how hig can you rev a 289?

[86T-Top]

So what is the redline for a stock C code 289?

What would it be with upgraded valve springs, new cam and lifters (hydrolic), and roller rockers? Could i safley get it to 7k? Or do I need to install ARP fastners and a girdle to get it to 7k? If I need to ARP the motor which bolts?

Thanks,

Mario

 

[brianj5600]

I would not be afraid of 6500, but 7000 is a little much for those puny 5/16 rod bolts and cast pistons. If I were building a 7000 rpm motor it would have a solid lifter cam too, but I've been there and done that and want the rpms down now, 6000 max.

 

[Great68]

I don't know of many (actually none) hydraulic cams that will rev to 7000.

 

[nds03]

i have all of that and it won't produce power after 5500. i think i would need heads that flow more in order to get in the higher rpm's, but im content with what i got(5.0 heads)

 

[HistoricMustang]

So what is the redline for a stock C code 289?

What would it be with upgraded valve springs, new cam and lifters (hydrolic), and roller rockers? Could i safley get it to 7k? Or do I need to install ARP fastners and a girdle to get it to 7k? If I need to ARP the motor which bolts?

Thanks,

Mario

They stop pulling in the 6200 RPM range. Mine has been 7000 in 5th gear at the flagstand in Daytona (145 MPH) only because I ran out of gears.

HistoricMustang
www.historicmustang.com

 

[86T-Top]

Forgot to mention that I am putting on ported DOOE heads and a bigger cam. That is why I am trying to rev the motor higher.

Anyway so are we saying that it can safley rev to 6500 with a stock bottom end, and I can safley get it to 7000 with new rod bolts and better pistons?

If I go with bigger rod bolts, do I need to have the rod machined?

Also b4 anyone says that I am wasting time with the DOOE heads, I am getting them for free, with all the goodies on them already. So I am basiclly trying to see what I can get my little old 289 to do.

Thanks

 

[D.Hearne]

Forgot to mention that I am putting on ported DOOE heads and a bigger cam. That is why I am trying to rev the motor higher.

Anyway so are we saying that it can safley rev to 6500 with a stock bottom end, and I can safley get it to 7000 with new rod bolts and better pistons?

If I go with bigger rod bolts, do I need to have the rod machined?

Also b4 anyone says that I am wasting time with the DOOE heads, I am getting them for free, with all the goodies on them already. So I am basiclly trying to see what I can get my little old 289 to do.

Thanks

Nothing wrong at all with D0OE heads, especially if they're free. As for rpms, the stock rods with ARP bolts are good for 7500 rpm blasts. For SUSTAINED rpms, you need better rods with bigger bolts. You will also need to mill those heads to keep from dropping the compression.

 

[86T-Top]

You will also need to mill those heads to keep from dropping the compression.

Someone told me that the combustion chamber was 60 CC on the DOOE heads. I looked through my Ford manual and it said that my 68 289 heads also had a 60 CC combution chamber. However, I was always under the impression that the combution chamber on the 289 head was 58 CC. What is the correct cc size for both the DOOE and 289 head, and how much compression would I loose if I don't mill the head?

Thanks,

Mario

 

[D.Hearne]

Yea, the 68 289 heads were 58 cc, I thought maybe you had the earlier 54 cc heads. A 2 cc increase in chamber size won't cost you much, but I'd mill them say around .020-.030 just to gain a little.

 

[LMan]

Youre wasting your time with DOOE heads.



j/k

 

[thumper460]

to rev past 6500 rpm.. you will need valve springs to keep from floating the valves.. Hyd flat tapit cams will, with the correct cam choice and anti pump up Hyd lifters hit in the range of 7800 rpm, and still make power!! I agree, I run all my SBF to 7500 rpm!! I have never lost a rod... but I balance the assy and use the ARP bolts. And yes, after the rod bolts are installed the big end of the rod needs to be checked and resized!! cool??

D0OE heads are really a little better than 289's do to valve size!! 298 heads to 1967 were 54 CC's, 68 289s were a 2V head only and the CC's went up to 61-64 CC's for a 9:1 2V engine, 68 302 4V were 54 CC's and 61-64 CC's on the 2V . D0OE was a 62 CC ref. 1970 "off highway parts" Ford publication

Ruff .005 off per 1CC !! Mill the D0OE .040 and the compression will be the same as the 289's ( 54 CC's)

Just me.....................

Thumper

 

[D.Hearne]

Youre wasting your time with DOOE heads.



j/k

Why would you make an assinine statement like that? Free heads such as these are never a waste.

 

[Max Power]

Almost sounds like the goal is high rpms rather than other, more important things. Just getting it to rev doesn't mean you will make power there.

 

[57fairlane]

Here is a pretty good thread on hardcore50. Around page 2 it starts taking a different turn but the first page is exceptional.

http://bbs.hardcore50.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=24630&page=1&pp=50

 

[tach]

im afraid of going over 5000 with my stock 289, dont want it to throw a rod or something.

 

[one2gamble]

my stock 289 hit 7grand a couple of times, cant say I did it on purpose though