225 vs 210 HP == 289

Peter,

You could look at it this way... put it on a dyno and you'll know exactly how much (rear wheel) horsepower that it has, regardless of factory designations.

Even if you "knew" that you had a 225 horse version, if you get on the dyno and it tells you that you've got 180 rwhp, you've got 180 rwhp.

Also considering there are a lot of things that will contribute to final rear wheel horsepower a car puts out, state of tune could dictate if it is more apt to be like that of a 210 horse version or a 225 horse version.

First consider drivetrain losses of ~20%. Thus the 225horse version

*should* be around 45 less, or 180. Now there is debate whether or not that number should be anywhere from 15% - 25%. Thus the range could be wide. Options like PS will bring down the number more. What if the timing isn't optimized? What if you're running old mufflers that are in poor shape and years of entering parking lots have pinched your exhaust system? What if your trans is slipping?

You could leave there putting out 150 at the rear wheels. That still doesn't tell you which it is. 210x.8=168. So would 165 at the rear wheels guarantee you one or the other? 12 horse is easily accounted for in a number of drivetrain ineffefficiencies.

I'm sure someone can tell you where to look for codes that may clue you in further. But by all means take it to the dyno and find out what it's putting out!

Steve BBB on a stand.

The differences were higher compression and 4 barrel carb for the 225 hp version. If the car is happy on regular gas you have a 210 hp engine with a 4 barrel on top.

I have a 66 Mustang coupe . It has a 210 hp short block with a Ford 4 barrel and manifold. It works good and runs on the cheap stuff. I have no idea how much hp it has.

I also have a 66 Sunbeam Tiger. The engine is a 260. It is running the stock cam and heads with a Ford 4 barrel manifold and a 500 cfm edelbrock carb and long tube headers. It dynos 188 hp at the rear wheels. Not bad for an engine that was rated 164 hp AT THE CRANK.

Erich

what year is the car? from 64-66 the 289 engine codes are: D 289 4V, 64 only 210 hp C 289 2V 200 hp A 289 4V 225 hp K 289 HI-PO 271 hp F 6 cylinder

the code is the 5th digit in the vin and its stamped under the hood on the driver's side inner fender next to the fender lip. it is also on the door tag.

1967 is to be included in this list also - the 289 was offered as 4V in 67, then stopped for 68, replaced by the 302.

"winze" a écrit dans le message de news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com...

You could still get a 289 in '68. You couldn't get the hipo 289 though. If you wanted a hipo you got a 302 and the GT equipment would have mandated the

302. However the 289 was still an optioned motor in '68. I know of MANY '68's with 289's in them even in the more rare cars like the Cal Specials and HCS's. Some of them being built as late as July. The 302 4 barrel version stopped in '70. The '70 302 was only offered in the 2 barrel version, unless you got the Boss (obviously), but that motor can't really be lumped in with the regular run 302's. To get a 4 holer, you had to move into the 351's.

Scott W. '66 HCS 302 '68 Fury III 383

Just to add to that info, the 1968 C code 289 was actually a 302 block (new C8 casting) with a 289 reciprocating assembly inside. The block and heads still have 302 cast on them despite. StuK

Where did you find that tid-bit of information? I knew the 2bbl 289, rated at 195 hp, was replaced mid-year with the 2bbl 302, rated at 210. But I didn't know they used the same block in '68. Makes sense though, since the

302 just has a slightly longer stroke. They must have had a lot of 289 rotating assemblies laying around, and not so many blocks...

I believe they were short on 302 reciprocating assemblies and used the 289 innards on the

302 block (There was a strike in '68 but I'm not sure if that was related to the shortage) That tidbit was from ripping a few '68 C code engines apart and seeing 302 cast in the valley and the heads and my friend at Ford who told me who owns a C code '68 Cougar. The block was an all new C8 casting and not really different from the 289 per se. StuK

According to what I've read in a couple places, the 302 block had a deeper cylinder in it to add support for the longer stroke. This spec came to light when someone evidently had problems putting a 347 kit in a 289 block.

CobraJet

Hi Todd

Its VIN is 5F08F172673 which meant that it orignally came with 260 2V. I believe the 6 cylinder engines were coded T

Well, well, well... that's a good thing to know and keep an eye out for. Not that 302's are all that easy to come by these days... Thanks!

-Pat-

innards on the

to the shortage)

message

THAT was a good tidbit of info to sock away. So really the 302 block was backwards compatible but the 289 is not forward compatible as far as stroking it.( that would be the per se part of my last post!) StuK

I believe you are correct. T is correct for the 6 cylinder, not F.

You have a couple of ways of telling what motor you have ,the 200 hp was a 2 barrel carb the 225 hp was a 4 bbl if it is the stock intake that should tell you, if not getthe casting # off the heads and that will tell you.

Heads were no different between 2 and 4 barrel engines. The compression ratios for 2V's were dropped by using pistons with dishes instead of flat tops.

CobraJet

Where would I look? An ideas

Thanks

Isn't it the other way around? The 302 would have a shorter cylinder to clear the longer stroke. I know when my buddy used a 289 block with a 302 crank and rods he had to notch it to clear. I'm guessing thats why a 347 would be a no-no in a 289 block.

MadDAWG

No, I'm talking about sufficient cylinder lower wall to support the piston at bottom travel, especially considering the added angularity that comes with a 3.40" crank and long rods. I can't picture why your buddy had to do that with his combo.

Unfortunately, all my small blocks are stuffed, so I can't take any measurements at the moment. I'm just relaying what I read.

CobraJet