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

289 vs 429/460 weight

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-09-2011, 11:33 PM
  #1  
Couper
2nd Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
Couper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nawlins, LA.
Posts: 299
Default 289 vs 429/460 weight

Whats the weight of a stock 289 vs 429/460, motor only?
Couper is offline  
Old 03-10-2011, 12:23 AM
  #2  
andrewmp6
6th Gear Member
 
andrewmp6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location:
Posts: 8,162
Default

A 385 with iron heads and intake your looking close to 600lbs fully dressed.Now if you use alum heads and intake it will cut the weight back.
andrewmp6 is offline  
Old 03-10-2011, 05:13 AM
  #3  
67mustang302
6th Gear Member
 
67mustang302's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California
Posts: 10,468
Default

Stock all iron 289/302s were only like 450-475lbs iirc Aluminum heads/intake and you're down to a little over 400.
67mustang302 is offline  
Old 03-10-2011, 06:22 AM
  #4  
Norm Peterson
6th Gear Member
 
Norm Peterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 7,635
Default

I'm finding that the 429/460 weighs more like 640 lbs.

(Link)

289/302's have been listed variously between about 460 and 470-ish.

Some magazine - might have been "Car Life" - published a fairly extensive list of car and engine specs for the 1968 model year, and I know that weights for most engines were given. I'll try to remember to look it up tonight after I get home.


Norm

Last edited by Norm Peterson; 03-10-2011 at 06:45 AM.
Norm Peterson is offline  
Old 03-10-2011, 06:30 AM
  #5  
andrewmp6
6th Gear Member
 
andrewmp6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location:
Posts: 8,162
Default

640lbs i was close lol.
andrewmp6 is offline  
Old 03-10-2011, 08:23 AM
  #6  
2+2GT
6th Gear Member
 
2+2GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 5,232
Default

More like 640 for a 385 (429/460) and 625 for an FE. The 289/302 tips the scale at about 460.

I'd say if you used aluminum intake, heads, and tube headers, you'd end up with a 460 that weighed less than a stock 390. It'd still weigh more than a 302.

Think about this, though. People talk about big-block Mustangs being nose-heavy. The 69 428 Mustang has the same front/rear weight bias as the 88 5.0 Mustang. I don't hear about the 88 being nose-heavy.

Last edited by 2+2GT; 03-10-2011 at 08:32 AM.
2+2GT is offline  
Old 03-10-2011, 09:14 AM
  #7  
frdnut
2nd Gear Member
 
frdnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 493
Default

I recall the 460 being more like 700ish lbs..They are quite a bit heavier than an FE and much heavier than a 289....Here is a listing of wieghts..

http://raceabilene.com/kelly/hotrod/engine.html

Last edited by frdnut; 03-10-2011 at 09:18 AM.
frdnut is offline  
Old 03-10-2011, 11:51 AM
  #8  
2+2GT
6th Gear Member
 
2+2GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 5,232
Default

Originally Posted by frdnut
I recall the 460 being more like 700ish lbs..They are quite a bit heavier than an FE and much heavier than a 289....Here is a listing of wieghts..

http://raceabilene.com/kelly/hotrod/engine.html
There are many sources of weights, and the 385 engine seems to vary by nearly 100 pounds. I'm guessing some are with/without accessories. No one breaks out the 428PI as lighter, although with an aluminum intake it has to be at least 50 pounds lighter. The FE intake is huge.

If he's trying to find info about converting his Mustang to the big engine, here's some very detailed info:

http://thecurb.us/Webazine/Pits/460i...ev-460in69.htm

Last edited by 2+2GT; 03-10-2011 at 11:53 AM.
2+2GT is offline  
Old 03-10-2011, 12:40 PM
  #9  
JMD
6th Gear Member
 
JMD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: AR
Posts: 5,469
Default

Originally Posted by frdnut
I recall the 460 being more like 700ish lbs..They are quite a bit heavier than an FE and much heavier than a 289....Here is a listing of wieghts..

http://raceabilene.com/kelly/hotrod/engine.html

BOOKMARKED!!! Thanks!
JMD is offline  
Old 03-10-2011, 01:04 PM
  #10  
Norm Peterson
6th Gear Member
 
Norm Peterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 7,635
Default

Originally Posted by 2+2GT
Think about this, though. People talk about big-block Mustangs being nose-heavy. The 69 428 Mustang has the same front/rear weight bias as the 88 5.0 Mustang. I don't hear about the 88 being nose-heavy.
Probably because you can't make a Fox all that much less nose-heavy and still have a V8 under the hood. Certainly not for cheap.

I'm sure that any moderately serious Fox-body autocrosser would have given you an earful about whether the car was nose-heavy or not . . . and then some.


Norm
Norm Peterson is offline  


Quick Reply: 289 vs 429/460 weight



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:16 AM.