inbetween 370 and 400 to the rear wheels. ok here goes. I have 289 v8 bored out with molly pistons molly rings street performace cam edelbrock highrise intake holly 650cfm carb. 373 gears built c4 race tranny with cruise o matic and 2800 converter hmm what else oh it has ceramic coted long tube headers and and a dual exaust with super 40 flowmasters. Just bought the car so dont remember everything. But all i can say is its not the best drive in the world but its not like driving a indy car. Have fun!

cbell,
Just curious, but where did you get that "370-400 RWHP" number? That's a TALL order with no adders. It would mean at or near 500 at the flywheel. Edelbrock does not supply solid-roller cams. They have only flat-tappet hydraulic cams. I know of no small block Ford making that kind of power under 408 CID (351W "stroker") with a hydraulic cam.
What are "moly pistons"? Do you mean the brand name "Mahle"? (pronounced "molly") A decent piston, but not really the hot setup for a high performance engine (heavy, but tough).
A single 650 carb is not nearly enough to feed a 400 horsepower engine.
Perhaps a trip to the chassis dyno is in order, to be certain what the "numbers" are.
Which heads are on that? Are you sure it's still a 289 and not a 331 or 347?
I ask these questions strictly for clarification. If you really have such a beast, I would like to know as much about it as possible.

Jim

Its not meant to be a race engine just a performer. I am new to the muscle car fad. I bought this car with all the upgrades done to it. It dose not have a edelbrock cam. It has an edelbrock intake. yes you are prob right about the pistons name cause thats just what the guy said to me. He gave me a very rough estmate of power. Soon the local tech school will open there dyno to the public and then I will see and post the numbers. It is bored .030 the reason for the brand of pistons was it was gonna be a nitrouse engine. And the guy told me any more carb would over do it. I dont know what heads he put on it but they are not the stock ones or I guess they could be the stock ones but have been taken to a machine shop for work. Untill i can really get a chance to get some track runs i cant really tell yet. I dont like to race on the street. All I can be sure of race wise is that it has beaten a 80's corvett. But then again I did not take a look under the hood of his friends corvette so it might not be that fast.

cbell,
I'm real curious. Please post here when you've run it on a dyno or at the track. For track info to be meaningful, I need to know the weight of the car, and what tires you use (rear, size and type).
Just for information purposes, a C-4 is a "Cruis-O-Matic". That was Ford's name for all the automatic transmissions of the day except the "Econo-Glide" 2-speed. That is, a C-6 and an FMX are also "Cruis-O-Matic" transmissions. Ther are a couple of variations on C-4. The "heavy duty" version is also known as C-5, among transmission men. Not to be confused with the later "C-5" found in Fox bodies. You can tell the early C-5 at a glance by the bolts holding the bellhousing on the case. If they don't go through the pump body, it's a C-5 (there will be 2 complete sets of bolts around the pump). If there's only one set, it's a C-4.
It should be a reasonably good performer. In olden times, 289s and automatics were recipe for a lead sled. Today, with converters at affordable prices, things have changed. Look for it to run around the 14.0 mark (1/4 mile). You MIGHT squeeze it into the 13s. A good set of slicks and some traction equipment would go a long way in your launch. Don't be disappointed if it doesn't go "12s" first time out.
Above all, if you like the car and are having fun with it, it doesn't matter how fast it goes. "Fun" is the operative word here...

FWIW, my brother is real into Mustangs. If there's something you need or something odd you know where is, let me know. He might be able to help, OR he might just want it...! He has a show-stopper '65 "K-Code" (high performance factory package). Nice looker but it won't touch his '99 Cobra.

Jim

Thanks for the help. It has a c4 tranny. The 3:73 gears have made a big diffrence in the launch but I am still working on getting used to it. As my sig says I am going to this from a eclipse na 5 speed. I need to get a tach because I keep hitting the rev limiter on the msd ignition. If found the chip to remove it but i dont want to take it off untill I know my rpms. From what i have heard the 289 is a very solid engine and IMO it is better then the 302 that replaced it. The only big problem with it was the heads and the carb were not allowing the engine to to perform to its best.
Your brother must be one lucky guy to own a K code stang with the 289 Hipo I heard there rare and cost a lot. Right now the only thing i need to do to the car is put an electric fan and 3 core. Then move on to the rear suspesion with new springs and shocks.

cbell,
The debate whether or not 302 is better than 289 has been "raging" for nearly 40 years. The plane truth is the bigger the engine, the more streetable power it can make. 302 is a great engine for its' size, just like 289. The ONLY functional difference is the 1/8" of stroke. Late 289 blocks say "302" on them. Some of the earliest 302s had 289 blocks. It's a convoluted mess... The biggest difference aside from the stroke, is the length of the rod. 289 rods are a tad longer than 302 (as a result, they use the same piston part numbers). Both rods are tough stuff.
289 has the ability to rev well past 7,000 without lower end modifications, and live. Valve train and head flow are the limiters. It was fashionable in the early '70s to use 351W heads on 289, adding a "bump" to the piston, and a solid lifter cam. 8,000 RPM is not uncommon with this setup.
In today's performance "world", stroked engines are the hot ticket. You can use the original 289 block to build the 331 (or 347), but I would recommend "stashing" the original stuff and using a cheap 302 core to build it. I would also recommend a "baby" C-6 if you're wanting to get "serious". The C-4 is fine behind a little motor, but it can give up without warning once torque exceeds 400 lb. ft.
I know you're not trying to upgrade right now, but this is all food for thought, for the future, once you get comfortable with V8s and how to launch/rev them. If you trip over a 302, grab it!

Jim

my 289 with paxton supercharger and a comp cam and all kinds of goodies puts out 566 hp. on a real good dyno. so sky the limit, as long as your wallet has no limit. that dyno was @6300 rpm.

My dad has a 1965 289 with over sized pistons highpeformance cam some other goodies but not alot and it is putting out 373 hp. so its deffenitly possible for 400hp

Just to be clear on a couple of points made here.
don;t use an old 289 to build a stroker motor.
If anything, use a later than 86 Roller motor to squeeze every bit of power out of it you can.
Roller cams will give you higher lift, duration without hurting cars street manners.
The debate over stoker motors goes on & on, but,if i was to build another, i would go 331 not 347.
you can make just as much power ,without getting rings up into the piston pin (oil escapes into cylinder bore) & a more favorable rod ratio, which, on the street ,is important.
Cruiseamatic trans was Fords name for the predessor to the C-4
In 62-63 Fairlanes the Cruiseamatic was standard, its a 2-speed automatic, don;t even think about using it.
And, a C-6 won;t bolt up to a small block, C-6's have the big block bellhousing pattern.
Although, i did just see a 351 Cleveland & the guy swore it was backed by a C-6, so ,knowing Ford ,who knows.
Just make sure ,before buying a trans it matches your early small block bell (5 bolt) or 65 & later small block Bell (6 bolt
good luck

Just to be clear on a couple of points made here.
don;t use an old 289 to build a stroker motor.
If anything, use a later than 86 Roller motor to squeeze every bit of power out of it you can.
Roller cams will give you higher lift, duration without hurting cars street manners.
The debate over stoker motors goes on & on, but,if i was to build another, i would go 331 not 347.
you can make just as much power ,without getting rings up into the piston pin (oil escapes into cylinder bore) & a more favorable rod ratio, which, on the street ,is important.
Cruiseamatic trans was Fords name for the predessor to the C-4
In 62-63 Fairlanes the Cruiseamatic was standard, its a 2-speed automatic, don;t even think about using it.
And, a C-6 won;t bolt up to a small block, C-6's have the big block bellhousing pattern.
Although, i did just see a 351 Cleveland & the guy swore it was backed by a C-6, so ,knowing Ford ,who knows.
Just make sure ,before buying a trans it matches your early small block bell (5 bolt) or 65 & later small block Bell (6 bolt
good luck

Got it.. Geez, you really are an expert

Again, an old thread. But... The post by msvic is completely inaccurate in many areas. Wish I'd seen it sooner...

In 1955, Ford introduced the "Ford-O-Matic", a "single range" (has only D and L on the selector for forward gears) 3-speed automatic. In '58, the first "Cruis-O-Matic" was introduced. It was a cast iron case, "dual range" 3-speed. Very similar to the later "FMX". The 2-speed was never refered to as "Cruis-O-Matic, but as said before, "Econo-Glide". The "green dot" Cruisos were first. That is the one when you put it in 2nd (the green dot), you get all three forward gears and conventionally governed shifts. If you put it in "D", it will only give you low gear for a few feet, and shift up to 2nd very early. It was designed to be better in ice and snow. They dropped it around '68 or so.

The aluminum cased C-4 was introduced in either '63 or 4, I can't quite remember. It was a "green dot" trans in the beginning. ONLY behind small V8s. There was a 6 cylinder version a little later.

C-6 was in the big cars at least in '67, but maybe 5 or 6. The FE case and the big Lincoln (430/462) were the first versions. When the Lima block was introed in '68, it was the logical choice. In '69, there was need for a heavier duty auto for the Boss 302. Hence the "baby C-6" was born. It was used behind all the Cleveland 4-bbl. engines equipped with auto (2-bbl. Cs got FMX). There was a time when it was very rare and sought after by the small block race crowd. In the early '80s, it made a "come back", as many E and F series trucks were using 351W. Not nearly as hard to come by as myth would have it.

All late '65 and newer 289s have a 6-bolt bellhousing pattern. it is shared by ALL 302s, and 351C and W. M is the same as the 385 or "Lima" engine bellhousing (370/429/460).

Lastly, hydraulic rollers are okay, but rapidly becoming obsolete in the street machine arena. Since Comp and Crower have introduced an extensive line of solid roller "street" grinds, and a lifter with positive oiling to the wheels, solid rollers are the best fare. And the solids are a little less expensive.

Jim

[quote=MrPbody]Again, an old thread. But... The post by msvic is completely inaccurate in many areas. Wish I'd seen it sooner...

In 1955, Ford introduced the "Ford-O-Matic", a "single range" (has only D and L on the selector for forward gears) 3-speed automatic. In '58, the first "Cruis-O-Matic" was introduced. It was a cast iron case, "dual range" 3-speed. Very similar to the later "FMX". The 2-speed was never refered to as "Cruis-O-Matic, but as said before, "Econo-Glide". The "green dot" Cruisos were first. That is the one when you put it in 2nd (the green dot), you get all three forward gears and conventionally governed shifts. If you put it in "D", it will only give you low gear for a few feet, and shift up to 2nd very early. It was designed to be better in ice and snow. They dropped it around '68 or so.

The aluminum cased C-4 was introduced in either '63 or 4, I can't quite remember. It was a "green dot" trans in the beginning. ONLY behind small V8s. There was a 6 cylinder version a little later.

C-6 was in the big cars at least in '67, but maybe 5 or 6. The FE case and the big Lincoln (430/462) were the first versions. When the Lima block was introed in '68, it was the logical choice. In '69, there was need for a heavier duty auto for the Boss 302. Hence the "baby C-6" was born. It was used behind all the Cleveland 4-bbl. engines equipped with auto (2-bbl. Cs got FMX). There was a time when it was very rare and sought after by the small block race crowd. In the early '80s, it made a "come back", as many E and F series trucks were using 351W. Not nearly as hard to come by as myth would have it.

All late '65 and newer 289s have a 6-bolt bellhousing pattern. it is shared by ALL 302s, and 351C and W. M is the same as the 385 or "Lima" engine bellhousing (370/429/460).

Lastly, hydraulic rollers are okay, but rapidly becoming obsolete in the street machine arena. Since Comp and Crower have introduced an extensive line of solid roller "street" grinds, and a lifter with positive oiling to the wheels, solid rollers are the best fare. And the solids are a little less expensive.

solid roller cam, for the street
Oh ,yea, i want to adjust solid lifters one a month, NOt
the hydralic roller cams are the future
But, not for old drag racers

Msvic,

You're behind the times. Hydraulic rollers are passe. They were fine for the interim, but newer lobe profiles for solids have changed everything. Add to that, the improved lifters with positive oiling to the wheels (Comp and Crower both offer them), and you have a bulletproof setup. Actually, one of our best running customers (10.90s over 126) has an old Comp HR profile in his '65 GTO, with solid roller lifters on it. VERY effective!

You are also showing a bit of superstition by commenting on adjusting lifters every month. That's ancient history, but we still hear it all the time. It stems from the early '60s, when Chevrolet put solid lifter cams in their "bigger" 327s. They didn't change the adjuster type from the hydraulic, using only "crimped" nuts to hold them in place. Over time, they WOULD work loose. This is due to the mechanical "slap" the rocker gets each cycle. The hydraulic had no lash to take up, so it wasn't an issue. Ford 289 "High Performance" (271 HP) had similar issues for the same reasons.

Today, when we build a high-powered street engine, regardless of lifter type, we use "poly-locks" and high quality rocker studs (the tips are ground flat, perpendicular to the centerline of the stud, allowing the set screw in the poly-lock to have full contact). They don't "back off". Most of our customers report "adjusting" the lash once a year, but seldom have to make any changes. In olden times, before this change was considered, the extruded end of the stud wasn't flat, and the poly-locks weren't as dependable. ARP, Comp, Pioneer and many other suppliers have the flat-ground studs.

FWIW, I'm NOT an old drag racer. I'm an old STREET racer, that went to the track for level-set purposes. That's how I learned my 13 second GTO could beat most of those 11 second Mustangs and Camaros (really ran 15s, but they THOUGHT their cars were "fast"). Not withstanding, I am currently an ASE Master engine builder with 30 years under my belt, and have some of the more powerful 93 octane engines out there suitable for daily driving (600-plus HP without adders, under 500 CID). We've installed no less than 25 solid roller cams in street engines over the last year. It's impossible to get the smile off their faces!

At CVMS, we don't follow trends. We TRY to "set" them. Sometimes, we do!

PAX

Jim

Msvic,

You're behind the times. Hydraulic rollers are passe. They were fine for the interim, but newer lobe profiles for solids have changed everything. Add to that, the improved lifters with positive oiling to the wheels (Comp and Crower both offer them), and you have a bulletproof setup. Actually, one of our best running customers (10.90s over 126) has an old Comp HR profile in his '65 GTO, with solid roller lifters on it. VERY effective!

You are also showing a bit of superstition by commenting on adjusting lifters every month. That's ancient history, but we still hear it all the time. It stems from the early '60s, when Chevrolet put solid lifter cams in their "bigger" 327s. They didn't change the adjuster type from the hydraulic, using only "crimped" nuts to hold them in place. Over time, they WOULD work loose. This is due to the mechanical "slap" the rocker gets each cycle. The hydraulic had no lash to take up, so it wasn't an issue. Ford 289 "High Performance" (271 HP) had similar issues for the same reasons.

Today, when we build a high-powered street engine, regardless of lifter type, we use "poly-locks" and high quality rocker studs (the tips are ground flat, perpendicular to the centerline of the stud, allowing the set screw in the poly-lock to have full contact). They don't "back off". Most of our customers report "adjusting" the lash once a year, but seldom have to make any changes. In olden times, before this change was considered, the extruded end of the stud wasn't flat, and the poly-locks weren't as dependable. ARP, Comp, Pioneer and many other suppliers have the flat-ground studs.

FWIW, I'm NOT an old drag racer. I'm an old STREET racer, that went to the track for level-set purposes. That's how I learned my 13 second GTO could beat most of those 11 second Mustangs and Camaros (really ran 15s, but they THOUGHT their cars were "fast"). Not withstanding, I am currently an ASE Master engine builder with 30 years under my belt, and have some of the more powerful 93 octane engines out there suitable for daily driving (600-plus HP without adders, under 500 CID). We've installed no less than 25 solid roller cams in street engines over the last year. It's impossible to get the smile off their faces!

At CVMS, we don't follow trends. We TRY to "set" them. Sometimes, we do!

PAX

Jim
sure , makes perfect sense
Is that why Crane & Comp sells more Hyralic Roller cams than all others put together
Or is that why every factory performance engien(LS7 excluded, thats a big exclusion!) use roller cams
We all don;t need to rev to over 7K you know?

sure , makes perfect sense
Is that why Crane & Comp sells more Hyralic Roller cams than all others put together
Or is that why every factory performance engien(LS7 excluded, thats a big exclusion!) use roller cams
We all don;t need to rev to over 7K you know?
:rolleyes:
Some notes:
1. The big-seller cams are not necessarily the best.
2. Auto manufacturers have many issues other than pure performance in mind when they select roller cams. Issues such as fuel economy, emissions and lower warranty claims are just as important in their selection, and affect their engineering decisions, making rollers more attractive than a more performance-based solid cam.
3. Given that MrPbody is one of the most knowledgeable members that this forum has ever had, your sarcastic dismissal of his sound advice is probably not justified. :)

This thread is old and has run its course. It has been closed to prevent a flame - fest.