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

Engine specs

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 26, 2006 | 12:03 AM
  #1  
6mustang6's Avatar
6mustang6
Thread Starter
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,645
From:
Default Engine specs

Ok, I have been wanting to know this for a long time... ..My 66 shop manual says the valve sizes were 1.670 and 1.389 in. But i see in a article i am reading that they were 1.781 in. intakes and 1.450 in. exhausts. WHich is the correct sizes, and what was the lift and duration of the stock cam. This is for a 2V engine 289.
Old Mar 26, 2006 | 12:04 AM
  #2  
6mustang6's Avatar
6mustang6
Thread Starter
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,645
From:
Default RE: Engine specs

My manual also says the compression is 8..... something, but the article says it has 9.2 compression.

article
Old Mar 26, 2006 | 12:10 AM
  #3  
slickman's Avatar
slickman
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,634
From: SC
Default RE: Engine specs

From 1963 to 1980 the valves sizes were; 1.78 intake and 1.45 exhaust and this is right from the Ford parts exchange book. The only thing that changed during that year range was the combustion chamber size which varied from 52 - 69CC which also changes you're compression.

ORIGINAL: 6mustang6

Ok, I have been wanting to know this for a long time... ..My 66 shop manual says the valve sizes were 1.670 and 1.389 in. But i see in a article i am reading that they were 1.781 in. intakes and 1.450 in. exhausts. WHich is the correct sizes, and what was the lift and duration of the stock cam. This is for a 2V engine 289.
Old Mar 26, 2006 | 12:19 AM
  #4  
6mustang6's Avatar
6mustang6
Thread Starter
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,645
From:
Default RE: Engine specs

yeah, that higher combustion chamber gives a higher compression. Well damn, Why does my orignal 66 shop manual say everything wrong????? Thanks BTW.
Old Mar 26, 2006 | 12:30 AM
  #5  
slickman's Avatar
slickman
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,634
From: SC
Default RE: Engine specs

Well, the lower the combustion chamber size, the higher the compression. Compression is not the answer to all when it comes to performance. You're engine is just a big air pump and the main object is to get the air moving through the chambers as fast as possible.
As far as the shop manual, the only years that come close to them numbers are 1962 - 1963 heads.

ORIGINAL: 6mustang6

yeah, that higher combustion chamber gives a higher compression. Well damn, Why does my orignal 66 shop manual say everything wrong????? Thanks BTW.
Old Mar 26, 2006 | 12:37 AM
  #6  
6mustang6's Avatar
6mustang6
Thread Starter
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,645
From:
Default RE: Engine specs

MY shop manual says 1966 FAirlane, comet, mustang shop manual. I dont get it. Maybe it wasn't updated..... actually it was, since it said 200 bhp, instead of 195 bhp. I do know the higher the compression, the more power there is.... im just wondering exactly what my 289 2v is.... 8.5 or 9.2.... this is getting annoying. lol
Old Mar 26, 2006 | 08:49 AM
  #7  
Soaring's Avatar
Soaring
I ♥ Acer
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 17,565
From:
Default RE: Engine specs

Here is what I dug up.

The 289 in³ (4.7 L) Windsor was also introduced in 1963. Bore was expanded to 4.0 in (102 mm), the bore limit of any factory Windsor engine. The 289 weighed 506 lb (230 kg).

In 1963 the 289 was available in two forms: with a two-barrel carburetor and 8.7:1 compression, rated at 195 hp (145 kW) @ 4400 rpm and 258 lbf·ft (350 N·m) @ 2200 rpm, and with a four-barrel carburetor and 9.0:1 compression, rated at 210 hp (157 kW) @ 4400 rpm and 300 lbf·ft (407 N·m) @ 2800 rpm. The two-barrel 289 replaced the 260 as the base V8 for full-sized Fords.

Both 1964 and 1965 versions had a five-bolt bell housing pattern that was different than later six-bolt units.

For 1965 the compression ratio of the base 289 was raised to 9.3:1, increasing power and torque to 200 hp (149 kW) @ 4400 rpm and 282 lbf·ft (382 N·m) @ 2400 rpm. The four-barrel version was increased to 10.0:1 compression, and was rated at 225 hp (168 kW) @ 4800 rpm and 305 lbf·ft (414 N·m) @ 3200 rpm.

Engine specifications were unchanged for 1966 and 1967. In 1968 the four-barrel 225 hp engine was dropped, leaving the two-barrel (now reduced back to 195 hp) and the HiPo. 1968 was the last year of production for the 289.

Old Mar 26, 2006 | 12:27 PM
  #8  
6mustang6's Avatar
6mustang6
Thread Starter
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,645
From:
Default RE: Engine specs

yeah, i misread my manual, it did say that they had 9.3:1 compression. NOWIT says the VALVE HEAD DIAMETER is 1.662-1.677 intake and 1.442-1.457 exhaust. i dont know if that is the valve size, or something else. I do know that this manual is the original one printed back in 1965, so the information should be accurate in here.
Old Mar 26, 2006 | 12:53 PM
  #9  
RSRXION's Avatar
RSRXION
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 499
From:
Default RE: Engine specs

See if you can find a set of C9OE casting heads off of a 69 351 Windsor. They have the smallest chambers of any of the W style heads. JMHO, Dean
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Nick Oliver
V6 S197 General Discussion
6
Oct 17, 2018 04:22 AM
AmericanMuscle4.6GT
2005-2014 Mustangs
7
Nov 10, 2015 02:06 PM
TfcCDR
V6 (1994-2004) Mustangs
1
Sep 14, 2015 12:08 PM
Pyrate Dave
5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang
8
Sep 10, 2015 07:30 PM
Webster454
2005-2014 Mustangs
1
Sep 7, 2015 04:59 AM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:15 PM.