Search



Go Back   MustangForums.com > Ford Mustang Tech > Classic Mustangs (Tech)
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?
Search

Classic Mustangs (Tech) Technical discussions about the Mustangs of yester-year.

Welcome to Mustang Forums!
Welcome to Mustang Forums.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!


Reply
 
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-10-2009, 10:33 AM   #1
kalli
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Vehicle: 1964, Ford, Mustang
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posts: 6,412
Default compression ratio 1966 289

Hiya all,

i was wondering. I have a 289 from 1966 and from what I see the CR seems to be 9.81:1 (according to a few sites). as well they mention to have 54cc heads stock. I can't for the life of me find info about piston cc and underdeck clearance. But if I let's say drop in 61cc heads wouldn't that dramatically drop compression to ~9.0:1?
in what way would that affect me? anyone any ideas?
This ad is not displayed to registered or logged-in members.
Register your free account today and become a member on Mustang Forums!
__________________
1964 1/2
302ci, Edelbrock RPM heads, xe268h, 650 speed demon, Hooker Long Tube headers and Flowmaster 40s
Quick Performance Racing 9" rear, Moser axles, 3.5:1 trac-loc from FRPP and T5 transmission.
CSRP disc brakes front and FRPP discs back.
http://www.gascc.ie

kalli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2009, 11:03 AM   #2
urban_cowboy
5th Gear Member

 
urban_cowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Vehicle: '69 Mustang Mach1
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 2,100
Default

Decreasing CR will lower horsepower some. It is not much, but it is less.

Not sure if you have a 2v or 4v motor, but according to my trusty book, the 289 2v in 1966 had:
200hp@4400
282ft*lbs@2400
9.3:1 CR
52.5-55.6cc Combustion Chamber Volume
.016 Piston to Deck Clearance
1.6 Compression Height Pistons
5.155 Connecting Rods

If you need 4v 289 specs, just holler.

FYI, my trusty book is Ford Performance by Pat Ganahl Published by SA Design. SA Design make a bunch of excellent books. I have a big library of them that are great for reference stuff like this.
__________________

"Yeah, were runnin a little bit hot tonight. I can barely see the road from the heat comin' off of it." Van Halen
12.20sec 1/4mi @ 115.50mph
http://www.hardtohandleracing.com
urban_cowboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2009, 12:32 PM   #3
kalli
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Vehicle: 1964, Ford, Mustang
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posts: 6,412
Default

thanks a million for that. exactly what I neded to know (original 2v)
with that and and 54cc and my current head gasket i calculate 9.55:1
with 61cc heads that will go down to 8.75:1
according to desktop dyno that will be only measly 5%-10% max. since i was asking because of (still maybe) new heads (225hp->300hp at flywheel with my current setup) i needed that for my calculations. cheers for that. very much appreciated. i'd prefer 58cc but could get a deal on 61cc.
I guess that means as well less problems with 92 octane and engine not running as 'loud' in idle. that right?
__________________
1964 1/2
302ci, Edelbrock RPM heads, xe268h, 650 speed demon, Hooker Long Tube headers and Flowmaster 40s
Quick Performance Racing 9" rear, Moser axles, 3.5:1 trac-loc from FRPP and T5 transmission.
CSRP disc brakes front and FRPP discs back.
http://www.gascc.ie

kalli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2009, 12:46 PM   #4
kalli
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Vehicle: 1964, Ford, Mustang
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posts: 6,412
Default

looks like i'm missing a lot of low end torque though
__________________
1964 1/2
302ci, Edelbrock RPM heads, xe268h, 650 speed demon, Hooker Long Tube headers and Flowmaster 40s
Quick Performance Racing 9" rear, Moser axles, 3.5:1 trac-loc from FRPP and T5 transmission.
CSRP disc brakes front and FRPP discs back.
http://www.gascc.ie

kalli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2009, 12:48 PM   #5
MIL1ION
2nd Gear Member
 
MIL1ION's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Vehicle: 64 1/2 & 68 Mustang
Location: Alberta,Canada
Posts: 232
Send a message via Skype™ to MIL1ION
Default

2V's are better for bottom end torque than 4v's

4v's are better for top end performance than 2v's
MIL1ION is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2009, 12:57 PM   #6
urban_cowboy
5th Gear Member

 
urban_cowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Vehicle: '69 Mustang Mach1
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 2,100
Default

Lower CR such as 8.8:1 should allow you to run 87 octane with the proper timing. That is close to what every stock 351W EFI was.

What do you mean by missing a lot of low end torque? Compared to what?

Remember that the 289 is not a high stroke motor. 2.87 stroke is pretty small which you look at the 302, 351, or strokers. It will make power at rpm, not down low. If you get some heads that flow well and are not crazy low compression (which high 8s to low 9s is not), the power band is dependent on what cam you choose.
__________________

"Yeah, were runnin a little bit hot tonight. I can barely see the road from the heat comin' off of it." Van Halen
12.20sec 1/4mi @ 115.50mph
http://www.hardtohandleracing.com
urban_cowboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2009, 01:22 PM   #7
kalli
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Vehicle: 1964, Ford, Mustang
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posts: 6,412
Default

i quickly checked my 289 with 570cfm carb, stock heads, stock cam and small tube headers with mufflers. I compared the exact same engine (no cam mod) with AFR165 (reduced down to 8.75 CR because of 61cc). AFR results in brackets

rpm HP TQ
2000 106(103) 278(271)
2500 132(131) 278(275)
3000 159(160) 278(279)
3500 190(197) 284(295)
4000 215(235) 282(308)
4500 225(270) 262(315)
5000 216(296) 227(311)
5500 204(315) 195(300)

from this I'll loose tq and HP under 3000 and only then they start screaming

if I'd get the 58cc AFRs I'd be at virtually the same values at 2000 and then increasing from then on.
I don't dare spinning the engine to 5500 maybe that changeswhen it actually makes power up there),. it seems currently above 4500 is a waste of time.

I do understand that I should match all that with a camshaft (XE262 would bring me to 350HP/340TQ@5500)but I'm probably to scared to **** up something else ;-)

again: this is all a maybe situation, so don't waste time on that
__________________
1964 1/2
302ci, Edelbrock RPM heads, xe268h, 650 speed demon, Hooker Long Tube headers and Flowmaster 40s
Quick Performance Racing 9" rear, Moser axles, 3.5:1 trac-loc from FRPP and T5 transmission.
CSRP disc brakes front and FRPP discs back.
http://www.gascc.ie


Last edited by kalli; 02-10-2009 at 01:27 PM.
kalli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2009, 01:47 PM   #8
my77stang
6th Gear Member
 
my77stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Vehicle: 77 II, 06 GT
Location: Citrus County, FL
Posts: 8,004
Send a message via AIM to my77stang Send a message via MSN to my77stang Send a message via Yahoo to my77stang
Default

you can always get those heads milled down a little to help bring your compression back to where it should be.

just food for thought.
__________________
“‎Some of my finest hours have been spent on my back veranda, smoking hemp and observing as far as my eye can see.” - Thomas Jefferson
my77stang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2009, 02:02 PM   #9
kalli
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Vehicle: 1964, Ford, Mustang
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posts: 6,412
Default

the idea is correct and very valid but I rather live with less compression than bringing the head to paddy the farmer to have it milled down ...
__________________
1964 1/2
302ci, Edelbrock RPM heads, xe268h, 650 speed demon, Hooker Long Tube headers and Flowmaster 40s
Quick Performance Racing 9" rear, Moser axles, 3.5:1 trac-loc from FRPP and T5 transmission.
CSRP disc brakes front and FRPP discs back.
http://www.gascc.ie

kalli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2009, 02:43 PM   #10
MBDiagMan
3rd Gear Member
 
MBDiagMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Vehicle: 2006 GT, Five Speed
Location: North East Texas on the Red River
Posts: 886
Default

I doubt that this much CR loss would result in more than a 5% power loss, but if it did 5% is significant.

What will not show on paper is that a higher compression engine, all else being equal will feel snappy. It's nothing you can measure, but it just does.

8.75:1 may not get into the mushy area that I'm talking about, but it might. In the seventies, they built Beaucoup engines with 8:1 CR. Granted there were MANY other issues that made those engines low performers, but when compression gets that low, the engine gets a mushy feeling, even if everything else is up to snuff.

My $0.02,
__________________
Have a Great Day,
Doc
ASE Master
MBDiagMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2009, 02:43 PM
MustangForums
Ford Mustang




Paid Advertisement

 
 
 
Reply

Tags
289, 66, 8124, chamber, combustion, comparison, comprecion, compression, ford, moto, motor, power, spinning, tire, volume, weiand

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
UPS comes through finally!!! FivePointOhh 5.0L General Discussion 22 10-21-2008 03:54 PM
do I have an A or C code ? kalli Classic Mustangs (Tech) 13 08-18-2008 08:18 PM
289 Any Rebuild Kits juansp67 Classic Mustangs (Tech) 17 06-29-2008 10:05 AM

Advertising

Featured Sponsors
Vendor Directory
New Sponsors
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:25 PM.

© Internet Brands, Inc.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company
Emails Backup