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

Saved a 65 notchback from the crusher, now what to do?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cradicg
  • Start date Start date Oct 22, 2005

cradicg

New Member
Oct 9, 2005
92
0
0
Pennsylvania
Oct 22, 2005
#1
  • Oct 22, 2005
  • #1
I bought a 1965 Mustang coupe off a guy who was ready to scrap it. It had some front end damage but looked very repairable. It has the original 289 (2 barrel carb, runs very smooth) and an automatic tranny. It leaks everything and needs to be gone through, so....

What can or must be done to put 300 HP @ the rear wheels, using the original 289. I have no intention of using a SC or NOS, and would rather not punch out the block. I thought about using the same components as the 289 HIPO during the rebuild. The only problem is I don't know what’s different about the 289 HIPO and mine other than the carb.

Also, the tranny slams into gear, so I'm guessing a rebuild is in order for this as well. Will this tranny handle 300 HP or should it be upgraded or replaced? I will keep the automatic or replace it with another automatic, as I have a blown knee and manual clutches become painful quickly.

I would like to keep as much of the original car as possible, especially in the power train. Unfortunately, the suspension, interior, and front end will have to be replaced. I have searched through the forum a few times and have found a little info here and there, so if this was covered previously, I apologize and would appreciate any links and/or advice. THANKS!
 
6

66StangFastback

New Member
Jun 6, 2005
181
0
0
norman, oklahoma
Oct 22, 2005
#2
  • Oct 22, 2005
  • #2
The Hi-po 289 had the same bore and stroke, but had a 10.0: CR, had solid valve lifters, a 4v carb. Run on super premium fuel with dual exhaust it made 271 brake horsepower at 6000rpm and 312 ft.-lbs, of torque at 3400 rpms. It also had a different cam. I had to re read the rpms for brake horsepower the first time I saw it. I was surprised to see they spun 6000rpms on these motors 40 years ago.
 

Cobain03

Active Member
Aug 27, 2003
996
0
36
Lexington, Ky
Oct 22, 2005
#3
  • Oct 22, 2005
  • #3
i belive the cam was also different in the K code engine as well as different exhaust manifolds.

to start getting power, chang eout that 2 barrell for a 4 barrell setup along with a hi rise if you have the clearence. nice long tubes (tri y maybe) and go out with the rest of the exhaust. Heads, cam, gears are next (maybe not in that order tho).

it all depends on how much you want to pay. im tring to push some ponies outta mine on a high schoolers budget so funds are low, and it takes time. You gotta pay to play!
 

Mach1steve

New Member
Feb 10, 2004
95
0
0
Burlington, Ont.
Oct 23, 2005
#4
  • Oct 23, 2005
  • #4
be careful what you wish for...

Ask yourself why you want 300HP.
Do you know what Horsepower does ?
All the guys talk about is Horsepower as the be all end all, but any engine builder/hot rod guy worth his salt will tell you Torque is what its all about!!!!
If it is to launch fast off the light and for spirited street driving then it's 300 Ft/LBs of Torque you need, not horsepower.
It's torque that launches you quickly, Horsepower is what happens at high rpms and allows the car to reach high top speeds.... useless in a street car to an extent.
So high reving Cams and Single plane Intake manifolds build high rpm horsepower and don't work well on the street. A Torquey Cam and a good dual plane Intake, a compression ratio of 10:1 and a set of headers, and most important ..... change the rear gears to a 3.50 or higher ratio.

You can build a lot of power into an engine, but if you have a 2.80 or 3.00 to 1 ratio rear end gear, the car is going to be VERY disapointing in "off-the-line" performance. I had a freind who came to me with a dilemma... "I put $4,000 into a performance engine rebuild and the car doesn't go much better than before !" he said. We checked and the rear gears were 3.00 to 1's. We changed him to a 3.73 rear end gear and the car was ROCKET ! You have to be able get the car rolling quickly so the engine can use what it has. Rear Gears are the most cost-effective "go-fast" there is !
... and nobody seems to recognize that. They spend thousands of dollars on engine bolt-ons that don't seem to make much difference, when if they'd started with the rear gears they could have saved themselves a small fortune !
(steps off the soapbox)
Hope this helps

Mach1steve (been there done that)
 
S

steel1212

Active Member
Jun 24, 2004
1,180
0
36
Frankfort, Ky
Oct 23, 2005
#5
  • Oct 23, 2005
  • #5
Mach1steve said:
Rear Gears are the most cost-effective "go-fast" there is ! ... and nobody seems to recognize that.
(been there done that)
Click to expand...



Typically though if you have 300rwhp you have more than that in torque...typically. I agree total though for a street car as some one once said," build for torque hp is something you lie to your friends about." Anyway, most people say I want 300 rwhp and and really mean they want the torque that comes with that. I have set my goal as that as well but with my 4.11s I'm more interested in leaving from a start like a bat outta hell.

In my opinion to get 300 out of a 289 you'll need the full gammit of parts:heads, cam, intake, gears and they will all need to work well together or its not worth having. I would say I'm getting close to my goal but I need to work out some little things first and still might need some other parts before I get there...
 
1

10secgoal

Active Member
Dec 1, 2003
2,801
3
49
San Diego
Oct 23, 2005
#6
  • Oct 23, 2005
  • #6
steel1212 said:
I agree total though for a street car as some one once said," build for torque hp is something you lie to your friends about." Anyway, most people say I want 300 rwhp and and really mean they want the torque that comes with that.
Click to expand...

Hi, how ya doing.
 
S

steel1212

Active Member
Jun 24, 2004
1,180
0
36
Frankfort, Ky
Oct 23, 2005
#7
  • Oct 23, 2005
  • #7
:Zip2:

Shhh your not supposted to tell anybody lol
 

cradicg

New Member
Oct 9, 2005
92
0
0
Pennsylvania
Oct 24, 2005
#8
  • Oct 24, 2005
  • #8
I hear ya mach1steve....

Yeah, I know that without torque, HP is wasted. I don't have the specs in front of me, but the 2 barrel carb "challanger" V8 was rated at (about) 200 HP and somewhere in the high 200's for torque (I want to say 270ish, but can't say for sure). If I build the motor (or rebuild that is) with a higher HP goal, the torque should climb with it right? Plus, the torque is already much higher than the HP in stock form, so I should have a decent foundation to work off of right?
 
S

steel1212

Active Member
Jun 24, 2004
1,180
0
36
Frankfort, Ky
Oct 24, 2005
#9
  • Oct 24, 2005
  • #9
yeah 95% of the time torque will be higher but you also have to look at where your peak torque and horsepower will be at. If you start going with high reving parts like open plain intakes and cams your power will start at 3k or so and that sucks in a street car of course. My car is pushing it for streetable in my opinion. It really doesn't like to be below 1500 and makes power from 2k to 6500+. Just look in summit or jegs cataloge. Pick stuff that works well from idle to 6k or so. I went up a little and did the 2000 to 6500 line and it works for me. Its all in what you want to deal with. Mine idles real lopey and doesn't like cold weather a whole lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Fox Street Suspension Build Advice
  • NYFox
  • Jan 25, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
3
Views
316
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jan 28, 2026
Noobz347
Need some camshaft guru advice on power loss from supercharger to nitrous
  • TTSaleen
  • Dec 1, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
18
Views
676
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Dec 29, 2025
revhead347
What's your tow rig?
  • LILCBRA
  • May 31, 2026
  • Other Auto Tech
Replies
3
Views
136
Other Auto Tech May 31, 2026
LILCBRA
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
J
Hello all, I have returned from a hiatus... Update and Questions
  • JackH
  • Aug 13, 2025
  • 1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech
Replies
6
Views
337
1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech Aug 15, 2025
JackH
J
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?