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

how hig can you rev a 289?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 86T-Top
  • Start date Start date Mar 30, 2005

86T-Top

Founding Member
Jun 29, 2001
553
0
17
Dublin, PA
Mar 30, 2005
#1
  • Mar 30, 2005
  • #1
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

Active Member
Sep 19, 2003
1,964
2
39
Middle TN
Mar 30, 2005
#2
  • Mar 30, 2005
  • #2
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

Founding Member
May 16, 2002
691
0
16
Victoria BC
Mar 30, 2005
#3
  • Mar 30, 2005
  • #3
I don't know of many (actually none) hydraulic cams that will rev to 7000.
 
N

nds03

New Member
Jul 21, 2004
166
0
0
Mar 30, 2005
#4
  • Mar 30, 2005
  • #4
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

Active Member
Apr 11, 2003
2,359
0
46
Confederate States of America
Mar 30, 2005
#5
  • Mar 30, 2005
  • #5
86T-Top said:
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
Click to expand...

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

Founding Member
Jun 29, 2001
553
0
17
Dublin, PA
Mar 30, 2005
#6
  • Mar 30, 2005
  • #6
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

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Mar 31, 2005
#7
  • Mar 31, 2005
  • #7
86T-Top said:
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
Click to expand...
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

Founding Member
Jun 29, 2001
553
0
17
Dublin, PA
Mar 31, 2005
#8
  • Mar 31, 2005
  • #8
D.Hearne said:
You will also need to mill those heads to keep from dropping the compression.
Click to expand...

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

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Apr 1, 2005
#9
  • Apr 1, 2005
  • #9
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

Founding Member
Aug 10, 2002
1,246
0
0
Mom's basement
Apr 1, 2005
#10
  • Apr 1, 2005
  • #10
Youre wasting your time with DOOE heads.



j/k
 

thumper460

Founding Member
Jul 24, 2000
3,022
2
56
Orange Park , Fl
Apr 1, 2005
#11
  • Apr 1, 2005
  • #11
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

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Apr 2, 2005
#12
  • Apr 2, 2005
  • #12
LMan said:
Youre wasting your time with DOOE heads.



j/k
Click to expand...
Why would you make an assinine statement like that? Free heads such as these are never a waste.
 

Max Power

Active Member
Jul 31, 2003
1,774
1
36
St Paul
Apr 2, 2005
#13
  • Apr 2, 2005
  • #13
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.
 
5

57fairlane

New Member
Apr 2, 2005
560
0
0
Oakwood, GA
Apr 2, 2005
#14
  • Apr 2, 2005
  • #14
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

Founding Member
Jun 30, 2002
74
0
6
Moreno Valley, California
Apr 2, 2005
#15
  • Apr 2, 2005
  • #15
im afraid of going over 5000 with my stock 289, dont want it to throw a rod or something.
 

one2gamble

Founding Member
Feb 27, 2001
902
1
0
Monterey
Apr 2, 2005
#16
  • Apr 2, 2005
  • #16
my stock 289 hit 7grand a couple of times, cant say I did it on purpose though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
First post 289 rebuild question!
  • Ddyer2868
  • Nov 24, 2025
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Replies
3
Views
267
Classic Mustang Specific Tech Dec 5, 2025
rednotch
6
Hey all,I’m putting together a 302 for my 1968 Mustang and wanted to post the combo + some questions to make sure I’m not missing crucial
  • 68_Disgustang
  • Feb 22, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
885
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jun 20, 2026
gray owl
G
G
Engine Pushrod Length Question
  • germain101
  • Sep 22, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
12
Views
564
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Sep 25, 2025
Noobz347
F
289 to 302 Engine
  • Fri Guy
  • Feb 13, 2025
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
671
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Feb 13, 2025
Fri Guy
F
D
Brakes 1966 Mustang convertible 289, Auto - Disc brake conversion issues
  • DRGunn427
  • Feb 26, 2025
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Replies
5
Views
672
Classic Mustang Specific Tech Thursday at 3:18 PM
All Stock93
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?