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

68 289 turbo or supercharge ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdriggers9662
  • Start date Start date Feb 24, 2009
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Next
First Prev 2 of 4 Next Last

brianj5600

Active Member
Sep 19, 2003
1,964
2
39
Middle TN
Feb 26, 2009
#21
  • Feb 26, 2009
  • #21
I am with 10secgoal. White smoking the tires at speed is fun. I use M/T drag radials all the time now. Regular street tires just spin anytime you go wot upto highway speed and sometimes even then they break loose.
 
M

mikethebike

Member
Jun 12, 2007
358
0
17
Greenville, SC
Feb 26, 2009
#22
  • Feb 26, 2009
  • #22
Shakin66 said:
Hmm, Well thats awesome, no doubt it was a kick in the pants. But having said that lets see you drive that car to the beach with the kids or to work everyday like I do my blown 347. I understand that the power isnt the same but as previously stated there isnt many things that sound as good as a blower at 5 grand. I was a gearhead back in the early 80's and watched my brother spend a lot of cash and time with his head under the hood with smoke pouring all over the place adjusting valves on his solid lifter cam....Which BTW isnt as aggresive as my roller Hyd. I have now. My brother is amazed at the power my car has and laughs about all that they used to do to get maybe 300HP...And mine will sit and idle all day and never overheat. Power adders are here to stay and for good reason. They make great power numbers cheaper with better drivability.
Click to expand...

I did drive it to the ship everyday...lived out Military Highway close to the I-64 overpass...drove to D&S piers 5/6 days a week and to Va. beach every chance I got.....plus the SS weighed about 1000 lbs. more than a Mustang. With roller cam and rockers you don't need to adjust valves all that often, and if you make a sheet metal shield that bolts in place of the rocker cover you won't lose oil onto the headers. And I don't know of a push-rod engine with hydraulic lifters that will rev to 7800.
Now, am I saying that a carbed engine is better than mass-air-flow f.i.? NO WAY. I AM saying that you will not build a reliable STOCK block 289/302 (unless the 302 is a BOSS block) with 450+ hp. Besides, I absolutely LOVE the sound of a 12.5 static c.r, high-lift, long duration, big overlap, chambered exhaust engine. Ever hear a REAL 427 S/C Cobra with the Holeman-Moody single 4 barrel 550 hp NASCAR engine? Music to my ears. A guy I knew in Charleston years back had a stroked 427 tunnel-port with 2-4's in a 56 'Bird.....evil car....you just cannot describe how it sounded. And as someone pointed out...a turbo car kills the sound.
If the man wants to go through all the work of turbos, f.i. and such in an old car I don't care...but part of the reason I have loved old cars and motorcycles is the simplicity of working on them. Believe me, if my 04 BMW R1150-RT breaks I have to take it back to the dealer because I have neither the tools or training to do the job. It's about the same with the new cars...unless it's something that can be done with basic tools I'm just too damned old to want to mess with it. Now, the 1977 Sportster is something I love to work on...everything is easy to get to, you don't have to lay on your back for anything and since it is a kick-start only you don't have all that electric starter junk to deal with. Just as soon as I find a good magneto I'm going to dump the battery. And you can't top the sound of a cast iron Sporty.
 
M

mdriggers9662

New Member
Feb 17, 2009
20
0
1
El Dorado Arkansas
Feb 26, 2009
#23
  • Feb 26, 2009
  • #23
Thank you guys for all your input. Thats what these forums are all about. Sharing information, ideas and experience with others. You have given me much to ponder and like mikethebike, I love the room and simplicity of the old cars. I used to have a 56 Chevy 2 door hardtop in highschool and could sit inside the engine compartment to work on it. Those were the days. Of course that was 30 years and 100 pounds ago. lol. thanks again guys.
 

65ShelbyClone

Founding Member
Sep 9, 2000
4,675
38
119
Antelope Valley, SoCal
Feb 26, 2009
#24
  • Feb 26, 2009
  • #24
IMO, you're not likely to get into a realistic turbo setup for less than $1000. The bare minimum fuel system is a good pump, regulator, and prepped blow-through carb. Throw in headers, exhaust bends, welding, carb hat, and a somewhat properly sized non-Chinese turbo and it's easy to see how low a budget of $1000 really is.

mikethebike said:
IAnd as someone pointed out...a turbo car kills the sound.
Click to expand...

So the subdued exhaust note is actually a strike against turbocharging?
 

rhyno9

Founding Member
Oct 30, 2002
209
0
0
Oswego Illinnoying
Feb 26, 2009
#25
  • Feb 26, 2009
  • #25
mikethebike said:
And as someone pointed out...a turbo car kills the sound.
Click to expand...


Some people think the turbo kills the sound. Some people love the sound of the turbo spooling and the blowoff valve popping.

I guess my point is a 500 hp (whether boosted small block or rowdy big block) is still a handful of fun. The fact is there is no "cheap" way to get big power. If there was we all would have it.

As far as how to get to holy grail of horsepower.........It's all personal preference.

I like boosted engines for their docile nature out of boost.

Others love the sound of solid lifters, 14:1 compression, 4500 rpm stall converters and racing gas.


Who's to say which is the right way? Not me that's for sure

 
1

10secgoal

Active Member
Dec 1, 2003
2,801
3
49
San Diego
Feb 26, 2009
#26
  • Feb 26, 2009
  • #26
Yeah, kills it a little. And I do miss it at times, but to me gets old if you drive it all the time. I prefer the stealth bit to it and the sound of the spool. But the next motor is going to be solid so.....
 

classic boost

Founding Member
Feb 3, 1999
709
0
0
canton, oh
Feb 26, 2009
#27
  • Feb 26, 2009
  • #27
mikethebike said:
The engine made close to 500 lb.ft. at 5k...and from 1500 on up you could barely pull yourself away from the seat back. If anyone builds that kind of power from a stock block 289 or 302 it won't last long.
Click to expand...

my 94gt had stock block, stock crank, stock rods, stock pistons, and stock cam that ran 10.78@130 on pump gas. it made 500rwtq at 3700rpms. i drove it every day to work for years. next.
 

iskwezm

10 Year Member
May 24, 2005
4,159
20
79
Rowland Heights,California
Feb 26, 2009
#28
  • Feb 26, 2009
  • #28
10secgoal said:
Don't know anyone who has ever been in a boosted car that would go any other way. Only consider going back when they get frustrated with the tune.
Click to expand...
why you gotta bring me into this






























 

iskwezm

10 Year Member
May 24, 2005
4,159
20
79
Rowland Heights,California
Feb 26, 2009
#29
  • Feb 26, 2009
  • #29
mikethebike said:
...a turbo car kills the sound.
Click to expand...
Dont know who said that, but appearantly they havent heard all turbo cars
 

Stang_1973

Founding Member
Jul 13, 2001
565
9
38
San Antonio, Tx.
Feb 27, 2009
#30
  • Feb 27, 2009
  • #30
From what ive read, this is a very interestin thread and one that comes down to preferences. Yes both routes, whether BB or turbo, it isnt gonna be cheap. Even a 427 or 460 will require the necassary boltons to make huge power and those parts cost money. Turbos requires newer systems and do offer reliabilty to an extent, alot depends on driving habits and driver responsibilty.

The sound of a BB at idle is insane and at WOT is crazy! even scary! haha!

Howeve the sound of a turbo spooling up or popping when changing gears offers that stealthy killer impression.

Now once i drove my grandpas ole BB cheby C10 and i must say that truck was mad!!

However in my tuned PSD just listening to the turbo makes me drool. My buddies have tned AWD Talons with evo turbos and damn those things are some crazy little buggers. I can only imagine how the 302 in my '73 would feel if i had the money to do a proper turbo setup.

Either way both routes have their pros and cons, you just hae to decide ultimately which better suites your situation and abilties.

Peronally if i could drop a 460 in the 73 wich would nt be too hard, id prolly do it if it. but if I had the money and available parts id definatley get the turbo.
 
1

10secgoal

Active Member
Dec 1, 2003
2,801
3
49
San Diego
Feb 27, 2009
#31
  • Feb 27, 2009
  • #31
iskwezm said:
why you gotta bring me into this






























Click to expand...
Haha, nah. You have a strange problem for sure. But other people that just can't get it. They sell their car.
 

wicked93gs

15 Year Member
Sep 30, 2006
1,198
228
93
Nashville TN
Feb 27, 2009
#32
  • Feb 27, 2009
  • #32
or best option yet(if you are crazy and have the money) is doa big block twin turbo setup....that kind of setup can make upwards of 1500HP/TQ...its really crazy then...but really expensive
 

brianj5600

Active Member
Sep 19, 2003
1,964
2
39
Middle TN
Feb 28, 2009
#33
  • Feb 28, 2009
  • #33
Big blocks, when 1200rwhp/1100rwtq is not enough! He sold that motor and is working on a 420 +ci small block. He had traction problems so ET sucked, but mph was good.

Screen name...............Brent
Engine........................R302 SBF
Turbo or blower...........Majestic 88mm turbo
Carburetor...................BLP annular booster 850
Power valves................Dual BRPV front/rear
Jetting........................070/.070
Needle/seats...............(.150 downfeed)
Bonnet.......................EV with spacer
Fuel pump...................Aeromotive belt drive
Regulator....................Aeromotive 132-02
Boost.........................32 psi
Intercooler..................Custom Air-to-water
Total timing.................22 degrees
Track #'s best 1/4 .......10.02
MPH best....................170.03
Dyno #'s....................1177 rwhp/1097 rwtq @32 psi
Cam...........................F-303
Car weight..................3420 w/driver
 
1

1sick65

Member
Jul 7, 2008
71
0
7
Feb 28, 2009
#34
  • Feb 28, 2009
  • #34
id put an ls1 in it
 

wicked93gs

15 Year Member
Sep 30, 2006
1,198
228
93
Nashville TN
Feb 28, 2009
#35
  • Feb 28, 2009
  • #35
because we all know LS1s are the end-all and be-all of performance pushrods right?

Turbos by far have the capability to run more boost, everything else being equal, you will make more power on a turbo car than a S/C car, assuming same boost level. Superchargers are fun, but they just cant match the efficiency of a well designed turbo system, but what it all comes down to in the end is what you want out of the car as far as power and driving characteristics go.
 

65ShelbyClone

Founding Member
Sep 9, 2000
4,675
38
119
Antelope Valley, SoCal
Feb 28, 2009
#36
  • Feb 28, 2009
  • #36
1sick65 said:
id put an ls1 in it
Click to expand...

Don't drag that discussion over here. Keep it in your "how do I put
a 5.3 LSX in a 65 Mustang?" thread.
 
M

mikethebike

Member
Jun 12, 2007
358
0
17
Greenville, SC
Feb 28, 2009
#37
  • Feb 28, 2009
  • #37
wicked93gs said:
because we all know LS1s are the end-all and be-all of performance pushrods right?

Turbos by far have the capability to run more boost, everything else being equal, you will make more power on a turbo car than a S/C car, assuming same boost level. Superchargers are fun, but they just cant match the efficiency of a well designed turbo system, but what it all comes down to in the end is what you want out of the car as far as power and driving characteristics go.
Click to expand...


I think the LS-1 is the best performence buy out there at this point. You can buy a 585 hp 427 for about $16,000.00 with computer. Not a bad deal...but you can't get more cid and keep it together....like you'd need more.

I am not a fan of s/c's for other than drag racing due to the heat buildup. I had an AWD-Turbo Talon back in the mid 90's...fun car..ate-up a ton of high dollar Euro-trash.
 
M

mikethebike

Member
Jun 12, 2007
358
0
17
Greenville, SC
Feb 28, 2009
#38
  • Feb 28, 2009
  • #38
classic boost said:
my 94gt had stock block, stock crank, stock rods, stock pistons, and stock cam that ran 10.78@130 on pump gas. it made 500rwtq at 3700rpms. i drove it every day to work for years. next.
Click to expand...


And you think I really believe that?
 

65ShelbyClone

Founding Member
Sep 9, 2000
4,675
38
119
Antelope Valley, SoCal
Feb 28, 2009
#39
  • Feb 28, 2009
  • #39
It had forced induction, so what's not to believe?
 
1

1sick65

Member
Jul 7, 2008
71
0
7
Feb 28, 2009
#40
  • Feb 28, 2009
  • #40
c'mon guys i was just givin y'all a hard time-
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Next
First Prev 2 of 4 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Foxbody Misfire 5.0 Swap
  • DPORTER0729
  • May 2, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
7
Views
620
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jul 13, 2025
90sickfox
Engine HELP - 351W Based Build Under Stock Hood
  • thinkfaster
  • Oct 17, 2024
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
13
Views
2K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Dec 31, 2025
Qtrhrse23
Q
J
Progress Thread Family member 1989 GT- Backstory and updates
  • JRC99
  • Apr 19, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
15
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 26, 2025
JRC99
J
Fox Build ideas for the 'Hudson Heap' (87 GT)
  • MadSquirrelTech
  • Sep 19, 2023
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
20
Views
4K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Sep 27, 2023
MadSquirrelTech
Took some pics, i do really own a mustang...
  • 2000xp8
  • Jun 20, 2023
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 6 7 8
Replies
148
Views
19K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 1, 2024
Mustang5L5
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
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?