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

How will Edelbrock Performer RPM heads affect my Compression Ratio?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Great68
  • Start date Start date Feb 25, 2004

Great68

Founding Member
May 16, 2002
691
0
16
Victoria BC
Feb 25, 2004
#1
  • Feb 25, 2004
  • #1
I have a 68' C Code 289, and was wondering how the Edelbrock Performer RPM heads will affect my Compression Ratio. The Edelbrock heads have a 60cc chamber, and I found a website that says the 68 C code heads had a chamber size of 60.5-63.5cc, which would make me think that my compression would go up.

If this is not true, how much horsepower would I potentially lose by having my compression ratio drop a couple points?

Thanks!
 
B

bnickel

Founding Member
Aug 21, 2002
5,640
3
77
lubbock, texas
Feb 25, 2004
#2
  • Feb 25, 2004
  • #2
the 68 c-code should have 60 cc chambers. the 60.5-63.5 is a tolerance for manufacturing specs but i wouldn't expect that you would find your chambers to be much over 61cc at most, so you shouldn't lose any discernable compression
 

HistoricMustang

Active Member
Apr 11, 2003
2,359
0
46
Confederate States of America
Feb 25, 2004
#3
  • Feb 25, 2004
  • #3
You should pick up some compression and you will pick up some horsepower. I run the Edelbrock RPM's on my race rod.

HistoricMustang
www.historicmustang.com
 

68RustBucket

New Member
Sep 27, 2003
119
0
0
Linwood, NJ
Feb 25, 2004
#4
  • Feb 25, 2004
  • #4
i am utterly confused now ... didn't ford only manufacture 1 289 in 68, and didn't it have 54cc chambers?
 
V

vobraman

New Member
Dec 2, 2003
144
0
0
Feb 25, 2004
#5
  • Feb 25, 2004
  • #5
Go with those heads. I have them on my car and they work great.
Brian
 

stangman67

Member
Feb 8, 2003
294
0
17
connecticut
Feb 25, 2004
#6
  • Feb 25, 2004
  • #6
I did this on my 67 289 two summers ago. I bolted them on part#60229? RPM with 1.90" intake valves, and honestly, it made no difference. I had the RPM cam and crane rr, all the stuff, before the heads, and it ran not much better. NOT worth the $1800 total cost of the job. So thinking the compression was the problem, i rebuilt my engine last summer with forged huge dome pistons, balanced bottom end and the heads again. The pistons ended up hitting the heads during fitment, so the machine shop had to do alittle milling on them. I indexed the spark plugs, dropped it in, and it runs pretty good. At the strip i got a 13.8 for my first time ever, and im hopping to fix traction issues and drop the times. I would really recommend building a 351 with just some iron heads, i know it will feel faster on the street because my car has a loss of torque, but it runs good at 6500. If I could do it agian, this is what i would do, becuase it runs like a race engine, not a street engine.
 

Jonstantine

Founding Member
Jul 20, 2002
487
0
0
Oklahoma
Feb 25, 2004
#7
  • Feb 25, 2004
  • #7
stangman67 said:
I did this on my 67 289 two summers ago. I bolted them on part#60229? RPM with 1.90" intake valves, and honestly, it made no difference. I had the RPM cam and crane rr, all the stuff, before the heads, and it ran not much better. NOT worth the $1800 total cost of the job. So thinking the compression was the problem, i rebuilt my engine last summer with forged huge dome pistons, balanced bottom end and the heads again. The pistons ended up hitting the heads during fitment, so the machine shop had to do alittle milling on them. I indexed the spark plugs, dropped it in, and it runs pretty good. At the strip i got a 13.8 for my first time ever, and im hopping to fix traction issues and drop the times. I would really recommend building a 351 with just some iron heads, i know it will feel faster on the street because my car has a loss of torque, but it runs good at 6500. If I could do it agian, this is what i would do, becuase it runs like a race engine, not a street engine.
Click to expand...
do you think your problem is because of the large valves or because of the heat dissapation in the aluminum?

or just because your whole system is designed for highend power?
 

stangman67

Member
Feb 8, 2003
294
0
17
connecticut
Feb 26, 2004
#8
  • Feb 26, 2004
  • #8
Thats exactly it! The small cubes and RPM cam make it a screamer. I would have done a 351 with a milder cam and had more streetable performance.
 
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
904
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jun 20, 2026
gray owl
G
SBF Head Flow Table - Work in Progress
  • Noobz347
  • Sep 29, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
17
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Sep 30, 2025
Noobz347
Which one of these 3 intakes make the most sense for my 331 combo
  • from6to8
  • Jul 25, 2024
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
Replies
7
Views
2K
1994 - 1995 Specific Tech Jul 26, 2024
AeroCoupe
Progress Thread Giving an abandoned 88 GT project a new chance at life
  • jaketractor
  • Jan 9, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
  • 2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jul 20, 2025
Noobz347
Progress Thread Evolution of the 'Hudson Heap' plans (87 GT)
  • MadSquirrelTech
  • Jan 5, 2024
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
29
Views
4K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jan 26, 2024
Noobz347
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?