Yeah, heads are definitly on my to-do list lol Still trying to figure out what direction I want to take the car though. Need to figure out what heads will work well with my motor setup and actually verify my mod list lolHeads are killing you. A 289 head is a "clog in the drain" regardless of the porting and oversize valves. A 347 is a 400 FWHP combination pretty much across the board given that you add a set of heads capable of flowing the air the increased bore and stroke are capable of sucking in.
So bottom line,... 302 rwhp from a 349 c.i engine is.......... anemic.
My buddy tunes high horse power cars here in Kansas City and was tired of using other shops dyno's so he bought one from DynoJet lol. Do u think it isn't a 349 or do u think the heads are whats bringing the numbers down?? Like I was saying befor my list of mods are not confirmed yet so :-/How does one go about just buying a dyno on a Saturday? Can I get one of those on Amazon w/ free shipping?
I do agree with Mike though, any well put together 331+ engine combo should be at least knocking on the 400hp door.
I just re-read your mod list and realized you have a carb. I honestly don't know much about proper carb/head/cam combos to get the most power. I'll let those that have experience with those dinosaur boxes chime in with advice
Heads are killing you. A 289 head is a "clog in the drain" regardless of the porting and oversize valves.
I don't agree with that statement in general.
In the case of this engine, I do, as he really has no idea what he has...
However, old timers like me remember when there was no such thing as aftermarket heads for SBFs, and believe it or not, there were some fast/high horse engines back then... It was just harder to do.
I never said aftermarket castings weren't better, just that they weren't always an option, and that even then you could build a strong engine.Well Rate if there ever was an old timer, it's me. I have experience w/ a professionally hogged set of C9Ae 351 W head sporting 2.02/1.6's on my last 351w engine.
( Definitely NOT 289 castings)
Just changing to a cast iron World Senior head picked that car up 5 tenths. I don't know how much HP that equates to,....but it is definitely the definition of removing a "clog in the drain" for me.
A 289 equipped like this (assuming good intake), should hit 302 rwhp.349 CI small block Ford
Eagle I Beam Rods
Kenneth Black Flat Top Pistons
Holley 750 double pumper
1969 Cast 289 HiPo heads heavily ported W/ 2.02 Intake valves
Bee Hive valve springs
SVO 1.6 mm roller rockers w/ ARP studs
Comp xe282 cam
GM one wire alternator
AC delete
Power steering delete
Electric Water pump
Electric fan
MSD 6-AL+ ignition box
MSD Pro billet distributor
Mac Shorty headers
Mac Offroad H pipe
Flowmaster 40 series Dumped
I'm running the edelbrock performer intake and is there any casting marks or numbers or anything I can look for to try to find out what heads are on it?Someone told you wrong on your heads.
There was no "HiPo 289" in 1969.
There was no 289 in 1969, period.
Also, you cannot put 2.02" valves in a 289 head.
There is barely room for 1.94" valves.
What intake are you running???
Second pull was 297HP and the last pull was 302Hp. Does this sound right based on my list of mods?
Why? How many 351W with factory Ford iron heads (even ported) have you seen make over 300rwhp? I'd say his horsepower and torque figures are right on the money for the parts he's got.With only 302rwhp and 322rwtq, I seriously doubt that your engine displaces 349ci. It's far more likely to be 308ci (+0.040" overbored 302) instead.
God how I wish that were true..................it would be so easy to run with the big boys in Top Fuel without needing over 8,000 HP!I never said aftermarket castings weren't better, just that they weren't always an option, and that even then you could build a strong engine.
General rule of thumb:
.1 in the quarter = 10 rwhp.
Therefore an improvement of .5 is approx 50 rwhp.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?