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

D4DE 6015 BA

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 2, 2012 | 05:46 PM
  #1  
oxfordbp's Avatar
oxfordbp
Thread Starter
3rd Gear Member
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 687
From: East bay, CA
Default D4DE 6015 BA

Finally got the numbers off my so called 289.

After searching a while it seems to be a 302 from a Falcon. Is this correct? Is this a roller cam block?

My heads are stamped 289, which should be good for my compression.

Sounds like she has a mild cam as well, but who knows.

I have a performer 289 intake coming and need to find a Edelbrock 1406 to match.
Old Mar 3, 2012 | 10:05 PM
  #2  
oxfordbp's Avatar
oxfordbp
Thread Starter
3rd Gear Member
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 687
From: East bay, CA
Default

Can anyone verify this?
Old Mar 3, 2012 | 10:45 PM
  #3  
1slow67's Avatar
1slow67
ROTM Moderator
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,157
From: AL
Default

Its a 74 thats for sure, but I don't think roller blocks started until the mid 80s.
Old Mar 3, 2012 | 10:49 PM
  #4  
oxfordbp's Avatar
oxfordbp
Thread Starter
3rd Gear Member
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 687
From: East bay, CA
Default

Originally Posted by 1slow67
Its a 74 thats for sure, but I don't think roller blocks started until the mid 80s.
289 or 302?
Old Mar 3, 2012 | 11:11 PM
  #5  
rmodel65's Avatar
rmodel65
Yukon Cornelius
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 11,812
From: deep in the heart of dixie GEORGIA
Default

its a 302 block non roller...roller cam blocks would start with E5 and go up from there
Old Mar 3, 2012 | 11:47 PM
  #6  
oxfordbp's Avatar
oxfordbp
Thread Starter
3rd Gear Member
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 687
From: East bay, CA
Default

Cool thanks.

I should have some good compression with the 289 heads on there right?
Old Mar 4, 2012 | 05:34 PM
  #7  
Kirklandkie's Avatar
Kirklandkie
1st Gear Member
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 102
From: CT
Default

I'm a fan of the "does it run" test, I'd be willing to bet your compression is good

-kirk
Old Mar 4, 2012 | 08:12 PM
  #8  
oxfordbp's Avatar
oxfordbp
Thread Starter
3rd Gear Member
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 687
From: East bay, CA
Default

Originally Posted by Kirklandkie
I'm a fan of the "does it run" test, I'd be willing to bet your compression is good

-kirk
Lol. It runs great.
Old Mar 4, 2012 | 08:15 PM
  #9  
frdnut's Avatar
frdnut
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 493
From: Ontario
Default

Originally Posted by oxfordbp
Cool thanks.

I should have some good compression with the 289 heads on there right?
Maybe, maybe not...If the 289 heads are earlier than 1968 then they will have small chambers which are good for building compression...However 302s from 1973-76 have a taller deck hieght than earlier or later blocks...That may be why the previous owner swapped on the 289 heads,to try and get some compression back....
Assuming you have the original pistons and early 54cc 289 heads you would still only have about 8.3:1 compression...If they were 1968 289 heads with the 63 cc chambers you would only have about 7.6:1..NOT good for power..The stock 1973-76 302 with original 58cc heads would have been 8:1..Again not great for power and part of the reason these motors had such low power ratings..

Last edited by frdnut; Mar 4, 2012 at 08:18 PM.
Old Mar 5, 2012 | 12:13 AM
  #10  
oxfordbp's Avatar
oxfordbp
Thread Starter
3rd Gear Member
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 687
From: East bay, CA
Default

Originally Posted by frdnut
Maybe, maybe not...If the 289 heads are earlier than 1968 then they will have small chambers which are good for building compression...However 302s from 1973-76 have a taller deck hieght than earlier or later blocks...That may be why the previous owner swapped on the 289 heads,to try and get some compression back....
Assuming you have the original pistons and early 54cc 289 heads you would still only have about 8.3:1 compression...If they were 1968 289 heads with the 63 cc chambers you would only have about 7.6:1..NOT good for power..The stock 1973-76 302 with original 58cc heads would have been 8:1..Again not great for power and part of the reason these motors had such low power ratings..
Would there be a casting number on the head so I can find out what they are?



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:28 AM.