• Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-

1966 289 Or 1970 302

  • Thread starter Thread starter SchmidtyD66
  • Start date Start date May 18, 2016
S

SchmidtyD66

New Member
May 18, 2016
2
0
1
May 18, 2016
#1
  • May 18, 2016
  • #1
I have a 1966 289 2v automatic coupe. The car is 100% stock and has 90K miles on it. It hasn't been started in over 20 years. My plan is to hop it up a bit and convert it to manual. I have a 1970 302 with a 4 speed top loader sitting on a pallet. My question is... What's the best way to go? The 302 only has 20K miles on it. I've been told the 1970 302 is the better choice. I was told it is stronger than the 289 and would put out better hp and torque numbers. The 302 is also 2v. My plan is to put on a bigger intake and a 4 barrel and go with headers and duel exhaust. I don't have much $ to stick into my car. Maybe $2K-$4K. I'm not looking for big power. I would be happy with 300 hp. I was also told the 1970 heads are better than the 1966 heads. If it was your car and you didn't care about numbers matching or keeping it stock. What would you do? I don't plan on selling my car so resale value isn't a concern for me. I just want my car to be reliable, sound good and when I stomp on the gas it goes...
 

tos

Founding Member
Apr 27, 2001
896
68
59
Cincinnati Ohio
May 19, 2016
#2
  • May 19, 2016
  • #2
You can get 300 hp out of either one of those. Bone stock, yes the 302 has a few more cubes. Personally I would search someone like Edelbrock and you can get a dyno matched kit that will have your Aluminum heads, cam, intake, lifters etc all matched to run together. No guess work or trial and error.
Example http://www.summitracing.com/parts/edl-2091/reviews/
 
Reactions: Rustymopar
G

GNN60GT500

Founding Member
Jun 18, 2002
1,218
26
48
5 car lengths in front of you!
May 19, 2016
#3
  • May 19, 2016
  • #3
Id go with.the 302 4 speed because more cubes but whichever you choose put the top loader behind it. Either that or sell it to me!! : )
 
D

Dirty Rod

Member
Oct 26, 2014
22
8
13
May 20, 2016
#4
  • May 20, 2016
  • #4
302 for the better rods and heads. Way back when I was building a 67 I did a few motors. The same mods got more power out of the 302.

One very interesting 289 mod thought was valves on the 289 heads. I swapped the intake and exhaust valves and then used some sb Chevy exhaust valves as intake valves with a huge cam, single plain intake, and a Holley 650 and that motor was something.

Unfortunately, one of those whimpy 289 rod bolts broke on a pretty quick pass and that motor was toast.
 
Last edited: May 20, 2016
Reactions: Rustymopar
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
1966 mustang starter and pulley troubles
  • Hotrods4ray
  • Sep 24, 2025
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
6
Views
361
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jan 10, 2026
Realmongo
Old guy new to Forum.
  • 08shelby GT500
  • Jun 15, 2026
  • The Welcome Wagon
Replies
3
Views
137
The Welcome Wagon Jun 15, 2026
LILCBRA
F
289 to 302 Engine
  • Fri Guy
  • Feb 13, 2025
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
667
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Feb 13, 2025
Fri Guy
F
5
Hello fellow Mustang fanatics.
  • 580HP*428Cj
  • Apr 2, 2026
  • The Welcome Wagon
Replies
2
Views
192
The Welcome Wagon Apr 2, 2026
General karthief
1970 Boss block
  • Sparky714
  • Dec 6, 2024
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
19
Views
673
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Dec 7, 2024
FastDriver
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?