|
Author
|
Topic: ??? 289 into roller motor???
|
Baxter
Journeyman Posts: 82
From: MA
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 02-02-2005 09:25 AM
 
I am sure this has been covered many times, and I know Crane makes some conversion parts, but is it worth doing? I know the old 289's were an excellent engine, and used to rev quite high with solid lifter cams. I am planning to go this route if it isn't realistic using the roller parts. I could always swap in a 302 roller motor, just wondering what the deal is with the 289?If you don't ask, you may never know! ------------------
|
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 29200
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 02-02-2005 11:20 AM
There is really nothing to be gained in a street motor that is going to be used occasionally.
A nice solid lifter profile like the Comp Cams 270S would serve 90% of the weekend enthusiasts 289-302 needs.------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA & SS/MA National Record Holder '00,'01,'02,'03,'04 &'05
First SS/MA in the TENS!
IHRA division 5 Superstock Champion
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28 The Barry of BarrysGrrl Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"
Quote #3: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch!"
www.moneymakerracing.com
|
bluestreek
Gearhead Posts: 1724
From: Athens,GA
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 02-02-2005 01:01 PM
The 289 is very stout little motor that revs quickly and can stand a lot of rpms. The only drawback is it's a little lacking on lowend torque when you start to add bigger camshafts, intakes, and carbs. This can be helped a little by using a roller cam profile that produces improved cylinder filling to make slightly better torque than a similar flat tappet cam. For the hydraulic roller conversion in a 289/302 you can go 2 ways.1.)Buy aftermarket conversion cam for sbf (not 5.0), install the 5.0 retainer assy, and use 5.0 style dogbone lifters, and proper pushrods & springs. 2.)Buy aftermarket hydraulic linkbar lifters for sbf and then use ANY sbf hydraulic roller cam and proper pushrods & springs. I like the 2nd choice better because the setup is easier to install, is a little more reliable, and good used 5.0 roller cams can be found cheap. The other alternative to flat tappet cams is a solid roller cam. This conversion requires using the expensive cam and lifters and a dedicated valvetrain.
Is a roller conversion worth the cost?? There's better things to spend money on, like good heads for instance. But it will improve lowend power and also doesn't require the dreaded "break-in" of a flat cam.
------------------
1966 Mustang Coupe: Custom glass hood and BIG scoop sits atop a 289 stroked to 331 c.i., Steel crank, rods and girdle, TFS alum. heads, Stealth 8020 intake, Xtreme 268 Solid Roller, Holley 750 HP, long tubes, 4speed, 9" 3.50 posi.
11.50 @ 116 mph (7.33 @ 93 mph)daily driver!
DanH
|
rdinmv
Gearhead Posts: 163
From: orange county CA
Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted 02-02-2005 01:06 PM
in my opinion theres lots to gain from a hyd roller, I did the swap on my 351w, went from a comp 268h to a crane hyd roller with 6 degrees less int duration but a ton more lift and the hyd roller makes way more power. I was just reading a hot rod mag on a vortec chev, stock HO hyd roller,vs comp xe 268 hyd vs GM hot hyd roller, the comp made around 10 hp over the HO hyd roller, the gm hot hyd roller which similar to my case was 6 degs smaller int duration and 4 degs smaller ex duration than the comp but again much more lift and 2 deg's wider LC made almost 40hp and TQ over the comp hyd cam. From what I've seen and my own exp its pretty much always the case. Check out comps own website they have cam dyno tests, same engines using the XE hyd cams and XE hyd rollers.......same result.my 67 vert http://htwheelz.smugmug.com
|
Fastymz
Moderator Posts: 22791
From: Reno Nv M&M #1240
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-02-2005 01:13 PM
The shop that built my motor. Said for me to spend my money else where. Because the roller on street/strip car wouldn't pay off. Not saying you couldn't get a little more power from it. Just that for the cost like Dan, said you could buy better heads, exhaust, gears etc.
I went with the 270H when I'm ready to change it I'll go for the 280S.------------------
oddly obsessed with big scoops on little Mustangs 65 coupe 351w C4 Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc. My Pics
|
indyphil
Gearhead Posts: 3394
From: Senoia, G.A. USA
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 02-03-2005 08:50 AM
The desktop dynos also show huge power and torque gains from roller cams over similar duration flat tappet cams. Thats just DTD but it makes sense that if i can get more lift from less duration it will help. I asked the same question here a little while back
https://mustangsandmore.com/ubb/Forum12/HTML/008957.htmlso theres a little discussion in there too. ------------------
'68 coupe, '66 289 C code
engine, edel 600cfm carb, performer intake, dual exhaust http://www.geocities.com/ottouk_77/68mustang.htm
|
n2oMike
Gearhead Posts: 3058
From: Spencer, WV
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 02-03-2005 11:21 AM
When the budget has a limit, you're generally better off spending 'roller conversion' money elsewhere. Putting the money into better heads, etc will produce far more power than the roller cam.A hotrod 289-302 will EASILY exceed the rpm where hydraulic camshaft efficiency starts to fall way off. (around 6k) Modern solid lifter cams make more power across the entire rev range than hydraulic units. For a hot 289/302, go solid. As for roller vs. non-roller. Solid roller lifters are notorious for coming apart with prolonged use. When this occurs, bad things happen. If regular inspections and rebuilds of these lifters are not something you want to do, stay away from them. You'll be much happier with a more dependable and durable solid flat tappet cam. The Comp Xtreme solid lifter lobes make good street cams. Their 'tight lash' units aren't bad either. Good Luck! ------------------
Mike Burch
66 mustang real street
302 4-speed 289 heads
10.63 @ 129.3
http://www.geocities.com/carbedstangs/cmml_mburch.html
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/healey/367
http://www.mustangworks.com/cgi-bin/moi-display.cgi?220 [This message has been edited by n2oMike (edited 02-03-2005).]
|
Baxter
Journeyman Posts: 82
From: MA
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 02-03-2005 05:44 PM
Thank you for all your views on this. Very interesting indeed. I believe I will go the solid flat tappet route with this engine. Then down the road, I will build a 347 stroker using a roller short block. In the mean time I will save for those afr 165's I have been drooling over! Thanks again!!!------------------
|
