why does it have to be a race car to want to turn some rpm?

 

FS308, great signature. So true.

 

It seems that Cowboy and myself are on the same page so I will respond to the last post.

There is absolutely no rule that says that it has to be a race car to turn high RPM. That said, spinning an engine 6,000, 6,500 or beyond regularly, is not an ideal situation for a street car. An engine with more low and mid range torque is much more fun and practical for the street, not to mention much more long lived. High RPM is TOUGH on an engine!

My $0.02,

 

A 300 hp 289 is easy to do, you don't even need aftermarket heads, the stock iron ones can easily accommodate that much power. Screw-in rocker studs with stock rockers, hydraulic cam, dual-plane 4V manifold, stock ignition are all that's required. You only need to do it right, not expensive. 6000 rpm once in a while should not be a problem for a 289, the bottom is not weak. Better con rod bolts might be in order, while you're in there. You won't be using a flat tappet hydraulic above 6000 anyway.

 

1.6 roller rockers help

The car performs really nicely, has a good idle and excellent street manners. We can cruise it all day in traffic with no problems.

I've thought about putting a more aggressive grind in, but it's my wife's car, and she's happy with the performance. I could probably get 300 rwhp out of the existing setup with a significantly hotter cam, but it definitely would have much poorer street manners.

Besides, we have our Mach if we really wanna go .

 

I'm making a little over 300rwhp and shift at 6,300rpm. I run that engine up over 6,000rpm on a daily basis(multiple times per day actually). It has plenty of street manners and excellent bottom end torque(I'll pull up hills in 5th gear at 1,500rpm sometimes). That said, nothing in it is stock. Rods, crank(replaced due to damage, the stock crank is fine for that though), valvetrain....everything has been replaced. It costs money to build an engine that you can turn higher rpm reliably. 6,500rpm isn't much for a decent 302, short stroke and short deck height(meaning short pushrods) don't mind rpm all that much. My engine spends 90% of it's life between 1,500 and 3,000rpm, and virtually all of it's cruise time at 2,000-2,200 though.

A street 289/302 can make 300hp at the crank without having to turn 6,000rpm with either well ported stock heads, or decent aftermarket heads, and a good hyd or hyd roller cam. ARP rod bolts are a MINIMUM, and ALWAYS invest in a sound valvetrain.

It really comes down to how much money you want to spend. Cheap, powerful, reliable....pick 2.

And there is NO WAY in hell an '88 Camaro is putting 275 to the wheels stock. Not with the stock 305 that only made 170 at the crank anyway. They were more like 125rwhp, which incidentally isn't much less than what the typical 4bbl 289/302 from the 60's and 70's made. For comparison, the LT1 5.7L was 275 at the crank, and around 210-220rwhp, though they did make decent torque(and modified can make a lot of power). The LS1 is around 340-360 at the crank(yes, the Camaro and Vette had the EXACT same engine and the Camaro was way under rated so the Vette owners wouldn't get their panties in a wad), and typically would come in anywhere from 275-300rwhp. The newer 6.0L LS2 is 400 at the crank, and comes in at around 345rwhp.

Ford by comparison...the 5.0L Cobra engine was around 260-270 at the crank and would come in around 220rwhp, the 2V Modular OHC at it's peak before the 3V was rated at 260 crank and was around 210rwhp. The 3V in the 2005-up Mustangs is rated 300 crank and comes in typically at 240-260rwhp.

Keep in mind that nearly all dyno numbers are somewhat subjective. But it gives you an idea. And again, it gets back to how much you want to spend and what you want out of the car.

 

Just to elaborate and to try and **** some folks off, IMO the 289/302 is of a better design than a SBC.

I can remember when I owned my 90 Mustang, it would get up and go pretty good, (good enough to smoke the firechickens and Camaros of the era) and still had excellent street manners.

IMo a SBC (either 305 OR 350) don't have **** on a SBF, ESPECIALLY when aftermarket heads are used. Yea, there is more AVAILABLE for the SBC, but considering what is available for a SBF this is a moot point as well.

 

I'm generally going to agree with that. It's primarily the heads, SBF has a superior port design and port/valve layout when compared to a SBC. For the same cubes, rpm and quality parts, the SBF typically makes better power.

 

if the car is geared correctly you will/can stay in powerband of the car

every heard of a 2v or 4v motor? those motors will pull above 6,000 rpm and people daily drive them. Then again they are trucks are people pull all kinds of things with these motors

 

There's nothing wrong with the basic design of the SBF iron heads, but the execution of the casting at the factory was not so good. The opening of the exhaust port tends to get flashed in, making a sort of sphincter ring at the worst possible point. Later, when Ford added injectors for the Thermactor smog system, the layout of either type injector was so restrictive you'd think a spy from Chevy designed it. If you clear out all this crap, the stock heads are not half bad. Heck, Crane used to buy Ford replacement heads and bore out the exhaust port something fierce. The first below is a crappy unported Ford head (the shaded area is excess iron blocking the opening, and the "nose" inside is the air injector, which half-blocks the port). The second is the Crane Fireball head. Incidentally, the lousy one has since been port-matched by the owner in his garage, his first attempt at such, and the engine dynoe'd 321 shp using a C9OZ-C cam.