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 06-28-2013, 12:39 PM   #1
Diputado
2nd Gear Member
 
Diputado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Vehicle: 1965 Ford Mustang
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 177
Question 390 flywheel on 289..??

Here's a "head-scratcher"...I was told by the PO who built the 289 in my '65 that he used a flywheel off a 1968 model 390. He said he did so because the current transmission (a Toploader version RUG-AE2 which was originally behind a 428 CJ) was one he pulled out of a '68 Mustang with a 390, and he used that same 390 flywheel on the 289. The 289 engine also has a 50-oz harmonic balancer off a 5.0 engine. I asked him how the hell this was balanced, and he says he had the rotating assembly "balanced" by a local machine shop.

My question:....is this guy full of s***, or is it possible to use a 390 flywheel with a '65 289 crankshaft AND late-model 5.0 balancer??? I was told by a local engine builder that the bolt patterns were different, and the 390 flywheel won't fit on the 289 crank. Whatever he did...the engine actually runs fine with no noticeable vibration.
This ad is not displayed to registered or logged-in members.
Register your free account today and become a member on Mustang Forums!
Diputado is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 05:52 PM   #2
2+2GT
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Vehicle: 66 Mustang 2+2GT
Location: PA
Posts: 5,221
Default

I'm gonna go out on a limb and favor BS. The 390 wheel is bigger than the 289 and 302 wheel. Not gonna fit inside a smallblock bell.

As for the balancer, how many bolts are holding the pulley on the balancer, 3 or 4?
__________________
Amateur restorer. (Well, once in a while I have been paid for it)
2+2GT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 02:16 PM   #3
Diputado
2nd Gear Member
 
Diputado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Vehicle: 1965 Ford Mustang
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 177
Default

The drive belt pulley is attached with 4 bolts. The part # on the balancer is E4TE-A3A. Because of this, I at first thought the engine was a 302 (or at least a 302 crank,etc.). But the block and heads are DEFINITELY a 1965 289. I know because I have changed the intake, and seen the casting numbers. I specifically asked the PO if he dropped in a 302 crank, and he swears that it is all 289, top to bottom. Any insights based on that balancer?
Diputado is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 02:54 PM   #4
67mustang302
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Vehicle: 67 Mustang Coupe
Location: California
Posts: 10,345
Default

Does it vibrate?

While I suppose you COULD get the crank balanced with a different flywheel....it's ill advised. Balancing deals with inertia in the locations of mass....but there are still harmonics. I'm not sure I'd trust that harmonics aren't present in a cockamamie *** setup like that.

If it's true.
__________________
Who cares how much horsepower it has, all that matters is how fast it goes!

Untested 331, lots of suspension, chewing up corners.
67mustang302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 03:41 PM   #5
Diputado
2nd Gear Member
 
Diputado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Vehicle: 1965 Ford Mustang
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 177
Default

Man, that's part of the mystery...damn thing runs smooth...no noticeable vibration at all, even up past 5,000 rpm. Ahh...but there's more to the story. You see...I bought the car back in October from a guy about 70 years old who said he bought it about 2 years ago at an antique car show because he "liked the way it sounded". Then, after driving it a few times, he claimed he was "scared of it" (too much hp, he said) and decided to sell. Well, I later went to the Motor Vehicle Dept. to try and track down who HE bought it from, to find out what had been done to the engine,etc. Found out that the car had been bought and sold a couple times previous! I FINALLY tracked down the "original" PO (who built the car), and paid him a visit. He told me he built the engine about 7 or 8 years ago, and drove it mainly on weekends for a couple years before selling it. SO....if there was a serious imbalance issue, you would think the engine would've blown apart by now. I have NO idea how many miles have been put on it after the rebuild, but when I changed the intake and valve covers right after buying it, the lifter valley and rocker arms were all clean as a pin...no gunk...no crud....just a lot of scale and corrosion in the old intake (a Holley Street Dom.) from all the other POs running straight water with no additives.
Diputado is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 06:11 PM   #6
67mustang302
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Vehicle: 67 Mustang Coupe
Location: California
Posts: 10,345
Default

Harmonic destruction will occur at a certain rpm/load scenario. You could drive a car 100,000 miles and never reach that scenario....then at the track one time, boom. Imbalance isn't quite like a time bomb, it doesn't eventually happen. If there's a harmonic imbalance in the engine under a certain condition, then it'll destroy the engine if the conditions are met (load, rpm, duration). It'll either hit the harmonic or it won't. If it vibrates it may destroy other stuff sooner, but a lack of vibration doesn't necessarily mean a lack of harmonic imbalance.

Honestly, I've seen so much crazy **** from so many places, that I'm skeptical of anyone who can't say specifically what part was used (which was correct for the application). Any of the "we did this to make that work" stuff is cause for alarm much of the time.

You'd be amazed how many "professional" engine builders and mechanics, don't have the slightest clue what their dealing with.
__________________
Who cares how much horsepower it has, all that matters is how fast it goes!

Untested 331, lots of suspension, chewing up corners.
67mustang302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 07:14 AM   #7
Diputado
2nd Gear Member
 
Diputado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Vehicle: 1965 Ford Mustang
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 177
Default

Hmmm...interesting. Never thought about "harmonic imbalance". Makes sense, though. Well...whatever the engine has on the inside, let's hope I never hit that "magic combination". I don't intend to run it on the track, this car is strictly a weekend street rod, so I'm not going to be "******* it", as we would say back home in Tennessee! Maybe my luck will hold.

Yeah, you're right about the crap that folks will force together to "make it work". In fact, I'm in the process right now of changing the entire front disc brake system because the PO who built the engine also did a "conversion" to front discs using rear rotors off a '96 Mustang and calipers off an Oldsmobile. The pads only make contact with one side of the rotors, and the calipers were actually welded to the spindles!! The car also has leaf springs off a late 60's Chevy Nova. They actually seem to work pretty good, being stiffer (5 leaves) than the originals (4 leaves). Yeah...this ride will keep me busy for a while...!
Diputado is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2013, 09:39 AM   #8
2+2GT
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Vehicle: 66 Mustang 2+2GT
Location: PA
Posts: 5,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diputado View Post
The car also has leaf springs off a late 60's Chevy Nova. They actually seem to work pretty good, being stiffer (5 leaves) than the originals (4 leaves). Yeah...this ride will keep me busy for a while...!
You may want to check the front sway bar for the same reason…
__________________
Amateur restorer. (Well, once in a while I have been paid for it)
2+2GT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 06:57 AM   #9
Diputado
2nd Gear Member
 
Diputado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Vehicle: 1965 Ford Mustang
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 177
Default

Did that...it's got a 11/16" bar on the front. Appears to be original. Am just about to replace the bushings on it with some brand new Prothane bushings. In fact...will also be replacing EVERYTHING in the front suspension, brakes, and steering linkage. Was only going to do the disc brakes at first, but everything else is so worn, rusted and sloppy I decided to just "bite the bullet" and rip it all out and start over with all new components.
Diputado is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 07:01 AM   #10
Diputado
2nd Gear Member
 
Diputado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Vehicle: 1965 Ford Mustang
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 177
Default

Quick question...you asked if there were 3 or 4 bolts on that balancer/pulley combo. It has 4. What does this tell you?
Diputado is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 07:01 AM
MustangForums
Ford Mustang




Paid Advertisement

 
 
 
Reply

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

Advertising

Featured Sponsors
Vendor Directory
New Sponsors
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:59 PM.

© Internet Brands, 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