Ford 289 How much hp

[Ian Anderson]

I have been keeping my eyes open and just turned uo a Ford 289
It is said to be a 1965 motor from a Ford Mustang.

Good part is if it is a 1965 motor I'll have no emission problems other than visible smoke! Also it makes my car a bit closer than running the Rover derived engine!

So as a standard 289 what sort of power and torque can be expected and what modifications should be done to improve these and yet allow it to be docile enough for my mainly street driven car?

At this stage I am unsure how much of a rebuild it needs so again if any UK people have recently done a 289 could you give me approx price for a rebuild.

Or should I steer clear and get a more current 302?

Rover at present is about 235hp and 230 torque so do not want to get lower than this

Thanks
Ian

 

[Terry Oxandale]

My most recent 289 dynoed (chassis) at 321 RWHP and 271 lb/ft. Peak power was at 7200. If I had to do it over again, I'd increased the lift on the roller cam with lobes spaced at 110º.

 

[Dave Wood]

Terry's figures pretty much fall into the area I was going to suggest. I think you should be able to get an easy and reliable 350 HP at the flywheel. I don't think a 289 should be avoided. They have longer rods( Boss 302 length) than a 302 so has less stress on the walls/pistons. I know they aren't the same beef as the original GT40 versions, but with modern pieces thay are still nice engines. I have a 289 crank I'm keeping around for a build down the road.

 

[Randy V]

Although not as easy to find - you might want to look around for a 68-69 302 so you can get the longer stroke (more torque)...
You can run the 289 connecting rod but it would take aftermarket pistons with raised wrist pins.
The reason I suggested those years was perhaps a more relaxed smog requirement. In 1970, they started really piling on the emissions. By 1972 the 302 was just another anemic lump that produced more noise than power.

 

[Doug S.]

Ian, the only issue I'd expect you to face is the bell-housing bolt pattern. Sometime around 65/66 Ford changed from the original 5 bolt pattern to a 6 bolt pattern. This was pretty early in the production run for the SBF, and there aren't near as many aftermarket parts available for the early engines. I'd suspect that might make finding an adaptor for you Renault box a challenge.

I really liked the 221/260/289 engines, the short stroke allowed the engine to rev quickly and high!

Good luck.....this would me a mod for your 40 that would certainly make it more "period corrrect", nice move IMHO!

Doug

 

[colin artus]

The standard 4v 289 was factory rated at 225 hp and the hipo was 271 with torque at 300/310 . In my experience you can knock 50 hp off these figures to give real world installed flywheel figures. It doesn't sound much does it? Thankfully it doesn't take much to wake them up and the very oversquare dimensions mean that you can rev a solid/roller lifter cammed 289 to 7k rpm with some attention to the valve gear and ARP rod bolts. If you want more than 300 hp you will have to start modifying or, indeed, replace the standard heads as they are quite restrictive with smallish valves.

 

[Gordon Levy]

350-400 reliable hp is pretty easy if you rev it to 7200. If you want to turn it 8000 or more 500 is possible. We did one for a vintage car that makes 550 at 9200.

 

[Keith]

I would have to agree with Doug about the 5 bolt or 6 bolt bell housing. If it is a 5 bolt you would have a difficult time finding anything to adapt it to a transaxle.

As for power, the stroker kits to make a 289 or a 302 into a 331 (standard) or 347 (.030 over) are relatively inexpensive here in the USA. A 347 stroker motor can easily make 350 reliable HP.
Keith

 

[Mike Drew]

:thumbsup:

As for power, the stroker kits to make a 289 or a 302 into a 331 (standard) or 347 (.030 over) are relatively inexpensive here in the USA. A 347 stroker motor can easily make 350 reliable HP.
Keith

Just to clarify--the 331 and 347 kits are completely different. Boring .030 over doesn't bring you from 331 to 347. I am having a .030 over 331 stroker built at the moment, as I felt that was the best compromise between the high revs available from a 302 and the greater torque of a 347. I am targeting 450 hp (AFR heads, Edelbrock Victor Junior intake, Holley 700 double-pumper carburetor, and a custom-grind hydraulic roller cam).

Several friends have experienced catastrophic failures of 347 motors on the track, attributed to the heavy side-loading placed on the pistons due to the extreme rod angles necessary to get that much displacement out of such a small bore. 347s seem to work great on the street, but I wouldn't rev one past 6000 too often.

With respect to the original question--I would definitely choose a 289 over any non-Ford motor for a GT40--it's what's right! A bog-standard 289 will probably motivate your GT40 smartly enough, and almost unlimited power is available depending upon the depth of your wallet. A stock bottom end, fitted with aluminum heads, a decent matching intake, somewhat aggressive cam, and a Holley double-pumper carburetor (or a vac secondary carburetor so long as it has center pivot floats, don't waste your time with one of the economy Holleys with side-pivot floats) will really get you moving, and wouldn't break the bank.

Several friends in the UK have had great luck with engines built by Real Steel, FWIW, and based upon your signature, they are probably within rock-throwing distance of your house.

 

[Ian K]

Typically, a 331 is a 327 stroker bored .030 over, and a 347 is a 342 stroker
bored .030 over. There is also a 355, but I would steer clear of that.

Ian

 

[Randy V]

Several friends have experienced catastrophic failures of 347 motors on the track, attributed to the heavy side-loading placed on the pistons due to the extreme rod angles necessary to get that much displacement out of such a small bore. 347s seem to work great on the street, but I wouldn't rev one past 6000 too often.

One of the key failure points of the 347 is block failure. I've seen this in 302's that are not stroked but raced hard in SCCA's American Sedan class and NASA's American Iron class..

If you find it early you'll probably be alright in re-using many of the internal components in a rebuild. What we've seen is fluctuating oil pressure much like you'd see with a spun bearing. Tapping to knocking within the engine. Oil leakage if the crack goes all the way to the front or rear.

I've found some pictures of what I'm talking about;

which results in this;

Good post here on block prep and the Valley Pro girdle installation. Not really sure how a girdle at the top of the block will makeup for weakness in the main bearing webs well underneath them.. I'm also wondering if the holes drilled and tapped in the valley to bolt the girdle in place aren't putting an additional weakness/stress riser in an area that's already proven itself to be deficient..

Tech Review: Horsepower Sales Engine Valley Girdle - NMRA Ford Nationals Series Forum

 

[colin artus]

A 65 block shouldn't suffer from the weakness that afflicts the 80's production 302 block. Stick with 289; it's a charismatic engine, its the correct one for the car and 302s are as common as muck.

 

[speed220mph]

I've been running my HP289 for years. Horsepower is 375 at the flywheel. I modified the HP289 heads with verification on the flowbench. Although I limit revs to 7500 rpm, I have taken it up to 8,000 rpm on occasion. Block is the higher nickle with thicker web stock HP289 with beefier main caps. Crank is tufftrided/nitrided and polished. Stock HP rods are polished, shotpeened and fitted with SPS 7/16 in. bolts. A Boss 302 windage tray and a higher volume Cobra oil pan is on the bottom. But regardless of how good the rotating components are, the two-bolt block remains the weak link.

About stud girdles, except for the Gurney-Weslake girdle that tied the main caps to the pan rails, they are false security. Nothing beats a four-bolt block for bottom-end strength, however my HP289 block has lived after many runs. About all a stud girdle does is lower the cg of the engine and remove money from your pocket. LOL

Photo is of a block that came out of a NASA Mustang. We told him to use a four-bolt block, but . . . bang, bang, bang $$$ Failure usually starts at the #2 web and progresses from there.

http://www.gt40s.com/gallery/index.php?n=803

 

[Ian Anderson]

Guys

Many thanks for the info
He finally got back to me and it is a 6 bolt block so in that regard it was correct

It is in pieces and has bits missing like valve springs and has the iron heads - he did not know if the bore was standard or over bored.

It is said to come from a Mustang 1965 vintage

Then he said someone has asked for first dibs but if they say no I can have it for £250.

Time will tell

Thanks for all the info and yes I think this is the engine to go for

Ian

 

[Rick]

A 1965 block wil be a 5 bolt bellhousing. In mid 1966 the bellhousing was changed to 6 bolt.

 

[John P]

If you want a 289 or 302 to last, get it 0 balanced. The early engines were all balanced at 28 oz, and the later ones were balanced at 50. That's allot of imbalance weight to be slinging around at 7K. It's no wonder they tear the main webs out, if pushed hard.

 

[Ian Anderson]

Update

I had info on a 6 bolt 1965 ex mustang engine for £275 so I said yes I'll take it but the price went to almost £1000 and there were suddenly loads of bits missing too.

Too rich for my pickings as I'll also then have to change adaptor, flywheel clutch, starter and headers - overall it would blow my "toy" budget too far

Ian