A beat old motor is available to me. Would it be any good (fixed) for tq vs HP. I thought they didn't have any bottom end... If not what would be helpful? a cam'n carb?
Thank you, very lill automotive theory here.
(to rebuild-302'd be more inexpensive/easy/reliable?)

 

The rebuild of a 289 is pretty much the same as a 302. I've read that the 302 had longer cylinders cast into it for the longer stroke, but I'm not 100% on that.

289s do quite well on the low end if the cam and carb are dialed in for that. I had a '65 Mustang with a 390 cfm Holley, a Crower "Baja Torque Master" cam (whatever that was...) and cheapo headers and supposedly 10.25:1 forged pistons. It would idle down to 1500 rpm or so in fourth and accelerate smoothly from there to 5500 rpm if you had enough road. With the old 2bbl motor, I got hung up in 2nd or 3rd with my three speed, and had to start out in that gear and pull a hill at a crawl and WOT to get to a shop. Not pleasant, but the motor did the job.

FWIW, although I like the 289, I'd do a 302 and stroke it to a 331 with the low end cam and small carb. You could go 347 also.

As for theory, if you hold the carb/cam etc constant, and simply make the engine larger--as in 289 to 302, or 302 to 347, your torque and HP peak at lower rpms. If you hold the displacement constant and add intake, cam etc, the HP and torque peaks occur at higher rpms.

SBFs are sweet motors, easy to work on, lots of parts, & good power.

 

"...low end cam and small carb..."

Thanks for the reply!
("...I had a '65 Mustang..." bronk's much heavier?)

1) What would the specs B 4 a low RPM/high tq cam (lobe, whatever, lift, whatever). 2) And by small carb don't U mean "the largest 1V that fits"? 3) Lastly, how to increase the compression (again, all in service to tq increases @ low rpm).

(These 3 along w/"shorties' R the 4 ways to increase tq as I understand it - w/o 'stroking' the motor).

 

The Mustang weighed about 3000lbs with my fat azz and a full tank.

Cam specs? Read till your eyes fall out:

Search results for: 'ford'

The "Baja Torque Master" is not listed, but the "Baja Beast" is, and looks like it is limited to lower revs than mine. Mine would run to 6000 without trouble.

Small carb: I used a 390 CFM Holley 4bbl. A 600 CFM would have worked better, but I was trying to get some MPGs. Best I ever figured was about 19 mpg. Not as good as I wanted.

As far as compression, the '67 289 2bbl was 9.2 or 9.5 and the 4bbl motors were 10.1 or 10.5, can't recall the exact numbers. 9.5 is plenty with the gas we have today.

Long tube headers give you better torque.

 

All very helpful, sir (downloaded for later, in case of use of the motor). Thank you very much, I'll check the link.

Motor had a 6 yr run?

Still the 302/5.0 may prove an easier/cheeper rebuild.

Off for more research...

 

Would love to trade you a rebuilt 302( but it has that weak crank in it right now)
for that 289...
My 68 Bronco has been running an original 289 for 138 k miles...wont go away .Im sold on 289's .

 

what's done on the motor?

 

If you're going to the trouble for a V8 swap, jump up to the 351W if you are going to rebuild one anyways. A lot more useable low end torque and they have stouter internals.

Jason

 

All rebuilt.
was part of a package deal when i bought a 72.

Been sitting for a while but short block is assembled. I think i tossed the pan though..I even found some stock headers out on one of our desert trails that surrounds where i live ( Chile Challenge Trails)

If I was going to use it i would take it back down and clean it up good and then put it all back together...Have it in a storage crate right now at my Lake house..
was in the way at my home shop.

 

289 has decent short stroke torque, and really good acceleration because of that. I would cam it with a .480 lift cam and run either stock 289 heads or 302 heads which would be best for torque. Use a 600 CFM basic holley carb and you have a pretty decent mill

I like the 289 best when it comes to stock Ford motors especially between a 289 and a 302.... and they do work well in a bronco as a general all purpose motor. No its not as powerful as a 302, or a 347 or a 351W or 408, but it will be a great match for stock drivetrain components and if you use rely on 4-Lo in rocks, trails and mud, you will be surprised how far you can go with it. No it wont win any mud bogs and no it wont amaze you like a 347 bruising through rocks, but for what it is it works well and you probably will like it better than the 302 it replaced.....

 

I have never broken a single component with this little engine...
Still have the 30 in front too.
In summer use it in the sand.
In winter it gets a lot of rocky trails and river beds.

 

U guys must B familure with a "square motor". Stroke sorta equals displacement, they seem to utilize any tramission gear well no matter the rev started in. Is there an (approxamatly) 3.5 - 4 liter ford motor like that? I've not caught up to the V6s (by any company) in what they have to offer (but I've been told to stay away from 1 of the [truck?] 4.xxLtr by the mechanic friends).

 

I have seen a v-6 Buick in one.
Guy takes it on some of the wildest trails that I cant even get close too.
Big succesfull build for him.....just not my cup of tea.

 

I think the grand national had a v6 turboed.
problem w/that is it's reved up all the time - spin tires and wear the motor out.
I had bikes and brit/itilian cars in the '60s (I think the modern subaru is too) that had the "square" engines. Any fords like that esp in lower displacements (straight 6, 'big 4s" the V6s)?? Just curious...

 

No
it was some mid 60's model V-6 not the turbo one...

I cannot remmebr if it was one of those all alluminum ones or not...i remember some from back then.

I drove a 67 Bronco in 1968. My first real 4 wheel outting to some very large red sand hills.... it was a 6 in line all stock. Was very surprised
that it went everywhere.

So when i found my 68 EB in 1983 all stock un-cut. I gladly plopped down 1,000.00 for it...

still uncut.

In fact i was driving around witht he dogs last weekend at the lake area about 90 miles north of where i live but have a cabin there...

counted 3 un-cut EB's sitting in folks yards.
Watching them closely.