1967 question #2
#11
RE: 1967 question #2
ORIGINAL: 66GTKFB
The 289 HP was an option for Falcons in 1965 only. It was an option in Mustangs only for 1966 and 1967.
The probability of a 289 HP in a Ford as a replacement engine is low, possible, but low. It is more likely that someone made a HP 'clone' by replacing parts or simply called it a 'High Performance' because it had a 4 barrel carburetor on it.
Jim
The 289 HP was an option for Falcons in 1965 only. It was an option in Mustangs only for 1966 and 1967.
The probability of a 289 HP in a Ford as a replacement engine is low, possible, but low. It is more likely that someone made a HP 'clone' by replacing parts or simply called it a 'High Performance' because it had a 4 barrel carburetor on it.
Jim
Jim
#12
RE: 1967 question #2
Here are the engines that were available in 1965 Mustangs.
200cid
1V
6-cyl
120 hp
T Code
289cid
2V
V-8
200 hp
C Code
289cid
4V
V-8
225 hp
A Code
289cid
4V
V-8
271 hp
Hi-Po
K Code
289cid*
4V
V-8
306 hp
Hi-Po
K Code
200cid
1V
6-cyl
120 hp
T Code
289cid
2V
V-8
200 hp
C Code
289cid
4V
V-8
225 hp
A Code
289cid
4V
V-8
271 hp
Hi-Po
K Code
289cid*
4V
V-8
306 hp
Hi-Po
K Code
*Shelby G.T. 350
#14
RE: 1967 question #2
A high-performance version of the 289 engine was introduced late in the 1963 model year as a special order for Ford Fairlanes and Mercury Comets. The engine is informally known as the "HiPo" or the K-code (after the engine letter used in the VIN of cars so equipped). Starting in June 1964, it became an option for the Mustang.
The HiPo engine was engineered to increase performance and high-RPM reliability over standard 289 fare. It had solid lifters with hotter cam timing; 10.5:1 compression; a dual point, centrifugal advance distributor; smaller combustion chamber heads with cast spring cups and screw-in studs; low restriction exhaust manifolds; and a bigger, manual choke 595 CFM carburetor (std 289 4v was 480 CFM). The water pump, fuel pump, and alternator/generator pulley were altered; fewer vanes, extra spring, and larger diameter respectively; to help handle the higher RPMs. Even the HiPo’s fan was unique. Bottom end improvements included thicker main bearing caps and balancer, larger diameter rod bolts, and a hardness tested and counterweighted crankshaft, all for high-rpm reliability. The HiPo carried SAE gross ratings of 271hp (202kW) @ 6000 rpm and 312ft·lbf (423N·m) @ 3400 rpm.
The HiPo engine was used in modified form by Carroll Shelby for the 1965-1967 Shelby GT350, raising rated power to 306hp (228kW) @ 6000 rpm through use of special exhaust headers, an aluminum intake manifold, and a larger carburetor. The Shelby engine also had a larger oil pan with baffles to reduce oil starvation in hard cornering. Shelby also replaced the front press-in oil gallery plugs with screw-in plugs to reduce failure.
From 1966 to 1968, Shelby offered an optional Paxton supercharger for the 289, raising its power (on Shelby GT350s) to around 390hp (291kW). One was sold.
The K-code HiPo engine was an expensive option and its popularity was greatly diminished after the 390 and 428 big-block engines became available in the Mustang and Fairlane lines, which offered similar power (at the expense of greater weight) for far less cost
The HiPo engine was engineered to increase performance and high-RPM reliability over standard 289 fare. It had solid lifters with hotter cam timing; 10.5:1 compression; a dual point, centrifugal advance distributor; smaller combustion chamber heads with cast spring cups and screw-in studs; low restriction exhaust manifolds; and a bigger, manual choke 595 CFM carburetor (std 289 4v was 480 CFM). The water pump, fuel pump, and alternator/generator pulley were altered; fewer vanes, extra spring, and larger diameter respectively; to help handle the higher RPMs. Even the HiPo’s fan was unique. Bottom end improvements included thicker main bearing caps and balancer, larger diameter rod bolts, and a hardness tested and counterweighted crankshaft, all for high-rpm reliability. The HiPo carried SAE gross ratings of 271hp (202kW) @ 6000 rpm and 312ft·lbf (423N·m) @ 3400 rpm.
The HiPo engine was used in modified form by Carroll Shelby for the 1965-1967 Shelby GT350, raising rated power to 306hp (228kW) @ 6000 rpm through use of special exhaust headers, an aluminum intake manifold, and a larger carburetor. The Shelby engine also had a larger oil pan with baffles to reduce oil starvation in hard cornering. Shelby also replaced the front press-in oil gallery plugs with screw-in plugs to reduce failure.
From 1966 to 1968, Shelby offered an optional Paxton supercharger for the 289, raising its power (on Shelby GT350s) to around 390hp (291kW). One was sold.
The K-code HiPo engine was an expensive option and its popularity was greatly diminished after the 390 and 428 big-block engines became available in the Mustang and Fairlane lines, which offered similar power (at the expense of greater weight) for far less cost
#16
RE: 1967 question #2
ORIGINAL: 67Rally
Nope...I read and comprehend quite well...I just don't care...and don't believe posts without source.
ORIGINAL: 66GTKFB
What, you can't read?
Jim
What, you can't read?
Jim
Jim
#17
RE: 1967 question #2
ORIGINAL: 66GTKFB
Then go to the HiPo forum and read, then get a couple of Ford related books, and when you're done - there will be a test.
Jim
Then go to the HiPo forum and read, then get a couple of Ford related books, and when you're done - there will be a test.
Jim
Why would I go to another board full of unsubstantiated posts by people who claim to know all...in order to debate with you?
Doesn't anyone grow tired of the know-it-all mentality and flippant answers that are found on discussion boards? Not that you (66GTKFB) are trying to be flippant or even less than helpful. I love the information that gets posted on this site. I am stabbing at this...but I'd guess that 90% of the responses to people's questions stem from the respondants' personal experience in dealing with problems. The other 10% of the responses are from people trying to be the Johnny-on-the-spot answer guy even if there is no source to backup their answer.
The internet is chock-full of 100% unadulterated BS and sites like these are beacons for people to come together and share knowledge and experience or to direct folks to the source of information that will help them.
Not trying to get in your face, 66...I just think people like to see the facts...not just hear them (do I have to mention that Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source for facts?).
#18
RE: 1967 question #2
Like I said before, I don't know about the Falcons, but your are wrong about the 66-67 years only about the Hipo Jim. You know damn good and well that Carroll used the K code in his 1965 GT350. As far as the Falcon getting a K code, yeah there are mentions on the net of guys with K codes in their '65 Falcons, and especially in their delivery wagons.
#19
RE: 1967 question #2
ORIGINAL: Soaring
Like I said before, I don't know about the Falcons, but your are wrong about the 66-67 years only about the Hipo Jim. You know damn good and well that Carroll used the K code in his 1965 GT350. As far as the Falcon getting a K code, yeah there are mentions on the net of guys with K codes in their '65 Falcons, and especially in their delivery wagons.
Like I said before, I don't know about the Falcons, but your are wrong about the 66-67 years only about the Hipo Jim. You know damn good and well that Carroll used the K code in his 1965 GT350. As far as the Falcon getting a K code, yeah there are mentions on the net of guys with K codes in their '65 Falcons, and especially in their delivery wagons.
Jim
#20
RE: 1967 question #2
ORIGINAL: 67Rally
I have plenty of Ford books and production data at home. I usually don't carry that stuff to my office.
Why would I go to another board full of unsubstantiated posts by people who claim to know all...in order to debate with you?
Doesn't anyone grow tired of the know-it-all mentality and flippant answers that are found on discussion boards? Not that you (66GTKFB) are trying to be flippant or even less than helpful. I love the information that gets posted on this site. I am stabbing at this...but I'd guess that 90% of the responses to people's questions stem from the respondants' personal experience in dealing with problems. The other 10% of the responses are from people trying to be the Johnny-on-the-spot answer guy even if there is no source to backup their answer.
The internet is chock-full of 100% unadulterated BS and sites like these are beacons for people to come together and share knowledge and experience or to direct folks to the source of information that will help them.
Not trying to get in your face, 66...I just think people like to see the facts...not just hear them (do I have to mention that Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source for facts?).
ORIGINAL: 66GTKFB
Then go to the HiPo forum and read, then get a couple of Ford related books, and when you're done - there will be a test.
Jim
Then go to the HiPo forum and read, then get a couple of Ford related books, and when you're done - there will be a test.
Jim
Why would I go to another board full of unsubstantiated posts by people who claim to know all...in order to debate with you?
Doesn't anyone grow tired of the know-it-all mentality and flippant answers that are found on discussion boards? Not that you (66GTKFB) are trying to be flippant or even less than helpful. I love the information that gets posted on this site. I am stabbing at this...but I'd guess that 90% of the responses to people's questions stem from the respondants' personal experience in dealing with problems. The other 10% of the responses are from people trying to be the Johnny-on-the-spot answer guy even if there is no source to backup their answer.
The internet is chock-full of 100% unadulterated BS and sites like these are beacons for people to come together and share knowledge and experience or to direct folks to the source of information that will help them.
Not trying to get in your face, 66...I just think people like to see the facts...not just hear them (do I have to mention that Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source for facts?).
Jim