I have a 90 GT. This winter I want to do something to my Stang that is different then all those other 5.0L High Outputs on the streets. But will still be able to hang side-by-side (if not ahead) of them. I was talking to a friend of mine and he mentioned something exciting like a 289 block w/ 351 Heads 351 intake etc.... Have many of yall out there done anything like this to your Ford? Is there a name for this conversion? Financially speaking... what would be the "quickest" - "snappiest" motor out there to build for the money?????? I understand that if I do something like this I will have to go Carb instead of Fuel injection.
Any advice for this project is appreciated. Or maybe some in depth detailed web sites that you know of.
Since the 289 would give up 13 valuable (there is NO replacement for displacement) inches to the 302s, I'd forget that idea. Add a stroker crank to the 302 and you come up with 347 inches.... There's not a bunch of difference twixt the 351 Windsor heads and the 302 heads (the 351 intake is much wider than the 302 intake and it just ain't gonna fit) and here in the great white north, Cleveland heads are getting rare. Best suggestion... stroke it, slam on a set of aftermarket heads..... EFI or carb is your choice.
If you want to go radical.... how about a 4.6 4V or maybe a 6.8???
I agree about stroking it. A 289 will pretty much look like a 302 anyhow, so what's the point of dropping cubes??? One reason "all those other" cars are similar is because they work...
You want to build the quickest/snappiest for the money. Once again, everyone is running similar combinations because they are what are mass produced, thus driving down the costs for the pieces. Oh yeah... and because they work.
Also, do you have to pass emissions??? This could also effect what you do.
I done this back in 1977, and had well over $4000.00 in my motor. The thing to remember is that when going with the 351w heads, is that the combustion chambers are larger and you will need to bring up the compression ratio by changing pistons, and shaving the heads. Here is basically what I had done:
351w heads: shaved .060, screw in studs and guide plates, ports gasket matched, 3 angle valve job, roller rockers. Block: hot tanked, new cam bearings & freeze plugs, bored .030 over. Pistons: TRW forged 12.6:1, Speed Pro file fit rings. Crankshaft: Oil holes cross drilled and chamfered, and journals polished. Camshaft: Erson .535 lift .288 duration, Solid lifters, & double row timing chain & gears Ignition: Accell dual point distributor, and super coil Intake: Edlebrock Torker Carb: Holley 750 dual feed, double pumper Others: Rotating assembly balanced, Lakewood blow proof bell housing, Zoom clutch & pressure plate, top loader 4 speed tranny, & Hurst Shifter.
All this in a 66 fastback. The day I put it back on the road, I took a friend of mine for a ride, and he told me that it ran as good as his modified LT 350 Camaro. I personally like the shorter stroke motors because they rev faster, and can be built to redline allot higher that a stroked motor. Sure the stroker motor makes a ton of torque, but if you can't get it to hook up, it's a waste. Sure, to some it's really cool to smoke the tires, but when it comes down to actually racing, I want to spin the tires as little as possible.
Right now I have a 71 Pinto that has a stock 84 302 with pedestal mount rocker heads, that ran a best of 13.217 @ 100.25. This winter, I'm installing a set of 351w heads, and a different cam & lifters, and that is all. I'm going to be racing the car with this setup next year. During next season, I'll be gathering parts for the next motor. When that motor is done, the motor in the Pinto now, will end up going in my truck that I will be using to take the car to the track. That is why I'm not going too wild with the motor in the car now.
Oh boy.... this guys gonna shit in our back yard. You can still get a lot of pizzazz without significantly increasing emissions. I can honestl say that I don't mind a Sunday cruiser that may not be as clean as it could, but our daily drivers.....
The '69 Charger I look after sees about 40 hours a year..... the 500 inch RoadRunner (when finished, will likely see about 2 hours of driving for 6 hours of tuning).
Maybe your comment was in jest...... I, for one, am looking forward to grandchildren.
I didn't say anything contrary, Steve. I just indicated that we shouldn't be cavalier in our attitudes towards emissions. Our world is in the state it's in because we don't think ahead....... It is our sworn duty as thinking, breathing, mature individuals to minimize our impact on our environment.
I wish I could claim this as my own.... we do not own this planet, we are borrowing it from our grandchildren. I realize this means little to some of the younger denizens of this NG, but I can recall some of the advice I wa given as a youngster - I only wish I had heeded the advice...
Forget the 351 heads. The chambers are too large to yield much more than 8:1 compression on a 289. I'd use the FMS GT-40X 58cc chamber aluminun heads with the larger stainless valves and improved combustion chamber. A .030 overbore should give you about 292 cubes. Run a solid lifter cam or even a 'mild' solid roller lifter cam. No rev. limiter will be needed with this engine, and it won't sound anything like a 5.0 As for money... you get what you pay for. The EFI can be upgraded to work here, but, I believe that Edelbrock manifolds and carbs work well on older cars and should work well on yours too.
In a small light car like a Mustang a 289 could have advantages over a 302. It's a more 'square' engine that loves to rev. I ahve a '67 Galaxie and a '68 Galaxie, the '67 has a 289 and the '68 a 302. Man, you wouldn't believe the difference. That 289 loves to rev. Man, you shoulda seen it when I had the original closed chamber heads on it, it would haul ass and I'd rev that thing out the wazoo! I once raced my buddy, letting him drive my '67 and I drove my '68... Wow, the '67 was like greased lighting compared to that dog of a 302. The 302 just didn't want to rev, even when I held it in low gear. After tuning the advance and putting a slightly larger carb on teh 302 it helped but still didn't rev like the 289. Both cars weigh the same and have identical drive-trains. I'll take a 289 over a 302 any day, if not for the easier revving then for the cool-factor.
I heard of a guy that built a 289 that could rev to 12 grand (saw it on a web site a while back methinks), and yes, that's 12,000 RPM. I think he shifted around 10,000. Amazingly it didn't blow up either and he got tons of passes on it! Now I'm sure that engine cost a fortune to build, but hell, I get excited at 5,000-5,500, so I can't imagine the thrill of having an American V8 that revs to 12 grand.
You're right Jim, I was agreeing with you... "There are a lot of 5.0's doing it (and passing emissions)!"
I wonder how many people assumed that I meant it as written above, and how many assumed I meant in the manner such as "a lot of people are getting around emissions"?
...then there are those that don't really care and are reading the AAMCO rant thread. :)
Unfortunately, yes.... notice that the newer they are, the better they are. Many diesels have switched to the HEUI style injection systems which offer lower emission, smoke and stink. Unfortunately, city air will always be something really different.
Back when I was a cave dweller Idamn those concrete canyons) I can recall finding the air smelled "odd" after a rainstorm. Took me a while to realize that what I was smelling was fresh air. Now, thirty some-odd years later, my infrequent visits to our closest city show that even a downpour can't clean the air well enough to smell "odd".
However..... we shouldn't start pitching our rubbish into the street simply because the guy two doors down is doing it. Two wrongs will never make a right, no matter how we look at it.
'92 Explorer... emissions hooked up and working '02 Supercrew.... ditto '69 Charger.... 5 gas shows a car that woul pass 1969 emission standards.
I see lots of suggestions and reminiscences about days of old but I don't see any real world rwhp or time slip numbers. What are you trying to achieve? How much money are you willing to spend? What level of performance are you coming from? Is this your daily driver? Do you want to keep your factory hood? All these factors have to be considered before deciding which path to take. If you want to keep a factory hood then you will need to stick with a 289/302 block. I wouldn't even consider going back to a carb on a street car. I would rather deal with electronic tuning then deal with trying to figure out those ancient contraptions, but that's just me! A 331/347 would be nice. You'll have to do your homework and find someone who knows what they're doing especially with the 347 since older designs had oil consumption issues. $2500-$3000 will get you a nice 331/347 short block from Keith Craft (keithcraft.com). If that taps you out for a while then you can re-use your stock heads and intake until you can save up to replace them. Another $2k or so will complete the package with aluminum heads and a better intake. All this should net 350-400 rwhp with a good tune which will require a chip or other tuning device (tweecer, etc). Now if you don't mind a cowl hood then you can step up to the next level which uses the 351 block. Start stroking that puppy and your biggest problem will be getting the power to the ground without breaking transmissions or loosing traction! If money is more of an issue then a nice heads/cam/intake package could net you ~300 rwhp with the right components. Ed Curtis of flowtechinduction.com has a nice, proven package for ~$2500.
Question: What is the difference between the 289 & 302? Answer: the stroke. The shorter the stroke, the faster it will rev. But that doesn't mean that you can't get a 302 to rev like the 289. A friend of mine has a 306 that redlines at 8700 rpms, and has run 10.39's. There's a possibility that we will be building a 326 over the winter, and with all the work that will go into the machine work, it should run high 8's to low 9's, and will rev like his 306.
Forget the 289 ... You can argue engine theory all you want but decreasing your cubes will force you to rev the engine higher in order to make the same power. RPM kills engines, period. Besides, we're talking about a street car, torque rules the street and cubes = torque.
We do A LOT of work with strokers. If your budget allows a 331 or 347 would be even better.
There is no need for 351w heads now a days. There are a number of aftermarket heads that will outflow the stock 351w heads, have better velocity, drop 50 lbs off the front end and bottom line make more power.
You must be talking about me. Well, back in 77 they didn't have chassis dynos, and engine dynos were pretty scarce in my area. Actually, they still are! There is one shop that is in the process of installing an engine dyno, but I'll wait untill he has it setup and has dyno'd a few before I take my motor to him. But if it will make you happy, I'll post a link to time slips next season after I install the 351w heads and different cam on my stock 302
4v, that ran a best of 13.217 @ 100.25 in stock trim. with 4.62 rear gears. I'll even post a link to my friends time slips that runs a basically stock bottom end 302, but with Brodix heads, roller cam, and Hillborn injection, that runs on alcohol, and has run a best of 10.329 @ 129.16 with 4.88 rear gears, that redlines somewhere around 8500 rpms.
I bought a 66 2+2 fastback back in 75, that had a 351w 4 speed in it when I took possesion of it. It had the stock hood on it, and there were no problems with clearance. Of course # 2, 3 ,6 &7 sprak plugs were a pain to change with headers on it.
I would sooner have the, as you call it, the ancient ignition & fuel systems. I have crewed on friends cars at differenet drag strips, that are at drastically different altitudes, and seen the need for tuneable ignition & fuel systems. I can see how someone would shy away from the older systems, only because they don't understand them. Besides, with an accurate log of setups for different tracks and different weather conditions, allows us to set the motor up for each track before we make the first run, without the need for a dyno tune. Besides, how many tracks have a chassis dyno, and who can afford to put it on a dyno every weekend for 5 to 6 months? In drag racing, the KISS theory prevails. If you don't know what that means, it means, "Keep It Simple Stupid!"
What oil consumption issues are you talking about? Reguardless of which block you use, if the assembly is done right the first time there should be no issues.
Let's see, a decent cam & lifters would run about $200.00, a set of 351w heads, maybe $100.00, and have the heads hot tanked, magnafluxed, new freeze plugs, screw in studs, guide plates, 3 angle valve job, maybe another $200.00. That's a total of $500.00. That would leave him with $2000.00 to $2500.00 to upgrade the short block, or to upgrade the chassis to be able to get the HP to the ground effeciantly. That is if your going to do the work yourself. If not, then you'd have to allow for labor to have someone else do it.
It all depends on what the car will be used for, and how long he intends to keep it. For a daily driver with no racing planned, a stroker motor would be a waste of money. A nicely built 289 or 302 would be all that would be needed. Remember, the more HP & torque you make, the more work that is needed to the drive train and suspension. Also, another thing to remember, if he intends to sell the car in the future, more than likely he won't get out of it what he put into it. But then again, it all depends on his budget, and how much money he is willing to just throw away.
Don't get me wrong. stroker motors are ok for racing applications, provided you spend the money to do it right the first time, and put money into the drive train and suspension at the same time. If it was me going with a stroker motor, I would tell the builder that I wanted to eventually spin the motor to 10 grand, and then ask for a written guarantee that it would handle it, even though I may not spin it that high. But putting a high HP stroker motor in a daily driver, with nothing done to the suspension to get the car to hook up, is like pissing in the wind! Just my 2 cents worth.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.