289 heads?

njoliver · Dec 2, 2009

buying some 289 heads for my stock mustang want to rebuild top end I was seeing if anyone had any good feed back about theses heads or bad feedback thank you

wv109323 · Dec 2, 2009

289 Heads

There's nothing "wrong" about the heads however they would be among the worst choices for performance you could make.
If you are restoring a 289 and want to stay original they are all right.
If you want performance I would go with an "E7" or GT40 head. There are enough of them lying around you should find some cheap especially the "E7".
"E7" is the casting number under the valve cover.

njoliver · Dec 2, 2009

I was planning on putting them on a 302(1990) I'm trying to do a pretty cheap top end build. Im buying the heads for 200 of a buddy, I dont know if i will get the power out of them I exspect .

Mustang5L5 · Dec 2, 2009

Your stock E7's are better.

For $200, you could buy some Gt-40P's and have an even better head.

To me, swapping off a E7 head for untouched 289 heads is a downgrade. Save your cash.

njoliver · Dec 3, 2009

thank you for your input I really appreciate it, but I spoke to soon I found out today that they are 68 302 heads I believe with 58cc chamber so it should give me higher compression I believe but will flow similar to my stock header, any suggestions

85_SS_302_Coupe · Dec 3, 2009

Posted via Mobile Device wow this has to be the first time i've heard bad things about 289 heads. The potential is in the port possibilities. The bonus is that they have i believe 54cc bowls so if you take the time to port them and put big valves in them you'll also get bumped up to a good 10:1 compression ratio. The key is porting them but they do work well if done right. Stock for stock the hipo heads will destroy e7s but they're not easy to find and you need to at least change the valve guides.

mikepotts · Dec 4, 2009

i also like the 289 heads... when they have had good work done, i.e. screw in studs, port work ect... 260 heads have an even tighter combustion chamber to help compression more!

but if we are talkking about box-stock non hipo 289 heads... your money is better spent on some "P" heads.

njoliver · Dec 4, 2009

what do you guys think would be better- stock e7 heads or 68 302 heads, do a little gasket matching and porting

mikepotts · Dec 4, 2009

you would get better results from doing the port work on your E7's and milling them for compression.

njoliver · Dec 4, 2009

The 68 302 heads are being machined .0020 right now they come complete with crane rockers all for 200 dollars? fair deal, or should I really just mess with e7 heads, thank you for your input so far

mikepotts · Dec 4, 2009

njoliver said:
The 68 302 heads are being machined .0020 right now they come complete with crane rockers all for 200 dollars? fair deal, or should I really just mess with e7 heads, thank you for your input so far

stock valves? press in studs? old valve job? which rockers?

Mustang5L5 · Dec 4, 2009

What are you trying to gain and what is the rest of your combo going to be?

57fairlane · Dec 4, 2009

The exhaust side of the 289 head is more restrictive stock but just swapping stock heads should pick you up 10-15hp.

I ported a set of e7s back in the day (about 3 years ago) that ended up flowing a whopping 177cfm on the intake @ .520" just the other day on a Superflow 110. The 289 heads stock went 175cfm at the same lift.

I spent 30 minutes in the intake (did as much as my ability allows) and it flowed 201cfm @ .500" still with the stock valve.

I still have a few tricks (some chevy valves, brass tubing) and I wouldn't doubt the intakes would go 230 or so at max lift.

mikepotts · Dec 4, 2009

im curious what kind of exhaust flow numbers you got, were you able to make the exhaust on the 289 heads match the flow of the intake side?

57fairlane · Dec 4, 2009

mikepotts said:
im curious what kind of exhaust flow numbers you got, were you able to make the exhaust on the 289 heads match the flow of the intake side?

haven't touched them yet, been too busy at school with other stuff

trying to port my 460 D3 heads and original torker intake (cut and welded) inbetween my other classes.

I am going to try to get to it monday as well as take some pictures. 201 isn't exactly hot stuff but the port looks good.

mikepotts · Dec 4, 2009

just remember, power stops at the bottleneck... you can get the air/fuel in the chamber, but you got to get it out also... the place to get the flow is on the short side radius, and the 289 head has a water jacket under the exh runner so be careful not to go thru... (voice of experience)

rd · Dec 5, 2009

Not sure I would go to the trouble of trying use old 289 heads on a 5.0.

They have press in studs, that one would want to change for screw in. They are probably old enough to need another valve job, as well as new guides. You need to look at the valve stem length, see if they have rotators and stock springs still on them. If so, these need to be replaced for performance use. The valve sizes, port sizes, etc are not any better than later 5.0 heads. Verify that they have accesory bolt holes where you need them. Unless you are doing a resto on a 289, you are handicapping yourself at the start. I have had several sets of these laying around and every time I price out using them, it cost more than newer, much better heads.

E7's, or iron Gt 40s would be a better starting point.

289 heads?

njoliver

Member

wv109323

Member

njoliver

Member

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

njoliver

Member

85_SS_302_Coupe

it sucks (I know) to be on the receiving end

mikepotts

Member

njoliver

Member

mikepotts

Member

njoliver

Member

mikepotts

Member

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

57fairlane

New Member

mikepotts

Member

57fairlane

New Member

mikepotts

Member

rd

Similar threads

289 heads?

Member

Member

Member

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

Member

it sucks (I know) to be on the receiving end

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency