Brought to you in part by:

.

Shop Eastwood for your Auto Restoration Needs!


  Mustangsandmore Forums
  '64 1/2 to '73 -- The Classic Mustang
  Putting together the right engine components

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Putting together the right engine components
MidLifCrisis
Gearhead

Posts: 282
From: USA
Registered: Oct 2001

posted 09-27-2002 08:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for MidLifCrisis   Click Here to Email MidLifCrisis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have been reading the threads, and just need some clarification on a few things. I have gone through the Jeg's and Summit catalogs and "built" motors on paper a hundred times. I am considering rebuilding the 289 in my '67 convert this winter FOR REAL. Like the rest of you guys, I want Mo'Power, but the car must remain streetable and reliable. I am using a stock C-4 trans and 2.79 8" rear. I would like to see around 300hp. What should I look at as my dsign parameter: idle to 5000, 2000 to 5500 or 6000, or what? I know heads are the secret, and the GT-40P's at around $600 a pair assembled are probably cheaper than having the stock heads done. Is this the most cost effective move? As for induction, will the Performer or Performer RPM package (with cam) be adequate? Is there any advantage to using the Cam Dynamics 268H cam over the Edelbrock? Is the 270H too rad? What about the Stealth manifold? The only thing I simply must have are the Comp. Cams Pro-magnum rockers. I liked the look and design before all the car mags started using them. I will either use cast iron Hi-Po exhausts manifolds or unequal length shorties with Dynomax mufflers and duals. Okay folks, I know this has been hashed around hundreds of times before. Just looking to clarify what I have in mind. Thanks in advance for your guidance. Talk to me, Charlie

IP: Logged

SteveLaRiviere
Administrator

Posts: 33988
From: Saco, Maine
Registered: May 99

posted 09-27-2002 08:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SteveLaRiviere   Click Here to Email SteveLaRiviere     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm assuming you want to keep the 2.79 gears along with the stock converter and exhaust manifold.

That dictates that you want to build a torqey engine. 1500-5500 or so. So then you'd want something like the Comp Cams 268H cam, a good dual plane manifold, and 600 cfm vacuum secondary carb, and good electronic ignition {Duraspark?}.

I think you're on the right track with new heads vs rebuild old heads.

------------------
'70 Mustang Mach 1 - '72 Mustang Sprint - '94 F-150

IP: Logged

mustangs68
Moderator

Posts: 18183
From: Hampton,Virginia,USA MCA#39406 M&M #12
Registered: May 99

posted 09-27-2002 10:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for mustangs68   Click Here to Email mustangs68     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yes,I did a cost on re-working a set of 351 heads or buying a set of Assemblied Windsor Jrs plus the cost of roller rockers and came out way ahead on price with the Jrs.

But really think about headers..another excellent Hp to Dollar investment.
sam

IP: Logged

MidLifCrisis
Gearhead

Posts: 282
From: USA
Registered: Oct 2001

posted 09-28-2002 04:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for MidLifCrisis   Click Here to Email MidLifCrisis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Steve in answer to your reply, I am keeping the trans/torque convert. stock, but I would not be against changing the rear up to no
more than 3.25 or 3.5-1. The rear would be a later improvement if done. I want to keep it suitable/affordable on the highway.
Maybe the question should be rephased as: is the 268H better than the Edelbrock cam? And number 2, as stated in another recent thread, is there enough improvement in the Performer, or should I go the the RPM? Thanks for all answers. Charlie

IP: Logged

MidLifCrisis
Gearhead

Posts: 282
From: USA
Registered: Oct 2001

posted 09-28-2002 05:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for MidLifCrisis   Click Here to Email MidLifCrisis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by 66MustangGTCoupe289:
i never got it. what's so good about GT-40 heads?

Please check out: www.jason.fletcher.net/tech/flowdata/castiron.htm
This site compares flow from head to head. Also a set of assembled heads with improved airflow over stock for aprox.$600 is very cost effective, and I am working within a budget...but isn't everybody!
Charlie

IP: Logged

SteveLaRiviere
Administrator

Posts: 33988
From: Saco, Maine
Registered: May 99

posted 09-28-2002 05:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SteveLaRiviere   Click Here to Email SteveLaRiviere     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by MidLifCrisis:
Steve in answer to your reply, I am keeping the trans/torque convert. stock, but I would not be against changing the rear up to no
more than 3.25 or 3.5-1. The rear would be a later improvement if done. I want to keep it suitable/affordable on the highway.
Maybe the question should be rephased as: is the 268H better than the Edelbrock cam? And number 2, as stated in another recent thread, is there enough improvement in the Performer, or should I go the the RPM? Thanks for all answers. Charlie

Even if you go to the 3.5s you'll still be not revving the engine very high, so the 268H would work great. I've never used the Edelbrock cam before, hopefully others who have used these cams can comment.

Since you are building a low rpm engine, you don't really want the larger ports of the RPM manifold which would make you lose low end torque.

------------------
'70 Mustang Mach 1 - '72 Mustang Sprint - '94 F-150

IP: Logged

Allstock&500hp
Journeyman

Posts: 10
From: miami
Registered: Sep 2002

posted 09-28-2002 10:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Allstock&500hp   Click Here to Email Allstock&500hp     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
i almost sure you cant use your stock ex. manifold for gt-40p's maybe for older gt-40's. they sell long tubes in holcomb motorsports for gt-40p's in older mustangs.
If you want an awsome cam that wakes those heads up, get the stage II wolerine blue racer cam for 302. alittle idle bump and alot of torque. (if you want to convert to hyd. roller which is some good horsepower) and since you have the newer heads, you can use the pedistal mount rockers, which are nice for street becuase you dont have to adjust them everytime you take them off. and a good 650 and performer rpm. thats a real nice cheap setup.

IP: Logged

Jeff
Gearhead

Posts: 280
From: Moore, OK USA
Registered: Mar 2001

posted 09-30-2002 04:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jeff   Click Here to Email Jeff     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"I want Mo'Power, but the car must remain streetable and reliable. I am using a stock C-4 trans and 2.79 8" rear. I would like to see around 300hp. What should I look at as my dsign parameter: idle to 5000, 2000 to 5500 or 6000, or what? I know heads are the secret, and the GT-40P's at around $600 a pair assembled are probably cheaper than having the stock heads done. Is this the most cost effective move?"

Everyone wants the best of both worlds, performance and economy. They also want their engine to perform like a lion and idle like a kitten. Unfortunately its not possible but the closest you can come is by use of overdrive transmissions and computer controlled EFI. Are you considering either?

IP: Logged

MidLifCrisis
Gearhead

Posts: 282
From: USA
Registered: Oct 2001

posted 10-01-2002 10:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for MidLifCrisis   Click Here to Email MidLifCrisis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff:
"Unfortunately its not possible but the closest you can come is by use of overdrive transmissions and computer controlled EFI. Are you considering either?


No, not considering either. I'm strictly old school and I want to retain the "original look". I would love to add an AOD trans, but have other priorities currently. As for EFI, I want to just stick with a carb.
I contacted Edelbrock to get their recommendation and they said the RPM intake was the way to go with the GT-40P heads. With the 268H cam which is recommended by the guys here on the forum as being superior to the Edelbrock cam, I estimate I should hit around 300hp.

ALLSTOCK & 500HP I said I wish to use either 289 Hi-po exhaust manifolds or shorties. I don't think the Hi-po's will fit because I think the GT-40P's have a raised or relocated exhaust port. I will probably have to go to shorty or long tube headers. I prefer shorties so that they don't hang under the car, keeping the "original look". Everything in life is a compromise. Charlie

IP: Logged

wvcat
Gearhead

Posts: 222
From: New Cumberland,WV
Registered: May 2001

posted 10-01-2002 10:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for wvcat   Click Here to Email wvcat     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Why not just drop in a 351w with a 4 barrel and duals. That should get you where you want to be without breaking the bank.
John
wvcat

IP: Logged

mustangzrule
Journeyman

Posts: 87
From: Orion, MI
Registered: Sep 2002

posted 10-02-2002 09:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for mustangzrule   Click Here to Email mustangzrule     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It would be very hard to make a streetable 300HP with a small 289 CID motor and the 279 rear end.

In order to make 300HP from 289CID, you need a relatively high RPM, I would guess off the top of my head that you would need to turn 5500 RPM with a peak TQ at 4500 to have an engine with the profile to produce that power. Performer RPM package is about what you are looking at. With that small CID, you would have dismal torque off the line with a stock stall. Also your exhaust ports will need some work, and I would strongly urge you to use headers, long tube headers are more advantageous for a street machine than shorties. I love the Dynomax mufflers.

A 300 HP 289 is definately buildable, but that rear end would mean you need a 3500 stall convertor, and that is hardly streetable in MY definition. There are many folks out there that would disagree with my definition of streetable, but I hate wasting gas just cruising around at 3000 RPM to go 40 MPH.

I had the 279 limited slip dif in my stang and opted to have a big CID motor instead of a 411 rear to give me the low end torque while still retaining that kill em all peak power.

Hi stall TC ~ $300
Close ratio gear set ~$500
3.80 8" gear rebuild ~$350
351W crate motor ~$3500 (add ~$500 for engine swap stuff)
289 rebuild ~$2000 (With perf parts)

It would cost you about double to stuff in a 351 unles you already have one, but the power - oh my - is so sweet.

Choices, choices. When MEN window shop, this is the stuff we look at.

IP: Logged

MidLifCrisis
Gearhead

Posts: 282
From: USA
Registered: Oct 2001

posted 10-02-2002 10:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for MidLifCrisis   Click Here to Email MidLifCrisis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by mustangzrule:

Choices, choices. When MEN window shop, this is the stuff we look at.

I love that quote! My wife hates going to Home Depot with me, because I look at all the potential upgrades while she just sees lumber, paint, and fixtures. She refuses to go to a motorcycle shop wth me.

WVCAT: you're right, there is no substitute for inches, but I can't get over the power a late model 4.6 makes. I'm looking to get less power than a 4.6 from a larger, although antique, mill using modern aftermarket components.

Mustangzrule: thanks for the info. A 351W does make more sense, but the cost factor is near double. Also, maybe I was given a false sense of how appropriate a 289 build-up would be by the dyno data on the Edelbrock website. They show oodles of power with their RPM package of intake, heads, and cam. Also a guy at work just brought in a magazine supplement by HotRod that showed different build-ups and dyno comparisons. It listed a SBF buildup with the RPM intake and XE258 or XE282 cams. I am not familar with them but they showed a flat torque curve for the XE258 and a steep horsepower curve for the XE282. I should have copied the article.
I can't see where 300hp could be extreme when the Hi-po's had 271hp and we have better technology now, especially in better flowing heads. There has got to be a winning combination. I saw MM's thread but I don't want a strip warrior, just a surprisingly quick 35 year old relic.
I appreciate all of the advice and counterpoints. Charlie

IP: Logged

steve'66
Gearhead

Posts: 6602
From: Sonoma,CA,USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 10-02-2002 10:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for steve'66   Click Here to Email steve'66     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Charlie,

Just remember that the old 271hp was the old "gross" measurement and was an advertised number during the h.p. wars.

On the same measurement system a 300hp engine might make 200 hp at the rear wheels. Not exactly a "muscle car".

You can't have both a smooth idle and low (numerically) gears, small displacement and high horse power. If you want that then increase the displacement, ie more cubes.

SteveW

IP: Logged

All times are ET (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Mustangsandmore Front Page

Copyright 2003, Steve LaRiviere. All Rights Reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47d

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More

[Build a free Mustangsandmore.ws Home Page!]

[About M&M][Acronyms][Calendar][Chat][Classifieds] [Members' Pics] [M&M Mug Shots]

[ Mustangsandmore.com Bookstore] [Mustangsandmore.com T-Shirts][Tech Articles]