300hp 289?

65FBE2 · Jun 29, 2009

Ok guys, This isn't my first time around the block. I have run 12.8 with a 289 with nothing more than a solid cam with 274/475 stock heads, No Porting, headers 1.5" F4B and a Holley 650. I know how to make power and fast E.T. The goal with this build was not as easy because of the self imposed limitations. I want to not have to completely rebuild the car if I go sell it or show it in a stock class. But I also wanted a car that is fun and economical to drive. I have camouflaged the RRS front end by keeping the stock shock braces in place and cutting the the top of of a couple of old shocks. No one has yet picked it out at a car show with out me showing them. And the reason for the RRS and not some other brand is that it only takes a few bolts to change back. No cutting no drilling.

The guy who is all wigged out about these heads has never had to make power the hard way. Before there was 20 company's making aftermarket heads! I will put these 351w heads flow data up against many so called out of the box performance heads and blow them a way. I know a set of AFR 185s would kill these but for my goal these are not the bottle neck.
By the way these were professional ported on a flow bench. The reason I'm using them is because I have them from years ago. If I were to buy ever thing new I would not start with these. I did have to port the exhaust manifolds to get a port match to the heads
This by the way is a 306 cu in motor as I did install a 3" 302 crank. The block has nothing to do with making power. What kinda crack was he smokin. I can put a more aggressive hydraulic cam in an help the problem but I am concerned about highway cruising rpm and the power band being to high. I believe that I can get there with the combo I have. I may need a little more intake but that will be the last thing I change. Doing the distributor re curve fist and I will report back.
By the way Iron heads will always make more power than alum because they don't dissipate the heat which is power.

htwheelz67 · Jun 29, 2009

I agree, I know you can make great power with 351w heads, the last statement is not so true, unless you are running the exact same head, one cast and one aluminum, on pump gas you can run more compression with the alum heads thus making more power. Show me a two identical small block fords with say 11-1 compression, one iron one aluminum and 92 octane gas and an aggressive timing curve the alum head engine will make more power, if your running race gas then maybe a slight advantage to the iron heads but not much and dont forget the weight savings of aluminum.

I will guess the timing curve isn't going to give a big increase. You can see by Fletchers int comparison the stocker falls flat on its face at 4500 rpm and intake technology has got way better since that old test.

Heres something you can try, add a 1" open spacer on top of the factory 4 hole spacer, that will extend the powerband of the stock intake but may throw off carb jetting.

rbohm · Jun 29, 2009

65FBE2 said:
By the way Iron heads will always make more power than alum because they don't dissipate the heat which is power.

only if all things are otherwise equal between the heads. the aluminum heads allow for higher compression and/or more timing on the same grade of fuel, which in turn means more power production. the only other advantage that aluminum heads have over iron ones is weight.

overall i think your combo just needs some tuning to get close to your goals. my advice is to get the car on the dyno for some baseline runs and see what the b.s.f.c. is, and do what you need to get it around .45-.50 if you can. also you want your total timing in around 3000-3200 rpm with a street engine using the lighter fluid we call gasoline these days. and 36-38 total timing is plenty for a street engine.

66Runt · Jun 29, 2009

Just my two cents:
If I understand what the OP is saying, he has heads that flow enough to feed a 347, but a poor breathing intake, and exhaust.
A bottle neck before and after the heads will stall the intake charge, and eliminate scavenging on the exhaust side, killing torque.
Reality is, without a change on both sides of the heads, 300HP is going to be virtually impossible, because the engine won't rev, and it can't make enough torque to overcome the limited RPM base.
I'd think 225-250 HP would be good for that combination.
The killer part is that, based on what I'm reading, that 225-250 is going to feel like 175 to 200 at the rear wheels, because the engine doesn't have a torque curve like what we are used to seeing today. And because the torque curve is choked, the pumping efficiency is down, and so is fuel mileage. Like was previously stated, some gains can be made with the timing curve.
Ultimately changes are going to need to be made. Either in goals, or components.

D.Hearne · Jun 29, 2009

Hack said:
1970 Boss 302 was 0-60 in 6.9 seconds - standing quarter mile in 14.6 at 98 mph.

That's about 220 hp. The Boss 302 engine probably made more power than that on the top end, but made up for it with a REALLY weak low end torque curve.

Sorry to go OT on this thread, but people tend to glamorize the performance of our cars and I really felt the need to do some mythbusting.

I don't want to start something here, but if you really think the Boss 302's put out only 220hp, you're entitiled to your opinion. But I've had a ride in a 70 Boss and it may have only had 220 hp, but that was below 3000 rpms. The accelleration wasn't far behind my 67 FB with it's 427 with a 3.00 geared rear. And the Hi-po 289? The 85 302HO's specs aren't that far removed from the old hi-po and it was rated at 220. There sure as shootin wasn't a 70 hp spread between the two.

htwheelz67 · Jun 29, 2009

on timing, I would probably go for 38 total in by 3000 rpm, you could always port a stock 85 5.0 intake....I think either the f4b, 8124 or rpm intake, with the stick and the 3.25 gears either of them would work well. I tried to port a cast 4v intake once and its, I knew a guy who had one extrude honed and it worked better but he spent like 400.00 having it done.

Actually the guy with the extrude honed intake, it was on a 289 with a mid sized hyd roller, cnc ported power heads, 10-1 compression and a heavily blueprinted 600 cfm 4100 carb. It made a little over 280hp on the engine dyno with some tweeking.

He swapped on an rpm intake and a speed demon 650 and picked up over 40hp with some tweeking as well, why make hp the hard way? a 347 with the same heads and a sightly bigger cam even a stock 5.0 cam would give more hp and way more low end TQ and mileage than a performer 302 would.

My 1st engine swap was 289, performer cam, perf intake and 600 4010 holley, try ys, then I went a 351w, ported heads, chevy valves, comp 268h cam, performer int, hedman longtubes, same trans same gears, same carb, picked up about 2 mpg's hwy, switched to an old 670cfm holley projection TBI, picked up about 20hp/TQ and 3 more mpg's hwy. I was getting 19-21 mpg's with a c-4 and 3.00 rear gears. Fast forward to the present, 500hp 408 stroker, lentech AOD with a 10" converter same 3.00 rear end which turns the same rpm at 60 or 75 because of converter slip, I can still muster 18 mpg's hwy. Once I change to 3.50 9" and go a bigger converter and the ez-efi mileage will go up.

There is plenty of guys running around with 5.0's and t-5's in their mustangs and able to pull 25-28 mpg's on the hwy but they are not using old technology.

v8only · Jun 29, 2009

a lot of you guys are still mixing up old gross vs sae today.

Yesterday's 275 HP ratings are more like 175-200 by today's standards. Too many people trying to compare the old engines to the newer ones.

In my previous posts, it's not the blocks that I care about, rather it's the roller setup that comes in the newer 5.0's.

While the end game may be very close with a BUILT 5.0 roller vs a BUILT 289/302 FLAT TAPPET, in street applications, the roller setup will allow you to make a lot more power while remaining streetable.

D.Hearne · Jun 29, 2009

He can still go bigger on the cam without sacrificing anything at cruising rpms. Look into swapping in an EFI grind.(wide LSA) You'll get power and mileage with one, and the carb will love it. I'm running a stock F4TE roller(256/266 advertised duration-.445/.473 lift 116.5 LSA) in my 89 ranger with a 4 speed Toploader and 3.73 rear. The 3.73 and 28" rubber compares to a Stang with 3.55 and 25-6" tires at cruise (2687 rpms @ 60mph) Great accelleration and decent mileage (15+mpg in the 3550 lb truck) It's in a stock roller short block with ported E7's, 1.7 Cobra rockers, Ford A321 intake topped with a 570 SA Holley. Exhaust is Shelby Tri-Y's.

htwheelz67 · Jun 29, 2009

D.Hearne, you would get better mileage at 2700 rpm with a bigger cam......I never knew rangers weighed that much. Hmm the f4te roller is like a split pattern HO cam with less int duration, same ex duration same int lift but more ex lift... never knew that either.

Edster · Jun 29, 2009

With iron heads you can safely run nitro-methane!

rebel65 · Jun 29, 2009

Edster said:
With iron heads you can safely run nitro-methane!

and keep that stock look: )

htwheelz67 · Jun 29, 2009

If I was to do it again or when I do it again, instead of the 408, stock 5.0 block, forged rotating assy with top notch machine work, twisted wedge heads, shorty headers adapted to two t-bird turbo coupe turbos, thru an intercooler with about 10 psi boost, stock 5.0 roller cam or close to that. into a blow thru demon carb or efi system. That setup can pull 450+hp easilly and still pull 25 mpgs with a t-5 or AOD and sound totally stock at idle. You can also hide the turbos under the car close to where the muffs go.

D.Hearne · Jun 30, 2009

htwheelz67 said:
D.Hearne, you would get better mileage at 2700 rpm with a bigger cam......I never knew rangers weighed that much. Hmm the f4te roller is like a split pattern HO cam with less int duration, same ex duration same int lift but more ex lift... never knew that either.

Yea, I was aware of the better mileage at 2700, but I did the swap 8 years ago, this is one of 4 motor combos I've had in it. It's now relegated to occasional parts runs to town now, really no need to change anything. My Ranger's an 89 ext cab, hence the weight. They look light, but they're not. The F4TE cam was used in the 94-97 pickup/van 5.0 & 5.8, then later in the Explorer/Mountaineer. It's a great cam with 1.7's for a daily driver with a carb. With the wide LSA, it pulls a strong vacuum right off, letting the carb do it's job without having to give it a pump shot to prime it. I get cold starts down to 25*F with no choke (it's been removed)

D.Hearne · Jun 30, 2009

Edster said:
With iron heads you can safely run nitro-methane!

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm:Teh-Win:

65FBE2 · Jun 30, 2009

Are the 289 hp exhaust manifolds really that bad? I am beginning to believe the problem may lye in the exhaust. The 2" pipes have some bad bends in them that look like the I.D. may end up about 1.5". then at the end we have the wonderful GT tips with the louvers.
On the intake side, as I said before I have a performer I could put on. Given this combo of parts, don't you think this is a better fit that the RPM manifold?

htwheelz67 · Jun 30, 2009

the performer will help but with the 3.25 rear gear the rpm will work better, I would try it though. the wieand 8124 makes a lot better power even off idle than the performer. 2" pipes are too small especially with the hipo manis, on ford muscle there is a test comparing stock intake (stock cam) against the performer and 8124 and 3 diff carbs. You need a subscription though. Headers will do much better than the hipos but you can increase the exhaust size to help.

D.Hearne · Jun 30, 2009

I don't think the Hi-po manifolds are the bottleneck at all. 2.25" to 2.5 pipes would be better though. Nothing larger will help. I think crush bent pipes get a bad rap. If you look at it from this perspective: the flow in mandrel bent pipes tends to crowd toward the outside of the bend, so the missing space in crush bent doesn't make a whole lot of reduction in flow capacity. A good illustration oif this is watching water flow in a river bend. The majority of the flow is in the outside of a bend, the water in the inside is vastly reduced in relation to the outside.

300hp 289?

65FBE2

Member

htwheelz67

Member

rbohm

66Runt

Member

D.Hearne

New Member

htwheelz67

Member

v8only

Active Member

D.Hearne

New Member

htwheelz67

Member

Edster

rebel65

Member

htwheelz67

Member

D.Hearne

New Member

D.Hearne

New Member

65FBE2

Member

htwheelz67

Member

D.Hearne

New Member

Similar threads

300hp 289?

Member

Member

Member

New Member

Member

Active Member

New Member

Member

Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Member

Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency