Somebody help me. I give up. I've got a 66 mustang that i've swapped
a 289 into. The 289 came out of a 64 Galaxie. The engine has a really
strange bellhousing bolt pattern. The bellhousing that's in the car
now looks massive, but it's just a small block-to-c4 combo. I had
major trouble just finding a bellhousing to bolt it to the automatic.
All the other bellhousings' bolt patterns were just too small. Now my
automatic is slipping, and I've always liked 4 speeds, so, where can I
find a bellhousing to fit? Every 289-to-4 speed bellhousing i've found
has been for the 65 and up years. Will a 260-to-4 speed (maybe out of
a falcon?) bellhousing work? I guess I could swap the block for a
later model, but the motor is fresh, and I don't have another block.
Is there any aftermarket suppliers? If not, what years and models will
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.
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
5 bolt manual trans bell.
Thanks guys. I guess I'll just have to stick with the auto until I
find one of the older model engines with a stick behind it. The auto
in the car right now is the original (as far as I know) transmission to
the car. It was bolted to the stock 200 inline 6 before the small
block. What kind of transmission is it, anyway? I honestly don't know
if it's a c4, a cruisamatic, or what. Since im gonna have to rebuild it
anyway, might as well put in a stall and a shift kit. The car very
rarely sees the freeway (mostly just old country 2 lanes) and NEVER
gets raced (ok, maybe once or twice at the light). but, the car just
doesn't have any bottom end power. when I get the motor wound up she
is pretty hot, but on the bottom, there's nothing. I think the rear
has a 2.79 ring and pinion (out of a 79 Monarch). I know that I need
to switch the gears, but I need the tranny first. The diff is open,
and she still won't even chirp a tire, for gosh sakes! So, got any
advice on stall speed and shift kits? I don't want anything too hot,
just a little better take off, so I don't get outrun by another Volvo.
That was embarrassing. . .
2.79!! No wonder that thing can't get out of it's own way. It'd probably top out
200 mph though. You could probably suck the doors off of that Volvo on a long
You really need to do something about those rear gears before you worry about
converters and shift kits. Something in the mid 3.xx range would really wake up
you have. That 289 doesn't have tons of low end torque in stock 2bbl or even
and that gear is sucking up what it does have until it gets rolling. If the
converter is still in place, it probably has a fairly high stall speed to begin
The original 289 2bbl Mustangs were pretty spunky off the line for a production
You may want to find out what the factory gearing was for the different packages
work with those numbers. I'll bet it was around 3.55 to 3.70. (eech, no wonder
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).
don't think they were, as that seems to be a more modern practice. Whoever
trans should be able to toughen it up if need be for your particular
C-4 is a tough trans for any street application, unless you just "want" a 4
the cool factor.
The other common trans in 64 was the FMX. It was used behind most FE motors
small blocks in big cars, but I don't recall if it was used behind the I-6s at
was a really tough trans and would likely be overkill, especially behind a 6cyl
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
housing. The bell housing on the C-4 attaches from inside the bell with 8(?)
Hope this helps some, despite my iffy memory of days long past. (Change those
gawdawful rear gears in that Mustang, though. Pleeezeee.)
FYI: 1967 Mustangs with 289 CID engines featured the following rear axle
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 @
yuck. that 2.79 gearset must make that thing a pile of dog poop.
my 65 289/C4 falcon currently has a 3.25 gear in it, and I hate it. it runs
good, stays with most of the vehicles on the road, and gets 25 mpg, but it
is slow off the line. when I get done with the body, it is getting a fresh
engine and a 3.40 trac-loc center section before it gets painted.
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
Yeah, I guess the ring and pinion should come first. good advice.
well, like I said, the axle is out of a 79 or 80 mercury monarch (also
with a 6 cylinder). I'm thinking that 3.55's (or something close) will
suit me pretty well. What's your opinion, guys: would I be better off
regearing my current axle and putting a posi in it, or should I just
switch axles out of a factory V8 mustang? I drive the car pretty often
in the summer, so I definetely don't want a spool or minispool. If I
regear my 8 inch, then what kind of diff should I put in it (locker,
limited slip, etc.)? A locker seems like overkill for such a small
engine. what are my chances of finding a stock mustang rear end with
the trac-lok? My dad has a 64 Galaxie parts car with the axle intact.
Pretty sure it's a 9 inch, but I can't crawl underneath it to try and
find the i.d. tag (it's a 4 door sedan, not really sure which engine it
had). Would it be too wide in the first place? and, does the little
289 really need a 9 inch, or is my 8 inch good 'nuff? The Galaxie has
coil springs and some kind of 4 link rear suspension. Probably too
much trouble to swap, right? I know where there are 3 factory V8
mustangs, and the guy would probably part with an axle. emphasizing
low cost and low hassle, what's my best bet?
there is a guy on ebay that is selling fresh built 3.40 trac-loc center
sections for the 8 inch. I don't have one yet, but will pick one up for my
falcon when I get further down the restoration road to get rid of the 3.25
open rear that is in it. and as far as the 8 inch holding the power, I am
putting a worked 289 in it, and the 3.40's will be seeing around 350 hp,
which the 8 inch will take with no problems.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.