289 or a big block?
 

My mustang currently has a 289 in it and I was wondering how hard a big
block conversion would be or if I should just build the 289? thanks

"mtdubvee" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> My mustang currently has a 289 in it and I was wondering how hard a big
> block conversion would be or if I should just build the 289? thanks
>

It's not that hard, but it will cost you. I did the same thing with myh 68
fastback--took a 289 car and put a 390 in it. If you check my website,
http://www.tucsonpony.com/Trouble you'll see what I had to do. Basically,
change motor mounts, put in shock tower supports, change brackets,
suspension, etc. Nothing that's really difficult, of course, but you want
to make a thorough change so that the car will support and handle the weight
of the big block properly. For example, I went with the Edelbrock Performer
RPM intake and lightened the front end quite a bit that way. I also moved
the battery to the trunk to offset the heavy nose. The more you can do to
lighten the load, the better off you will be in terms of handling.

--------------
Laurie S.
Thunder Snake #7

"mtdubvee" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> My mustang currently has a 289 in it and I was wondering how hard a big
> block conversion would be or if I should just build the 289? thanks

I have a '68 coupe with a 289 2V that I am wrestling with that question,
too. What year is yours? My mechanic said that the timing chain is getting
bad on mine, and it's got almost 100,000 miles so I believe that the motor
is really due for a rebuild. A racing shop in town says that they can put a
stroker kit into the 289 and do a performance build for about $3900 giving
me around 300 horsepower at the rear wheel. Not bad at all... But for
$5900 I can get a 460 with 550 HP and 545 ft/lbs at
http://www.fordracingparts.com/parts...tKeyField=6587. Of
course, that means that I need to showhorn a C6 transmission in and then
swap the rear for a 31-spline 9" so it's going to be really expensive by the
time all is said and done.

I have also thought about getting a cheap rebuilt motor from he
http://www.rebuilt-auto-engines.com/...02105595755.f6
but again that would mean a C6 and a 9" rear end, so it would not be cheap.
This would allow me to at least get a big block in, then I could build the
engine in less expensive stages.

By the way, Crites has the parts you need at
http://www.critesrestoration.com/mustang.htm.

Thomas

It has been suggested in some circles to do a 347 stroker kit with the
289 rather than a total swap. Just a thought.

On 2 May 2005 20:13:16 -0700, "mtdubvee" > wrote:

>My mustang currently has a 289 in it and I was wondering how hard a big
>block conversion would be or if I should just build the 289? thanks

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

"Spike" > wrote in message
...
> It has been suggested in some circles to do a 347 stroker kit with the
> 289 rather than a total swap. Just a thought.

Can you actually do the 347 on a 289? Prewitt Racing here in Austin said
that the 289 stroked was 331 (which I'd never heard).

Thomas

Thomas Cameron wrote:

> I have a '68 coupe with a 289 2V that I am wrestling with that
question,
> too. =A0What year is yours? =A0My mechanic said that the timing chain is
getting
> bad on mine, and it's got almost 100,000 miles so I believe that the
motor
> is really due for a rebuild. =A0A racing shop in town says that they
can put a
> stroker kit into the 289 and do a performance build for about $3900
giving
> me around 300 horsepower at the rear wheel. =A0Not bad at all... =A0But
for
> $5900 I can get a 460 with 550 HP and 545 ft/lbs at
> http://www.fordracingparts.com /parts/part_details.asp?PartKe
yField=3D6587. =A0Of
> course, that means that I need to showhorn a C6 transmission in and
then
> swap the rear for a 31-spline 9" so it's going to be really expensive
by the
> time all is said and done.

That is an acute case of the "might-as-wells," going from an ailing
timing chain (a one-day, $100 job) to a 460/C6/31 spline 9". :-)

My idea for a low bux package is to start with a cheapo 302 short block
with forged pistons and 9:1 CR, then add a centrifugal blower. I'd use
a carb and one of these "hat" things.
http://www.sd-concepts.com/Carbhathats.htm This combo would run
$4500-5000, and would produce 400 rwhp -- more than enough for a '65
Mustang -- without destroying the handling like a big block will do.

180 Out

It's what I was advised to do rather than swap for a 351. I have done
neither, so I can't say first hand. But it does seem that I have read
in the kit description in one of the many catalogs (Ford Racing,
Summit, Jegs, etc) that it can be done. I would be doing a lot of
investigation and consulting engine shops (more than one) before
making the move.

On Tue, 03 May 2005 05:34:38 GMT, "Thomas Cameron"
> wrote:

>"Spike" > wrote in message
.. .
>> It has been suggested in some circles to do a 347 stroker kit with the
>> 289 rather than a total swap. Just a thought.
>
>Can you actually do the 347 on a 289? Prewitt Racing here in Austin said
>that the 289 stroked was 331 (which I'd never heard).
>
>Thomas
>

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

"Spike" > wrote
> It has been suggested in some circles to do a 347 stroker kit with the
> 289 rather than a total swap.

If the 289 is a good solid builder block, I wouldn't turn it into a stroker.
Good 289 blocks are impossible to find these days. Most are bored to hell,
cracked, or rusted beyond belief. If you want a sleeper motor, then drop in
a stroker 351W. Take it out to 427 and it'll still bolt right in. BB
displacement from a SB. Or you can run a more economical stroker 351 like I
did. 393 stroker- the only part that isn't bone stock is the crankshaft. You
use the original 351 rods and use 302 pistons. I saved over $1k by doing it
this way.
--
Scott W.
'66 HCS Mustang 289
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57
http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/

"Thomas Cameron" > wrote
> Can you actually do the 347 on a 289? Prewitt Racing here in Austin said
> that the 289 stroked was 331 (which I'd never heard).

I can see 331, but I don't think there's enough deck to do a 347. I think
the assembled height would be too tall (barely).
--
Scott W.
'66 HCS Mustang 289
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57
http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/

66 6F HCS wrote:

> you can run a more economical stroker 351 like I
> did. 393 stroker- the only part that isn't bone stock is the
crankshaft. You
> use the original 351 rods and use 302 pistons. I saved over $1k by
doing it
> this way.

Scott, OE rods and pistons and a $220 steel stroker crank (as
referenced on your web site) have definitely got my attention. I wonder
if you could price list the whole deal, or at least broken down into
major categories like rotating assembly, machine work, etc. Any tips on
scoring a junkyard 351?

180 Out