289 cu. in. 4 speed

All of the 221/260/early289 had the same 5 bolt bell housing pattern. For '65, they went to alternators and 6 bolt bell housing pattern. It may be tough to fing one of the 5 bolt jobs since most of the 5 bolt bell housings were in front of the Dagenham 4 speed if it had a 4 speed. I would not want the Dagenham behind a healthy 289 if there is any way a T10 or something like it would work. They were common in both Falcons and Comets in those years. I don't recall if the pattern would work with other 4 speeds. I might suggest you post the problem in the Mustang group if you haven't already. You might get lucky and get an answer from some actually old enough to remember for sure over there.

Good luck

Lugnut

there were 2 bell housing mounting bolt patterns for the 289 . 5 bolt, and 6 bolt. the 6 bolt block is the standard. the 5 bolt block was a very early 65 block, and the bell housing is getting hard to come by any more, but they are still out there if you look hard enough.

and by the way, if in fact you do have a 5 bolt C4 in the car, don't get rid of it when you put the 4 speed in. that trans is even harder to find than a

2.79!! No wonder that thing can't get out of it's own way. It'd probably top out at 200 mph though. You could probably suck the doors off of that Volvo on a long straightaway. ;) You really need to do something about those rear gears before you worry about stall converters and shift kits. Something in the mid 3.xx range would really wake up what you have. That 289 doesn't have tons of low end torque in stock 2bbl or even 4bbl form and that gear is sucking up what it does have until it gets rolling. If the original converter is still in place, it probably has a fairly high stall speed to begin with. The original 289 2bbl Mustangs were pretty spunky off the line for a production car. You may want to find out what the factory gearing was for the different packages and work with those numbers. I'll bet it was around 3.55 to 3.70. (eech, no wonder my 76 Granada was such a slug...) From what I remember, the trans "should" be a C-4. I don't recall if the 6cyl versions were built lighter back then (compared to a C-4 behind a V-8 in 1964). I don't think they were, as that seems to be a more modern practice. Whoever builds the trans should be able to toughen it up if need be for your particular application. The C-4 is a tough trans for any street application, unless you just "want" a 4 speed for the cool factor. The other common trans in 64 was the FMX. It was used behind most FE motors and small blocks in big cars, but I don't recall if it was used behind the I-6s at all. It was a really tough trans and would likely be overkill, especially behind a 6cyl in a Mustang. The FMX center body is cast iron and bolts to the bell housing like a standard trans, with 4 big bolts. I've never heard of a 5 bolt (engine end) FMX bell housing. The bell housing on the C-4 attaches from inside the bell with 8(?) bolts.

Hope this helps some, despite my iffy memory of days long past. (Change those gawdawful rear gears in that Mustang, though. Pleeezeee.)

Your rear gear ratio is a performance problem - BIGTIME! You could really wake it up with something in the mid 3's if you still have the 14" wheel/tire combo. If you have the

13" combo, stay with a low 3's like a 3.25 which was common. As long as you have the 2.79, don't even think about a high stall converter unless you like boiling trans fluid at highway speeds. If you have a C4, it can be setup to out perform almost any manual with almost any driver. Not many people have the talent or know-how to "drive" a manual trans to it's best performance on the street or strip. As far as getting outrun by a Volvo, don't worry about it. Technology has come a long way in the past 40 years. Whe your "stang was new, an 8 sec 0-60 was pretty damn impressive. Now, we have stock 4 cylinder cars routinely under 8. A 3.55 gear behind a healthy stock 289 should take it pretty close. BTW, the Volvo probably had a turbo giving it a lot of help. My old Kaw Z1 was king of the road in it's day. It now routinely gets beaten by 650's. Enjoy your car with just a little help.

Good luck

Lugnut

snipped

FYI: 1967 Mustangs with 289 CID engines featured the following rear axle ratios:

2.79:1 behind a C4, 3 speed manual or 4 speed manual 2.80:1 behind a C4, 3 speed manual or 4 speed manual 3.00:1 behind a C4, C6, 3 speed manual or 4 speed manual 3.25:1 behind a 3 speed manual or 4 speed manual 3.50:1 behind a C4 or 4 speed manual 3.89:1 behind a C4 or 4 speed manual

Yet another $.02 worth from a proud owner of a 1970 Mach 1 351C with a

3.50:1 limited-slip ("Traction-Lok") differential @

Really? Still, given those numbers, it's hard to imagine decent low end performance with less that than the 3.25.