Daydreaming...

[CornerCarvin67]

Long time, no post... but my autocross buddy and I had lunch today and got the juices flowing again with spring around the corner. I of course still have other things to do to the car before I get to the engine... but the question came up as to what I'll do when I get there. I have no clue. I used to think that I did... but then the wind will change direction.

Anyhow... my little 289 is still holding together. It's stock except for the Holley carb, intake manifold... and Hooker Comp headers. Awhile back I traded many emails with Arron at Bad Ass Engines and when I was done I was convinced that I needed to drop eight grand on one of his 351 based crate engines. Well now with the addition of the Bronco to my stable I realize that I just spent my engine budget for years to come!!

But nonetheless when I get other things finished up I'll be looking to get more horsepower in their. I've got 120k on the clock already. I was wondering if it would be worth my while picking up a set of 165's and bolting them on. What else would I HAVE to do to make them compatible and how much of a gain would I be looking at? Save a ton of weight for sure.

I was just thinking if I had two grand to put in the engine... if this money would be smartly spent that way. If the bottom end puked out down the road I should be able to still use these heads, wouldn't I? Would they work on a 351 someday if I went that way? Or would that engine prefer the 185's?

Thanks for reading.... and I guess the summary question is can I put the 165's, full loaded, on my current setup and is it worth it?

 

[LMan]

I would always recommend a cam change with new heads. It's not worth it if your piddly stock cam is trying to fill large aftermarket heads....

 

[69Rcode_Mach1]

I also recommend a cam, but go with the 185's. They work fine on a 302, and will be perfect when you go 351.

 

[CornerCarvin67]

Thanks.... but wouldn't the 185's be overkill on the 289? And as far as the cam... should I just go with whatever AFR recommended? I ask about the 185's because I may never see the 351... so I might as well play it safe.

What kind of HP gain would you guys think I'd pick up on the 165's with whatever cam they'd recommend?

 

[302 coupe]

go with the 185's, you won't be able to feel the difference either way on a 289, but the 185's are needed on a 351. With the mildest of cam swaps and the 185's, I'd say you should gain at least 60hp, probably more. Be sure to get the 58cc chambers.

 

[Edbert]

Sell the truck and get the $8K race motor...the first time you put your foot down you wont regret it

I think if you plan on keeping the 289/302 there no reason to get 185s unless you plan on a very high RPM car with a blower. But if you want to be able to yank them and re-use them when you eventually get a 351 then the 185s are a good choice. But since your engine budget is already spent on the Bronco how realistic is that swap?

 

[69Rcode_Mach1]

5.0 magazine did a test, and the 185's didn't lose any torque compared to the 165's and pulled harder up top. I would go with those, they give you room to grow, there is no reason to blow another $1300 when you up the power, or change your mind.

 

[Edbert]

5.0 magazine did a test, and the 185's didn't lose any torque compared to the 165's and pulled harder up top.

Not trying to argue but that sounds misleading. I don't doubt the top-end either but to lose torque? Only thing I can figure it that it lost peak torque and gained average torque. Do you have access to the chart?

 

[69Rcode_Mach1]

I don't sorry, I have just been hanging around in the 5.0 forums a lot. It is what a lot of people have been saying, and it seems like it could make sense. The Victor Jr.'s aren't too big for a 351 IMO. I think I look for different things in an engine though.

 

[Edbert]

Yeah, if I had it to do over again I'd get the Jr over the RPM for my 351W, but I was sold on the "package" thing by Vic

I do think that a lot of folks tend to focus wrongly on peak values only when they get dyno results. While peak values are far from meaningless I'd rather gain 20 average hp/tq and lose 10 peak than the other way around. I mean most engines will spend far more time at 2-4,000 RPM than it will from 4-6,000, and I want the power where I can use it most.

 

[Jimmys66]

Not trying to argue but that sounds misleading. I don't doubt the top-end either but to lose torque? Only thing I can figure it that it lost peak torque and gained average torque. Do you have access to the chart?

I read the article also. They were astonishingly close until the top end. The 185's only lost a couple lbs of torque and it was below 2000 rpms iirc. The statement was also made in the article that they didn't see a need for using 165's in most applications.

 

[CornerCarvin67]

Excellent advice guys.... thanks a bunch. It answered two very important questions I had.... Yes, these heads will work both on my current 289 and if I were to switch some day to a 351. Ed, you are correct... I may not ever make that switch... but from what is being said here... the 185's are insurance just in case.... and I doesn't sound like I'd be dissappointed running the 185's on the 289.

Someone estimated a solid 60 HP.... great!!

The one question I didn't see answered was the cam. Just go with whatever AFR recommends?

 

[bnickel]

Excellent advice guys.... thanks a bunch. It answered two very important questions I had.... Yes, these heads will work both on my current 289 and if I were to switch some day to a 351. Ed, you are correct... I may not ever make that switch... but from what is being said here... the 185's are insurance just in case.... and I doesn't sound like I'd be dissappointed running the 185's on the 289.

Someone estimated a solid 60 HP.... great!!

The one question I didn't see answered was the cam. Just go with whatever AFR recommends?

you're going to want a sort of smallish cam for the 289, i'd say probably .450-.475 lift and less than 220* duration. you might be able to get away with more lift but i wouldn't go much over the duration number.

 

[180 Out]

We read this all the time about having too much head or too much cam, but in a light car (2800-3200 lbs) with a low gear (3.55 or higher), I think the downside is overstated. I guess if you're actually going into competition with others it might matter. But my personal tastes for a driver, where I'm trying to impress no one but myself, are that I'd rather have a relatively mild tip-in and a gates-of-hell top end, than a torquey tip-in and an engine that quits at 4500-5000 rpm.

For one thing, I've never driven a V8 muscle car that I thought was lacking in low end torque. That includes a '67 Z/28 that I had, that had only 302 cubes, a 750 Holley dp, 2.02/1.60 heads, and a solid lifter cam, 228/230 @ .050, .394/400, 110 LSA. Each of these specs would violate most of the advice you see online and in the mags, yet Chevy sold about 30,000 of them in the '68-'69 model years. This combo was perfectly streetable, and when it hit 5000 rpm the fun was just beginning.

For another thing, moving the torque band up in the revs is much, much easier on the drivetrain.

So all-in-all I prefer the "too big" cam and heads.

I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has built an engine with a big top end and put it in a light, low-geared car, and felt like it was too wimpy on the low end. You could save me a lot of trouble, because my plans are to go big heads, big cam.

 

[Jester67]

What is the largest CI that the 185 will support? I have a 289 now but would like to upgrade in the future and am not a big fan of spend money twice. I wont to give the 289 more punch now and keep the heads for the later build just buy a short block and go so what is the limited? This will be a street car just wont more displacement.

 

[69Rcode_Mach1]

The 185's will work up to a 393, but will still not let you get all the power out of the set up. I recommend Victor Jr.'s on a 351+ combo if you want an amazing flowing head for cheap. Then when you get into the 400+ cubes I would switch to AFR205-230's depending on the combo.