de-stroking to 289?

[Look Its Aaron]

They sure are.

 

[90mustangGT]

Higher revving engine's having better powerbands??? Hmmm, how exactly is that? So your 289cid engine is going to have a stronger wider powerband than a 347 or even a 302? If it does, it will be a much weaker powerband. I'm asking you. Talk is cheap, do this to your motor and come show us 347 guys what's up.

 

[Daggar]

I'm learning all kinds of things I didn't know before from this thread. For instance:

Heads and cam have nothing to do with rev characteristics or power band. It's all about the stroke.

Destroking a 302 13 cubic inches will allow me to run to 9000 rpm!

If a dual ovhead cam, 4 valve 5.4L motor can do it then so can a 289.

The same appearantly applies to blown 4.6L motors.

Torque has nothing to do with a engine's power output. Only the revolutions per minute does.

If I'm reading this all correctly, reducing the stroke is all that's required to run 9000 rpms all day long. This of course would be all 100% streetable.

With these modifications, the powerband would be so wide that I'd get instant throttle response just off idle and so long as it's a 289. It will pull from 2300 rpm all the way to 9000 rpm.

302s, 331s, and 347s are vastly inferior to a 1960s era 289.

I miss anything?

 

[90mustangGT]

I'm learning all kinds of things I didn't know before from this thread. For instance:

Heads and cam have nothing to do with rev characteristics or power band. It's all about the stroke.

Destroking a 302 13 cubic inches will allow me to run to 9000 rpm!

If a dual ovhead cam, 4 valve 5.4L motor can do it then so can a 289.

The same appearantly applies to blown 4.6L motors.

Torque has nothing to do with a engine's power output. Only the revolutions per minute does.

If I'm reading this all correctly, reducing the stroke is all that's required to run 9000 rpms all day long. This of course would be all 100% streetable.

With these modifications, the powerband would be so wide that I'd get instant throttle response just off idle and so long as it's a 289. It will pull from 2300 rpm all the way to 9000 rpm.

302s, 331s, and 347s are vastly inferior to a 1960s era 289.

I miss anything?

Yeah, me too. I thought I had a clue. Maby if I got a smaller bore pistons such as a '82 4.2 V8 with the 3.85" bore (wasn't it, ) so they will be lighter and rev to like 12,000rpm !!!!1111!!!!111 OMG WTF LOL.

All this comming from a guy who's mods are:

300+ Ignition, FRPP Aluminum driveshaft, 75mm mass air, Flowmasters, MAC equals, pro-chamber & CAI

*In Garage* stage III SVO heads, SVO intake, e-cam, PA AODE, TCI 3200 stall, B&M Shifter

OK, let me get this straint, all this hi-rev stuff and running an E cam? Only a 3200stall, and SVO intake? Is that refering to the GT40 intake. I guess the stock ignition wasn't enough to handle a car with a exaust and an alumimum driveshaft. Wow I have done this all wrong.

 

[Daggar]

I guess the stock ignition wasn't enough to handle a car with a exaust and an alumimum driveshaft. Wow I have done this all wrong.

Dammit! I ALSO have an aluminum drive shaft! I better get to upgrading that ignition system before something terrible happens! Why doesn't anyone tell me things????

 

[88gt]

Dammit! I ALSO have an aluminum drive shaft! I better get to upgrading that ignition system before something terrible happens! Why doesn't anyone tell me things????

Some things you just have to keep to yourself..

 

[pb_paulie_b]

wow you guys are gettin into it i jes saw a 289 mustang run 11's at ford fever, MIR. it made me think of this thread...PB

 

[KamiKaziDK]

Or maybe those parts are on my car cause I took them off an old car, but you're all good at jumping to conclusions and making judgements, aren't you? Once again 90MustangGT, you prove your inability to be able to read english properly. Cause I didn't say better powerband, I said broader. And Daggar, I never said anything about 9000rpms, that was someone else, I'm thinking you two should pick up some glasses, some place is having a sale, 2 pairs for $59, you should get on it. Dark Knight, thanks for the post, it answered anything I needed to know. And it's not a street car, it's a project drag car. I've already stripped the interior, made a custom dash, mini-tubbed it, and I just finished the body work minus the full fiberglass front on it that I'm waiting for. Paulie, was the mustang a blue fastback? If so, that guy is out of AZ. And it's reasons like that that I would want to make a high revving 289....11s on all motor, that guy must be an idiot too

 

[302RollinHard]

Daggone I wonder if that "KamiKazeDK" left out the 'ic' in the DK.
I too have sinned and put in an aluminum driveshaft prior to upgrading the ignition system. SHHHH don't tell the car that it has a 5 lug conversion it may quit functioning unless I get the "svo intake" installed. Don't think anyone ever said you couldn't run quick with a 289. But those extra 13 cubic inches of displcement couldn't hurt. Lighten up your mood, as much as you have your car.
Can't we all just get along???

 

[KamiKaziDK]

lol, you all suck!!! Fine, I'm putting a stroked 351 in it damnit!!

 

[RS200]

Well the 289 HiPo (1964-1967 "K Codes") made 271HP @ 6000 RPM with an 8000 RPM redline. That was mighty impressive for the period, and it could probably be improved upon with today's technology. I say go for it.

 

[90mustangGT]

I never said anything about a 289 not able to make power. What I am saying is that if you want a higher revving motor, the stroke of the crank should be one of the last things to look at. It's just proven fact that more displacment usually equalls a better powerband and a stronger powerband.

 

[pb_paulie_b]

i think he jes wants to be differnt. my brother sank about $4 grand ontop of his 2.3L turbo coupe. he surpised alot of people with it. me and my mustang were never surprised ...PB

 

[Dark Knight]

Also, there's no point in running a Hyd. roller block just to run hyd roller cam. They wont rev that high.. you'll need a solid roller for that. If you have any NHRA races near you, go talk to some of the super stock cars owners to see what they've done. The thing with doing something like that is that you'll spend alot of $$$ on driveline parts, 'specially with a stick car. Thats the reason most people go with strokers now, you dont need to spin them as high to make the HP.. and why I got rid of most of the stuff from my 8500rpm small block to go with a 557..

Hopefully, you plan on at least a ladder bar/coil over setup, slapper bars just wont work good on a high RPM launch. You'll need some steep gears too.. I ran 4.86's with a short tire and was planning on 5.14's with a 32" tire..

motivational pics

http://members.cox.net/slavick67/2005day1-37.jpg
http://members.cox.net/slavick67/2005day1-39.jpg
http://members.cox.net/darkknight102/2005day3-10.jpg
http://members.cox.net/darkknight102/2005day3-11.jpg
http://members.cox.net/darkknight302/div7-15.jpg
http://members.cox.net/slavick67/march6-25.jpg
http://members.cox.net/slavick67/march6-61.jpg

the falcon was running a 260..

 

[xarnyz]

How about a longrod 302 instead? 1.85 rod ratio hehe

http://www.speedomotive.com/ford_302_long_rod_street_master.htm

I think im gonna get one of these.