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

How much power is a 289 worthy of?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ZStanger
  • Start date Start date Jan 3, 2004

ZStanger

Founding Member
Mar 10, 2002
311
0
0
Pity City
Jan 3, 2004
#1
  • Jan 3, 2004
  • #1
Well, I found a 1968 Mustang and absolutely fell in love. (Not that I can get it or anything, its $8875, But still don't have that kind of money) Its fresh repainted Gulfstream Aqua w/ a White C-Stripe. It has a 289/C4 combo. A J-Code Intake and Holley 600 Carb would be included. The motor is stock, But I was thinking. I see many affordable Mustangs w/ 289's on the net. Is this a good powerplant for some power? Not extreme, let's say over 300 HP. I would like 325-350, Is that farfetched? I would just like some pick-up when I step on it. So my question is, Is the 289 a decent powerplant to make a little horsepower?

Thanks, I figured i could get a little bit more input in here.

BTW - I'm talking reasonable mods. Cam, Intake, Carb, Headers, Heads, etc. No Superchargers, Boring, Stroking (I'll think about those later), Engine Swaps, Crates, etc. Reasonable Do-It-Yourself mods that can be done out in the driveway. I realize there was a High performance 289, w/ 271 HP, but this one has the base 4-bbl. 289 (225 HP) Also, No Nitrous. Im not a big fan.
 

rbohm

Founding Member
Apr 12, 2002
6,698
550
204
tucson,az
Jan 3, 2004
#2
  • Jan 3, 2004
  • #2
300-325 hp from a 289 is not hard to do. performer rpm or weiand stealth intake, comp cams xe274h cam, tri-y headers, 525 road demon carb, and a set of windsor jr or afr 165 heads, and you should be very close.
 

jcp123

New Member
Nov 1, 2003
408
0
0
Tyler, TX
Jan 4, 2004
#3
  • Jan 4, 2004
  • #3
my car is a cam away from 300hp. i ported my stock heads, put on roller rockers, an edelbrock performer rpm intake and edelbrock 600 carb, and got the compression to 9.5. i have electronic ignition and tri-y headers. i looked at a relatively mild cam that according to desktop dyno would yield me about 310hp. if you did as i did to mine, one step up from that is all you'd need to make that kind of power from a 289. not hard at all
 

none67

New Member
Oct 19, 2003
352
0
0
Jan 4, 2004
#4
  • Jan 4, 2004
  • #4
a 289 can make almost as much power as a 302(around -5,-10hp at 350hp) but becuase of its really low stroke it can out rev a LOT of motors out there. its my small block motor of choise with out a doubt.

325ish hp is nothing really (at the fly wheel) stock heads can do it if you have a good intake, cam, carb(s), headers, and an elec. fan. mind you it must be tuned perfect so it will a little less.
 
G

GaPonyFarm

New Member
Jan 2, 2004
663
0
0
Columbus, GA
Jan 4, 2004
#5
  • Jan 4, 2004
  • #5
ZStanger said:
So my question is, Is the 289 a decent powerplant to make a little horsepower?
Click to expand...

You can easily get the 289 to 400 hp, at the crank, without any extreme measures. If you decide to go for more, I'd recommend getting a good 302 block and build it up from scratch...machine the block, 347 stroker kit with forged crank, forged pistons, manley rods, etc.

300 hp will be a piece of cake with a few bolt-ons. Eliminating loss through the drivetrain will be your biggest challenge.
 
B

Big Chuck

New Member
Dec 16, 2003
14
0
0
College Station, TX
Jan 4, 2004
#6
  • Jan 4, 2004
  • #6
i am currently in the beginning stages of rebuilding my 65 289. by beginning, i mean havent started yet. im on a budget, and am having trouble deciding what to do about heads. would it be a better idea(power to money ratio) to port out my stock heads, or find some pre-emission (70's) 351w heads to just rebuild. which would flow better?
 

ZStanger

Founding Member
Mar 10, 2002
311
0
0
Pity City
Jan 4, 2004
#7
  • Jan 4, 2004
  • #7
GaPonyFarm said:
Eliminating loss through the drivetrain will be your biggest challenge.
Click to expand...


Would a Tremec TKO and 3.55's Help at all?
 
U

usedtobe 67p51d

New Member
Jul 8, 2003
208
0
0
let's tear up golfcourses and build race tracks!
Jan 4, 2004
#8
  • Jan 4, 2004
  • #8
new heads are almost cheap when you add up valves,seats,guides & labor. as for horsepower I have 343 rwhp and it's not enough! but it's not easy to drive around town, poor idle on/off power, doesn't like to go slow Jim
 
6

60sStang

New Member
Nov 11, 2002
214
0
0
Virginia
Jan 4, 2004
#9
  • Jan 4, 2004
  • #9
Big Chuck said:
i am currently in the beginning stages of rebuilding my 65 289. by beginning, i mean havent started yet. im on a budget, and am having trouble deciding what to do about heads. would it be a better idea(power to money ratio) to port out my stock heads, or find some pre-emission (70's) 351w heads to just rebuild. which would flow better?
Click to expand...
If you already have an air compressor I would say to port the 289 heads. I bought a die grinder on ebay for $15 and the porting kit from summit for $35 and am porting my heads right now. Check out the forums at formuscle.com ... there are plenty of pictures of what to do and how to do it. It takes time to port them though, so if you are tight on time it might not be your best option.
 
J

jesserose17

New Member
Aug 21, 2003
219
0
0
Southern CA
Jan 5, 2004
#10
  • Jan 5, 2004
  • #10
ZStanger said:
Would a Tremec TKO and 3.55's Help at all?
Click to expand...


Yes - using manual transmission is the best efficient way to reduce drivetrain loss.
 

dolfan87

Founding Member
Dec 28, 2000
1,242
0
0
Lake Havasu, AZ
Jan 5, 2004
#11
  • Jan 5, 2004
  • #11
ZStanger said:
Would a Tremec TKO and 3.55's Help at all?
Click to expand...
The TKO is a bit overkill for a 325 hp 289. You could use a 3550, or even a stock T-5 if you "be nice" to it.

I am running a 500hp 393, and I was still considering the 3550 when I finally decided on the TKO.

87
 
G

geegee

Founding Member
Oct 21, 2000
2,015
0
0
near Oklahoma City, OK
Jan 5, 2004
#12
  • Jan 5, 2004
  • #12
Several factors play into how a car performs; horsepower is only one of the factors. Others are horsepower to weight ratio; gearing, etc. Old cars with horsepower to weight ratios of 10:1 or greater start feeling pretty perky. Torque gets you going; so having lower gear ratio provides for quicker starts. Example: for the same horsepower going from 3.00 to 3.50 gears is a real kick in the pants. You can only take this idea so far else your gas mileage goes to pot in addition to the car feeling like its a dump truck! Hence, a good compromise for old street driven Mustangs are 250-300 hp, 3:50 gears and a 5 speed transmission.
 

Edbert

Founding Member
Jul 13, 2002
3,548
32
109
Austin TX
Apr 29, 2004
#13
  • Apr 29, 2004
  • #13
usedtobe 67p51d said:
new heads are almost cheap when you add up valves,seats,guides & labor. as for horsepower I have 343 rwhp and it's not enough! but it's not easy to drive around town, poor idle on/off power, doesn't like to go slow Jim
Click to expand...
343 at the wheels from 289ci (or 294)? NA without PA?
 
J

jesserose17

New Member
Aug 21, 2003
219
0
0
Southern CA
Apr 29, 2004
#14
  • Apr 29, 2004
  • #14
How about those GT40 heads? How would they compare with 351W heads? Don't 351W heads require some modifications for 289/302 block?
 

66'Stanger

New Member
Dec 1, 2002
87
0
0
Tucson, AZ
Apr 29, 2004
#15
  • Apr 29, 2004
  • #15
This is very interesting to me. I would really like to get more power out of my car. I'm getting a new 302 put in it. What would I need to do to get about 350-400hp out of my motor? So far I've only gotten a 625 cfm Road Demon carb and a Edelbrock performer intake. How much would a 347 stroker kit give me?
 
J

jesserose17

New Member
Aug 21, 2003
219
0
0
Southern CA
Apr 29, 2004
#16
  • Apr 29, 2004
  • #16
blkfrd said:
351w heads (early ones) were GT40 heads. The chamber on '69 - '70 351w heads were known as the GT40 design. No mods required to use the heads on a 289/302. Need to use 289/302 head gaskets and 351w intake gaskets (Felpro 1250s or 1262s work). Some people drill the steam holes in the 351w heads, but it's not a necessity.
Click to expand...

I think 351W heads have 1/2" bolt holes, so I assume one would need to use sleeves for 289/302 bolts, right?
 

65 fastback

Founding Member
Mar 17, 2002
1,347
0
37
Northern VA
Apr 30, 2004
#17
  • Apr 30, 2004
  • #17
Originally Posted by jesserose17
I think 351W heads have 1/2" bolt holes, so I assume one would need to use sleeves for 289/302 bolts, right?

ARP makes tapered head bolts for this conversion.

Tim
 
J

jesserose17

New Member
Aug 21, 2003
219
0
0
Southern CA
Apr 30, 2004
#18
  • Apr 30, 2004
  • #18
Cool - thanks for the info about the 351W heads.
 
S

sixtyfive

Member
Jan 9, 2004
157
0
16
Apr 30, 2004
#19
  • Apr 30, 2004
  • #19
ported 289 heads ran slightly better then the 351's my car has now with my setup,
ended up putting a hole into the waterjacket with the 289 heads and the difference was so little im just stayin with the 351's

289's and 302's are both great for torque
 

Ro Jo

Founding Member
Oct 2, 1999
227
0
0
Velberg, Germany (cold, so very cold)
May 1, 2004
#20
  • May 1, 2004
  • #20
Respectfully disagree with power numbers

GaPonyFarm said:
You can easily get the 289 to 400 hp, at the crank, without any extreme measures...

300 hp will be a piece of cake with a few bolt-ons. Eliminating loss through the drivetrain will be your biggest challenge.
Click to expand...


It certainly depends on your definition of "easily" and "piece of cake" but according to my research and experience, getting more than 1HP per cubic inch is difficult and costly. The cost for each additional HP gain over 1 per increases dramatically.

I'm not saying it can't be done, in fact some people are running around with 289s having much higher HP numbers...the issue is streetability and reliability (also open to interpretation). In order to get any real power out of the 289 you have to wind the crap out of it (6,000-8,000 rpm) which gets really old after a while and the 289 is famous for its lack of low-end torque which is what you use most on a daily driver.

Someone around here has a very appropriate quote - I'm too lazy to find it but it goes something like this: Fast, Cheap, or Reliable; you can have 2 out of 3, take your pick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

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
903
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jun 20, 2026
gray owl
G
W
How much HP/Torque have I added with these parts?
  • Walker410
  • Aug 29, 2021
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
2
Views
964
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Aug 30, 2021
Noobz347
B
How much power can a 94 GT make if you don't change the look of the engine?
  • bennylava
  • Aug 13, 2022
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
12K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Aug 31, 2022
revhead347
M
SOLD 1993 Ford Mustang GT
  • Middleagecrisis
  • Aug 8, 2022
  • Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93)
Replies
4
Views
3K
Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93) Aug 21, 2022
Middleagecrisis
M
S
Should I mod the 302 or run the 390?
  • Strangler Brett
  • May 19, 2020
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
35
Views
10K
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jul 18, 2020
DBegley
D
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?