'65 289 vs newer 302
05-11-2011, 07:49 PM
#31
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: California
Posts: 611
02-14-2012, 10:07 PM
#33
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: New York
Posts: 1
Im new to the mustang forums and i have so many questions for you all, but first id like to start with a few about potential motors...
Understandable
I am looking into picking up a 1965 mustang coupe with an unmodified 289 and an automatic transmission (ugh!)
Before completing that thought, this car has a C4:
this weekend, but i am concerned about the power output of such an engine. Now, before i begin i would like to say that i am not at all concerned with keeping the mustang "original", matching #s, etc. I am after a nice looking mustang that performs well solely for my own enjoyment as a daily driver (with some umph, of course).
I dont know the exact mileage on it, but it seems to me that an older motor like that will need to be rebuilt at the very least. However, would a rebuild of a 289 net a comparable amount of hp at the rear wheels to a newer, say 1980-1995, 302 built up from a block?
Yeah, this 289 looks really pokey. Anything you do to a 302 applies equally to a 289.
I know some people seem say that a smaller yet older v8 will push just as much if not more hp than a newer one due to smog and emissions constraints.
Yet, where i live there are no emissions tests and i could realistically drive it down the road with no cats or any other emissions control devices of any kind and nobody would say a word to me about it, so that may shift the balance in favor of a 302, yes?
That has nothing to do with it. Cars can pass "smog" tests and still do burnouts, it's not either/or.
The three options i am entertaining at the moment are:
1) rebuild the 289 it has with good quality parts in hopes of ending with a motor that offers a good bit of power without throwing my gas mileage in front of the bus
You can do mid-teens mpg with over 300 hp, easily.
2) build up a 302 from a block this summer (already have the space set aside just in case) with only minor experience with my 86 f150s 302 (been doing my homework though!), allowing a mechanic/machine shop to do the really intense stuff
No real advantage to a 302, it's the same engine as a 289. 85 and later 5.0 (302) engines had roller cams from the factory, which is an advantage, if you feel the need for a roller cam. But even now, the 302 is basically a 289. The difference was the stroke was 1/8" longer.
3) buying a 302 crate motor thats ready to drop in
I dont want to have to go the crate motor route because most people that i have talked to say that almost any affordable crate motor is garbage and i would just be throwing my money away. Do you all agree? If not, do you know of any quality crate motor manufacturers that you would be willing to use in your mustang?
Define "affordable".
My hesitation with building up a 302 is that i am worried about encountering problems that i am unable to handle myself causing the build to become expensive and lengthy. However, i do feel confident that with all the books, internet research, and help of my very mechanically inclined friend (built a '32 ford from the ground up) i would be able to get it done eventually as long as i dont stumble into any catastrophic problems.
I just feel that a 289 wont get as good gas mileage or horsepower as a newer 302.
I covered this, it's practically the same engine. Get 'feeling' out of it. A 1994 5.0 swapped into your car would look so much like the original engine you'd have trouble telling the difference.
I also feel that if i do build the motor that goes into this vehicle myself i will be able to handle any and all maintenance as well as knowing that it was done with quality parts and care resulting in (hopefully) a very nice motor that will hold up for a long time.
Then do the 289.
What are your thoughts? Am i stark raving mad? Am i on the totally wrong track? Roast if necessary, but include answers!
I should boiler-plate this. Magazines extol the virtues of their advertisers' products to the point that people think they have to drop a ton of money into a car to get performance.
A guy near here followed this advice, and ended up with 323 hp on the dyno.
• Edelbrock Performer RPM intake manifold
• Edelbrock (or Summit ) 600 cfm carb
• 289HP air cleaner
• Stock distributor recurved to BOSS 302 specs
• C9OZ-6250-C hydraulic version of the 289HP cam
• Stock iron heads port-matched to the exhaust
289/302 Cylinder Head Port Matching
To this you might add screw-in rocker studs and performance valve springs.
Cost would be roughly $1000. Notice I haven't mentioned exotic ignition upgrades. Dollar-for-dollar, they give the least horsepower of anything you can do. Leave that for a later day when you have money burning a hole in your pocket.
Understandable
I am looking into picking up a 1965 mustang coupe with an unmodified 289 and an automatic transmission (ugh!)
Before completing that thought, this car has a C4:
this weekend, but i am concerned about the power output of such an engine. Now, before i begin i would like to say that i am not at all concerned with keeping the mustang "original", matching #s, etc. I am after a nice looking mustang that performs well solely for my own enjoyment as a daily driver (with some umph, of course).
I dont know the exact mileage on it, but it seems to me that an older motor like that will need to be rebuilt at the very least. However, would a rebuild of a 289 net a comparable amount of hp at the rear wheels to a newer, say 1980-1995, 302 built up from a block?
Yeah, this 289 looks really pokey. Anything you do to a 302 applies equally to a 289.
I know some people seem say that a smaller yet older v8 will push just as much if not more hp than a newer one due to smog and emissions constraints.
Yet, where i live there are no emissions tests and i could realistically drive it down the road with no cats or any other emissions control devices of any kind and nobody would say a word to me about it, so that may shift the balance in favor of a 302, yes?
That has nothing to do with it. Cars can pass "smog" tests and still do burnouts, it's not either/or.
The three options i am entertaining at the moment are:
1) rebuild the 289 it has with good quality parts in hopes of ending with a motor that offers a good bit of power without throwing my gas mileage in front of the bus
You can do mid-teens mpg with over 300 hp, easily.
2) build up a 302 from a block this summer (already have the space set aside just in case) with only minor experience with my 86 f150s 302 (been doing my homework though!), allowing a mechanic/machine shop to do the really intense stuff
No real advantage to a 302, it's the same engine as a 289. 85 and later 5.0 (302) engines had roller cams from the factory, which is an advantage, if you feel the need for a roller cam. But even now, the 302 is basically a 289. The difference was the stroke was 1/8" longer.
3) buying a 302 crate motor thats ready to drop in
I dont want to have to go the crate motor route because most people that i have talked to say that almost any affordable crate motor is garbage and i would just be throwing my money away. Do you all agree? If not, do you know of any quality crate motor manufacturers that you would be willing to use in your mustang?
Define "affordable".
My hesitation with building up a 302 is that i am worried about encountering problems that i am unable to handle myself causing the build to become expensive and lengthy. However, i do feel confident that with all the books, internet research, and help of my very mechanically inclined friend (built a '32 ford from the ground up) i would be able to get it done eventually as long as i dont stumble into any catastrophic problems.
I just feel that a 289 wont get as good gas mileage or horsepower as a newer 302.
I covered this, it's practically the same engine. Get 'feeling' out of it. A 1994 5.0 swapped into your car would look so much like the original engine you'd have trouble telling the difference.
I also feel that if i do build the motor that goes into this vehicle myself i will be able to handle any and all maintenance as well as knowing that it was done with quality parts and care resulting in (hopefully) a very nice motor that will hold up for a long time.
Then do the 289.
What are your thoughts? Am i stark raving mad? Am i on the totally wrong track? Roast if necessary, but include answers!
I should boiler-plate this. Magazines extol the virtues of their advertisers' products to the point that people think they have to drop a ton of money into a car to get performance.
A guy near here followed this advice, and ended up with 323 hp on the dyno.
• Edelbrock Performer RPM intake manifold
• Edelbrock (or Summit ) 600 cfm carb
• 289HP air cleaner
• Stock distributor recurved to BOSS 302 specs
• C9OZ-6250-C hydraulic version of the 289HP cam
• Stock iron heads port-matched to the exhaust
289/302 Cylinder Head Port Matching
To this you might add screw-in rocker studs and performance valve springs.
Cost would be roughly $1000. Notice I haven't mentioned exotic ignition upgrades. Dollar-for-dollar, they give the least horsepower of anything you can do. Leave that for a later day when you have money burning a hole in your pocket.
02-15-2012, 09:34 AM
#34
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: AR
Posts: 5,469
My son put this kit on his 64 Falcon with a 289 block and 302 internals..
That isn't ALL that will need to be spent, there is also a "Ford kit" that needs to be bought for something over $100, an idle air housing and valve, another $150 or so, and then fuel supply must be dealt with, (pump, return line, etc.) but this is a nice kit that works as advertised. FAR BETTER (imo) than a stock computer harness conversion) He tried the stock conversion first, got it to run, but the computer wanted more than we were willing to offer, (charcoal canister, and other emissions crap), so he ditched it. TOO CUMBERSOME!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
bradleyb
Classic Mustangs (Tech)
3
11-27-2015 07:50 PM
jaiidutch
Motor Swap Section
2
09-14-2015 10:29 AM
