MustangForums.com
Page 1 of 6
1
2
3
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

MustangForums.com (https://mustangforums.com/forum/index.php)
-   Classic Mustangs (Tech) (https://mustangforums.com/forum/classic-mustangs-tech-16/)
-   -   351W vs 302 vs 289 (https://mustangforums.com/forum/classic-mustangs-tech/127392-351w-vs-302-vs-289-a.html)

want_66fastback 05-13-2006 01:11 AM
351W vs 302 vs 289
 
For an everyday street car which engine do you all prefer. I am looking for an everyday drive with good street performance.
I read some where thet the 351W had better gas mileage than a 302 has anyone herd this as well?

6mustang6 05-13-2006 01:15 AM
RE: 351W vs 302 vs 289
 
If you want performance go with the 351W. They are tough, and can handle massive amounts of power. A 302 can also be a real good street engine...... A 289 while great back in the early 60's just doesn't cut it anymore with HP amounts. I going to be spending good amounts of money, and i just hope to push 300 HP with my 289.

myshifter 05-13-2006 01:18 AM
RE: 351W vs 302 vs 289
 
ORIGINAL: 6mustang6

If you want performance go with the 351W. They are tough, and can handle massive amounts of power. A 302 can also be a real good street engine...... A 289 while great back in the early 60's just doesn't cut it anymore with HP amounts. I going to be spending good amounts of money, and i just hope to push 300 HP with my 289.
351 for sure and if you put together a fairly effieicent head, intake, cam, carb combo, 300hp out of 289 inches is relatively easy. Little over 1hp per inch

67Rally 05-13-2006 03:12 AM
RE: 351W vs 302 vs 289
 
ORIGINAL: 6mustang6

If you want performance go with the 351W. They are tough, and can handle massive amounts of power. A 302 can also be a real good street engine...... A 289 while great back in the early 60's just doesn't cut it anymore with HP amounts.
What kind of crap is this? a 289 doesn't cut it with HP? How does a sub 10-sec quarter mile in a 66 or 6y Stang rate not cutting it?

Some of the statements people make are laughable. Dude, I'm not attacking you, but a 289 is quite credible on today's streets against today's vehicles.

myshifter 05-13-2006 03:29 AM
RE: 351W vs 302 vs 289
 
ORIGINAL: 67Rally


ORIGINAL: 6mustang6

If you want performance go with the 351W. They are tough, and can handle massive amounts of power. A 302 can also be a real good street engine...... A 289 while great back in the early 60's just doesn't cut it anymore with HP amounts.
What kind of crap is this? a 289 doesn't cut it with HP? How does a sub 10-sec quarter mile in a 66 or 6y Stang rate not cutting it?

Some of the statements people make are laughable. Dued, I'm not attacking you, but a 289 is quite cridebile on today's streets against today's vehicles.
I will let you say it :D:D How many inches are those new fangled mustangs? 281? lolllllllllllllllll

Baker 05-13-2006 03:33 AM
RE: 351W vs 302 vs 289
 
No mention of a 351C makes me sad, it is the best engine Ford ever produced.

67Rally 05-13-2006 03:36 AM
RE: 351W vs 302 vs 289
 

ORIGINAL: Baker

No mention of a 351C makes me sad, it is the best engine Ford ever produced.
I have a Cleveland sitting in my garage, waiting for me to decide what to do with it. I also have an extra set of 4v heads.

NinjaMatic 05-13-2006 05:12 AM
RE: 351W vs 302 vs 289
 
ORIGINAL: 67Rally

ORIGINAL: 6mustang6

If you want performance go with the 351W. They are tough, and can handle massive amounts of power. A 302 can also be a real good street engine...... A 289 while great back in the early 60's just doesn't cut it anymore with HP amounts.
What kind of crap is this? a 289 doesn't cut it with HP? How does a sub 10-sec quarter mile in a 66 or 6y Stang rate not cutting it?

Some of the statements people make are laughable. Dude, I'm not attacking you, but a 289 is quite credible on today's streets against today's vehicles.
I'd like to see that timeslip/video of the car if you have it. Not every classic mustang running 10's is a 289. They're good engines, don't get me wrong... but I haven't seen one pull a 10 yet. Then again... i've seen 2.4 liters pull 10's - forced induction, of course.

Shifty101Easy 05-13-2006 05:23 AM
RE: 351W vs 302 vs 289
 
ORIGINAL: NinjaMatic

ORIGINAL: 67Rally

ORIGINAL: 6mustang6

If you want performance go with the 351W. They are tough, and can handle massive amounts of power. A 302 can also be a real good street engine...... A 289 while great back in the early 60's just doesn't cut it anymore with HP amounts.
What kind of crap is this? a 289 doesn't cut it with HP? How does a sub 10-sec quarter mile in a 66 or 6y Stang rate not cutting it?

Some of the statements people make are laughable. Dude, I'm not attacking you, but a 289 is quite credible on today's streets against today's vehicles.
I'd like to see that timeslip/video of the car if you have it. Not every classic mustang running 10's is a 289. They're good engines, don't get me wrong... but I haven't seen one pull a 10 yet. Then again... i've seen 2.4 liters pull 10's - forced induction, of course.


i think he meant your average 289......u know the kind.....barely pushing over 200hp to the rear wheels.....yeah.......now if your are dumping thousands into that engine, then its a whole differnt story....as it is a whole differnt engine....

usmcdevilmp 05-13-2006 06:20 AM
RE: 351W vs 302 vs 289
 
Stroke it!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:02 PM.
Page 1 of 6
1
2
3
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands