289/ 302 torque
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
From: So. California
289/ 302 torque
I have a scout 80, it has a 289 or a 302 in it . I want some nice torque, I do not think I want ot go bigger on the engine because I do not want the extra hp.
I want enough HP to move a 3000 pound scout mild lift with 31" tires and a T-19 nice but not overkill. I want ot put on a 4 barrel, high lift cam, headers, I will offf road this mildly in light mud, rocks, hills, woods around town to school and home. Is the holly 390 or 450 practical?
thanks.
I want enough HP to move a 3000 pound scout mild lift with 31" tires and a T-19 nice but not overkill. I want ot put on a 4 barrel, high lift cam, headers, I will offf road this mildly in light mud, rocks, hills, woods around town to school and home. Is the holly 390 or 450 practical?
thanks.
More Turbo
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 621
Likes: 2
From: Marana, AZ
You need to find out what motor you have first. Is it carburated, is it EGR equipped?
If its a 302, carb'd, non egr, manual tranny....then you can go with a package like this from edelbrock which is a matched set.
Performer Intake #2121
Performer Carb 500CFM #1404 (for manual tranny)
Permormer cam and lifters #2121 (A)
This will give you more torque over your stock equpiment and good gas milage.
The stock setup you have is rated @ 255lbs of torque @ 3500RPM, this setup will give you 290lbs of torque @ 3500 rpm.
If its a 302, carb'd, non egr, manual tranny....then you can go with a package like this from edelbrock which is a matched set.
Performer Intake #2121
Performer Carb 500CFM #1404 (for manual tranny)
Permormer cam and lifters #2121 (A)
This will give you more torque over your stock equpiment and good gas milage.
The stock setup you have is rated @ 255lbs of torque @ 3500RPM, this setup will give you 290lbs of torque @ 3500 rpm.
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
From: So. California
3500 max torque that sounds like a big cam?
can I get 290 lbs of torque at 2000rpm?
I will run premium, what is the highest compression I can get on a 302 with .520" valve lift an no pinging 91 octane?
what is required in porting the heads If I do it my self?
what is the difference between Holly and Edlebrock when it comes the tuning and jets?
can I get 290 lbs of torque at 2000rpm?
I will run premium, what is the highest compression I can get on a 302 with .520" valve lift an no pinging 91 octane?
what is required in porting the heads If I do it my self?
what is the difference between Holly and Edlebrock when it comes the tuning and jets?
More Turbo
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 621
Likes: 2
From: Marana, AZ
No, actually 290 lbs of torque @ 3500rpm is a mild cam, most your big radical cams produce their max torque at around 5500-6500rpm's. Thats great if your drag racing. But when your 4 wheelin you want your torque right away to climb hills and get through the mud. You will start getting your torque right from the get go, it just max's out at 3500rpm. I don't know about getting 290lbs of torque @ 2000rpm? I'll check my book.If your not experienced in rebuilding motors, "porting and polishing" should be left to the pros that know how to do it. Theres a lot of things to consider when do this, i.e compression ratio's, CC chamber volumes, airflow, etc, etc.
Holly and Edelbrock are both good brands of carbs, and work relatively the same as far as adjustments go. If your gonna buy a intake/cam & lifters/carburator it should be a matched set that gives the right airflow, torque curve and compliments each other. The ones I listed for you are a combination kit that is designed to work together. Theres other combinations out there but they have different torque and HP ranges that would not suit your needs for 4 wheelin.
I'll check on that torque curve for you and see what I come up with.
Holly and Edelbrock are both good brands of carbs, and work relatively the same as far as adjustments go. If your gonna buy a intake/cam & lifters/carburator it should be a matched set that gives the right airflow, torque curve and compliments each other. The ones I listed for you are a combination kit that is designed to work together. Theres other combinations out there but they have different torque and HP ranges that would not suit your needs for 4 wheelin.
I'll check on that torque curve for you and see what I come up with.
Postmaster
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,941
Likes: 30
From: Maple Valley, WA
Well #1, it depends on the year of your engine. My 69' 302 in my maverick stock 2v made 210hp/300lb.ft. If it is a mid 70's/early 80's 302, junk it, they're crap and made less torque and HP than a 289. Go to the junk yard and find an H.O. roller out of a 1988 or up mustang GT or Lincoln LSC, or find a pre-72' 302 and buy the long block. If your lucky yo may even find an explorer 5.0, they have better heads and camshafts than the H.O. but you have to use special headers. With the price of your cam kit, it is cheaper to buy a whole long block from the junk yard. Its cool to have the edelbrock Garb around your engine bay, but sometimes, as it looks in your case, its not worth the messing around, especially if you only want minimal power upgrades.
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
From: So. California
with .520" lift right cam and carb, right headers, and compression could I get 300 lbs at 3000-3500 rpm?
I think it may be realistic to shoot for 260lbs at 2000 rpm.
basically I want to make my torque between 1500-3500 rpm.
I am at a $2000 budget for the engine.
I may go with the Edlebrock package or go with a 210 D @. 50 110 lsa .520" lift with a holly 390 cfm and headers, less hp but mabe more grunt.
This is a 289 block I am pretty sure. I think I would drop in a 302 crank and 302 rebuild kit.
I think it may be realistic to shoot for 260lbs at 2000 rpm.
basically I want to make my torque between 1500-3500 rpm.
I am at a $2000 budget for the engine.
I may go with the Edlebrock package or go with a 210 D @. 50 110 lsa .520" lift with a holly 390 cfm and headers, less hp but mabe more grunt.
This is a 289 block I am pretty sure. I think I would drop in a 302 crank and 302 rebuild kit.
Trending Topics
Junior User
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
From: washington!
Well .520 is a huge amount of lift for a 302/289 cam and does not lend itself well to stock heads and valve springs, and somtimes piston/valve clearance issues can result. But most importantly the average cam that actually uses .520 lift is geared to the racing market making its prime power and torque figures in the 2000+ RPM range. Generally speaking these cams are not good for 4x4 work, and marginal for daily driving (expect 8mpg or so). Matching that kind of cam to stock heads and a 390 cfm carb is a pretty ill suited combo since the carb and heads will not be able to supply the airflow the engine will desire with that cam. Personally I am using a 250H comp grind in my 302 with an old cast iron 4bbl manifold from a 289 mustang with a 500 cfm edelbrock, it makes pretty respsectable torque and gets good economy. But I would have to agree with these guys going with a package deal is your best bet for a simple proven way to boost your torque. Or I might reccomend a long-block.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
3 Best / 3 Worst Parts of Modern Ford Ownership
Brett Foote
10 Amazing Upgrades That Solve Common Ford Truck Owner Headaches
Pouria Savadkouei
Every 2026 Ford Engine Explained
Brett Foote
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
Elder User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 620
Likes: 1
From: NE Wisconsin
I would think about 9.5:1cr would be good for 91. .520 is way too much lift. New spring and probly screw in rocker studs might be needed. Low end is achived by short duration and medium lift. Polishing is not recomended on low end application because air flow thru the heads is slower at low rpms,(obviously) and doesn't keep the fuel in suspension. Irregularities in the head port with that.
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
From: So. California
what are the best years for stock heads?
I think I will run the appropiate lift and compression but I am still not sure mabe 9.5-10:1.
I am not sure if it would be better to run a HOlly 390 4 barrel with a small cam or Edlebrock performer.
I think I will run the appropiate lift and compression but I am still not sure mabe 9.5-10:1.
I am not sure if it would be better to run a HOlly 390 4 barrel with a small cam or Edlebrock performer.
More Turbo
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 621
Likes: 2
From: Marana, AZ
If in fact you do have a 289, they stopped producing those in 1968 and went to the 302 full time. As a matter of fact the windsor plant was making the 289 and in 1969 started producing the 351 block out of that plant.
As far as heads go, (not including the 289 hipo)
1966- 289 200Hp 282lb torq @2600rpm 9.3:1 C/R
1967- 289 200Hp 288lb torq @2600rpm 8.7:1 C/R
1968- 289 195Hp 300lb torq @2600rpm 8.6:1 C/R
As far as the Holly and Edelbrock go, they are both the same price, you just get more CFM out of the Edelbrock. The Holly 390 is recommended for light vehicles, not sure how much you vehicle wieghs, but for the money I would go with the Edelbrock.
As far as heads go, (not including the 289 hipo)
1966- 289 200Hp 282lb torq @2600rpm 9.3:1 C/R
1967- 289 200Hp 288lb torq @2600rpm 8.7:1 C/R
1968- 289 195Hp 300lb torq @2600rpm 8.6:1 C/R
As far as the Holly and Edelbrock go, they are both the same price, you just get more CFM out of the Edelbrock. The Holly 390 is recommended for light vehicles, not sure how much you vehicle wieghs, but for the money I would go with the Edelbrock.
Elder User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 620
Likes: 1
From: NE Wisconsin
I would go with 70s truck heads. They have a 58.2cc chamber giving about 9.3:1cr. This would be pretty good for 91octane.
casting no. C9TE or D1TZ
Sorry these are for a 302. The 289 had good heads to begin with.
casting no. C9TE or D1TZ
Sorry these are for a 302. The 289 had good heads to begin with.
Last edited by 2classics; Feb 3, 2005 at 06:57 PM. Reason: for a 302