What do I have? (289 teardown) - Page 2 - Vintage Mustang Forums
 49Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #16 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-09-2019, 07:34 PM
Senior Member
 
2nd 66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: New York
Posts: 9,439
Garage
I had a stock bore 289 with the 448/472 cam Edelbrock F4B and 1406 with tri Y's in front of a 3.35/.68 T5 and a 3.40 TL 8" it ran really nice ,until it didn't
A couple of things I might have done different Hind sight being 20/20 and all, I would have upgraded my 50 year old valve springs, I would have run a stock oil pump vs a HV And possibly most important is the stock oil pick up would have been replaced. Under the steel strip holding the screen in is a Hole in the screen about the size of a quarter
OP's pic
What do I have? (289 teardown)-img_0230.jpg
allowing this to happen,My pic

My replacement GT40P has been fitted with Scott Drakes Boss 302 style pan and supplied oil pickup
PB65stang and Grimbrand like this.


Brad
2nd 66 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #17 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-09-2019, 09:44 PM
Senior Member
 
Woodchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Peoples Republic of Vermont
Posts: 32,912
Send a message via Yahoo to Woodchuck
If you have the original '65 non-Thermactor heads I think I'd recommend a mild porting job with a port match on the intake and exhaust, and a set of reproduction HiPo manifolds and leave it at that. If you WANT to spend more dough then a step up to some Chevy (1.94/1.60) valves, a bit more porting will make it breathe easier and then you can consider more cam.
Huskinhano, PB65stang and 2nd 66 like this.

Bart

What, me worry?
- Alfred E. Neuman

Woodchuck is offline  
post #18 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-09-2019, 11:05 PM
Senior Member
 
FrankieThe69Kid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Marshfield, MA, USA
Posts: 1,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB65stang View Post
Attached are some pics of the bottom end of the engine. Again, nothing struck me as particularly exciting (which is good), outside of 1 rod which is bright rust color compared to the rest and another which appears to have some sort of nick in it. Does anyone have an opinion if either of these issues are anything to be concerned about? I attached as good of a close up of the nick as I could get. I didn't find any markings which would indicate how much the crank was turned, but I could have missed them since I didn't exactly know what to look for. Either way, still seems the best option is just to clean this engine up, and proceed as planned.
The only way to check if there are issues with the crank is to remove the bearing caps (main and rod) so you can see the crank journals. Line up all the caps on a table and make sure when you put them back on that they go on where they came off.
If you remove all the caps, you can pull the crank right out. The machine shop markings will be (or should be) on one end of the crank. The shop that did mine (two engines ago) marked the rear.

69 Convertible, 351W, T5, E-Brock Performer 351-W intake, Performer Plus cam, Holley 4160, power assist, dual exhaust, 4-wheel manual drums.
FrankieThe69Kid is offline  
 
post #19 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-09-2019, 11:08 PM
Senior Member
Supporting Member
 
Redneckgearhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Sauk Centre MN.
Posts: 1,768
With the op's admitted lack of knowledge in this area, I would recommend reassembling the motor and reinstalling it. Then pick up heads and such to try his hand at porting and reconditioning. No sense destroying what appears to be a perfectly fine motor. It seems like the op got a little ahead of himself in doing a "total restoration" and just started disassembly without knowing what he was looking for and if he found it. Slow down or you'll end up with a pile of parts around a shell of a car dragging it around for 20 years hoping one day you'll learn how to put it all back together.

Scott

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story
Redneckgearhead is offline  
post #20 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-09-2019, 11:52 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
PB65stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneckgearhead View Post
With the op's admitted lack of knowledge in this area, I would recommend reassembling the motor and reinstalling it. Then pick up heads and such to try his hand at porting and reconditioning. No sense destroying what appears to be a perfectly fine motor. It seems like the op got a little ahead of himself in doing a "total restoration" and just started disassembly without knowing what he was looking for and if he found it. Slow down or you'll end up with a pile of parts around a shell of a car dragging it around for 20 years hoping one day you'll learn how to put it all back together.
I can appreciate and understand what you're saying, but I never had any intention of destroying a good motor. In fact, that's what got me here - as I got to thinking about my plans for the car, I had the same thought - why do more than needed if everything was perfectly fine. I just disassembled the easy parts for my own education and peace of mind...plus to get thoughts from people on here who are much more knowledgeable than I am. I'm not going any further personally on disassembly of the motor and am going to replace the oil pan, new seals, put the intake back on, and get the heads professionally ported. Then I'll drop it back in and drive/enjoy it.

1965 C-code Coupe - 289 w/ C4. 9" w/ 3.25 LSD, 4 wheel Street or Track discs, GT350 coils w/ Arning drop, 4.5" mideyes, Cal-Tracs.
PB65stang is offline  
post #21 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-09-2019, 11:55 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
PB65stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodchuck View Post
If you have the original '65 non-Thermactor heads I think I'd recommend a mild porting job with a port match on the intake and exhaust, and a set of reproduction HiPo manifolds and leave it at that. If you WANT to spend more dough then a step up to some Chevy (1.94/1.60) valves, a bit more porting will make it breathe easier and then you can consider more cam.
That's exactly what I'm going to do. I do have the original '65 heads and I found a local head guy with great reviews. He's going to port them for me and clean everything up, and I'll bolt them back on and go from there.
Grimbrand likes this.

1965 C-code Coupe - 289 w/ C4. 9" w/ 3.25 LSD, 4 wheel Street or Track discs, GT350 coils w/ Arning drop, 4.5" mideyes, Cal-Tracs.
PB65stang is offline  
post #22 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-13-2019, 07:13 AM
LSG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SW Michigan
Posts: 2,455
Tongue 289 heads

65, no, & no they don't, & no to aluminum, and no to Chevy valves. The SIZES of the Chevy valves are okay, 1.94 and 1.6, but the lengths are wrong. More explanation this evening. I'll have part numbers. You should do exhaust seats too. and thread ins if you don't have have them. LSG
geicoman58 likes this.
LSG is online now  
post #23 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-13-2019, 08:36 AM
Senior Member
 
tom991's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Vero Beach, FL but currently live in Germany
Posts: 2,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSG View Post
65, no, & no they don't, & no to aluminum, and no to Chevy valves. The SIZES of the Chevy valves are okay, 1.94 and 1.6, but the lengths are wrong. More explanation this evening. I'll have part numbers. You should do exhaust seats too. and thread ins if you don't have have them. LSG
I don't know why some people refer to using Chevy valves either but when I discussed with Crane's tech support about choosing the cam that I did we got into increasing the valve size to 1.94 intake and 1.6 exhaust ad well as porting the heads to get the most out of the cam. Maybe those valve sizes are common to Chevy heads. Anyway I noticed that when ordering my parts from Summit the valves stems for the Chevy and Ford, at least the Manley valves I was ordering had the same length and diameter. The part numbers were different so there must have been some other characteristics that made them not interchangeable.

So my Ford C4OE-B heads were modified to handle the larger valve size valves and seats, port matched and I opted to have threated rocker studs installed just because. I probably could have not had to go the threaded route since my cam's lift is .456 intake and exhaust. Bottom line is I could tell a difference as soon as I started the engine after putting the heads back on that the engine breathed better. Acceleration was much more responsive as well. Aluminum heads wouldn't have been much more but I the combustion chambers of the several aluminum heads I looked at were larger and I would have lost some compression points. I also kept my Performer intake instead of choosing a Stealth or an RPM intake but I was happy with the results of the head work so I didn't know what more I could get from my engine. So I figured, what I don't know saved me a few $$$.
tom991 is offline  
post #24 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-13-2019, 11:49 PM
LSG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SW Michigan
Posts: 2,455
Tongue 289 checkup

65, the .040 oberbore is fine, no problem there, I wouldn't even consider aluminum heads, especially with a Performer intake and iron exhausts. Almost all of the available aluminum heads have chambers too large for a 289, and the better breathing ability is wasted, or at least unable to be utilized, if you're choking the engine with a Performer intake and cast iron exhausts. Yes, you should get another intake, and no, you won't lose low speed power or economy with an RPM or a Stealth 8020, the performer is that bad. If you want a better intake, and you think the RPM or 8020 is too much, you might like a Weiand Warrior 8124, a dual plane that is lower and smaller runner volume than an 8020, but taller than the Performer. I wouldn't get a pair of aluminum heads and then expect them to happily seal against an iron exhaust manifold.

Yes, your iron heads can be improved, but be carefull what is done and who does it. 40 years ago, one used to use Chevy valves, but they are too short, and you have to mess with springs and pushrods while you are in there, because they Chevy valves give too short of an assembled height. If you go to a shop and ask for Chevy valves, you could end up with a 1.84/1.50 combo that leaves you needing a lot of new parts. You should specify that you want, if you are using rockers WITHOUT rail tips, 1.94 intakes, 5.010 long, part #01-1002.100-8 and 1.6exhausts, 5.010 long, part #01-1001.100-8 & for exhaust seats you need SBI SB1625-1 seats. You'll want 35-305V stem seals. If you open the bowls and smooth out the cast iron 'boogers', that will be plenty. Be exceptionally carefull on the shortside radius, you only want to smooth the casting flash, not remove material or change the shape. The small chamber C5AE heads are a great head for a 289 ! LSG
LSG is online now  
post #25 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-14-2019, 07:58 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
PB65stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSG View Post
65, the .040 oberbore is fine, no problem there, I wouldn't even consider aluminum heads, especially with a Performer intake and iron exhausts. Almost all of the available aluminum heads have chambers too large for a 289, and the better breathing ability is wasted, or at least unable to be utilized, if you're choking the engine with a Performer intake and cast iron exhausts. Yes, you should get another intake, and no, you won't lose low speed power or economy with an RPM or a Stealth 8020, the performer is that bad. If you want a better intake, and you think the RPM or 8020 is too much, you might like a Weiand Warrior 8124, a dual plane that is lower and smaller runner volume than an 8020, but taller than the Performer. I wouldn't get a pair of aluminum heads and then expect them to happily seal against an iron exhaust manifold.

Yes, your iron heads can be improved, but be carefull what is done and who does it. 40 years ago, one used to use Chevy valves, but they are too short, and you have to mess with springs and pushrods while you are in there, because they Chevy valves give too short of an assembled height. If you go to a shop and ask for Chevy valves, you could end up with a 1.84/1.50 combo that leaves you needing a lot of new parts. You should specify that you want, if you are using rockers WITHOUT rail tips, 1.94 intakes, 5.010 long, part #01-1002.100-8 and 1.6exhausts, 5.010 long, part #01-1001.100-8 & for exhaust seats you need SBI SB1625-1 seats. You'll want 35-305V stem seals. If you open the bowls and smooth out the cast iron 'boogers', that will be plenty. Be exceptionally carefull on the shortside radius, you only want to smooth the casting flash, not remove material or change the shape. The small chamber C5AE heads are a great head for a 289 ! LSG
Appreciate how feedback keeps coming on this thread! I will say, though, this is why it gets frustrating - have multiple people tell me that the Performer is not only fine, but probably the right solution, then one very strong opinion telling me it's garbage and that it should be replaced (which was my original plan). Bottom line, I probably just need to make a decision and stick with it, as it seems none of the options are "fatal". Again, I'm not trying to squeeze every bit of power, just improve where I can easily.

In terms of the heads, I think there was some confusion - I am not upgrading the valves at this time. Given that the heads were rebuilt with new stock-size valves just 10,000 miles ago, I am going to keep everything as is, put the roller rockers back in,
and have the intake and exhaust ports cleaned up. One thing the head guy did recommend is a sort of back cut or bevel on the valves, as he stated it allows air to flow better and it's something he does on all his heads. I don't know anything about this, but given the guy's reputation I figure he must know what he's talking about. I did tell him over and over that this is a street motor that I just want cleaned up, and he seemed to get it. He sent me some pics of 289/302 heads that he's worked on, which I've attached. Thoughts?

Sorry for the pictures being sideways. I fought for 15 minutes trying to get them to post right side up, even changing the orientation of the original photos, and nothing worked. So I guess it's a forum problem.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_0244.jpg (366.5 KB, 3 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_0245.jpg (368.7 KB, 3 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_0246.jpg (364.1 KB, 3 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_0247.jpg (300.8 KB, 3 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_0243.jpg (420.3 KB, 3 views)

1965 C-code Coupe - 289 w/ C4. 9" w/ 3.25 LSD, 4 wheel Street or Track discs, GT350 coils w/ Arning drop, 4.5" mideyes, Cal-Tracs.
PB65stang is offline  
post #26 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-14-2019, 08:14 AM
Senior Member
 
tom991's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Vero Beach, FL but currently live in Germany
Posts: 2,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSG View Post
65, the .040 oberbore is fine, no problem there, I wouldn't even consider aluminum heads, especially with a Performer intake and iron exhausts. Almost all of the available aluminum heads have chambers too large for a 289, and the better breathing ability is wasted, or at least unable to be utilized, if you're choking the engine with a Performer intake and cast iron exhausts. Yes, you should get another intake, and no, you won't lose low speed power or economy with an RPM or a Stealth 8020, the performer is that bad. If you want a better intake, and you think the RPM or 8020 is too much, you might like a Weiand Warrior 8124, a dual plane that is lower and smaller runner volume than an 8020, but taller than the Performer. LSG
LSG, if the original poster was using say a 1" spacer on top of his Performer such as the Trans-Dapt Performance Carburetor Spacer 2584, https://www.summitracing.com/int/par...2584/overview/ would that overcome any limitations of the Performer intake? I added this product to my Performer 289 intake after running my engine with the 4100 carb without the spacer for a couple of weeks and felt improvement. I chose this spacer because it was made out of Phenolic plastic to isolate heat from the carb and it had a PCV port. Prior to adding that spacer the PCV line was running to a vacuum tree that was on the driver's side of the intake which seemed to be the cause of the driver's side bank to run lean. After adding the spacer with the PCV port it seemed to even both sides of the engine.


Based on fitment reviews I'd choose any Edlebrock intake over a Weiand after looking at the quality of the Chinese castings of Weiand intakes in several of the comparison videos.
tom991 is offline  
post #27 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-14-2019, 08:40 AM
Senior Member
 
tom991's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Vero Beach, FL but currently live in Germany
Posts: 2,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB65stang View Post
Appreciate how feedback keeps coming on this thread! I will say, though, this is why it gets frustrating - have multiple people tell me that the Performer is not only fine, but probably the right solution, then one very strong opinion telling me it's garbage and that it should be replaced (which was my original plan). Bottom line, I probably just need to make a decision and stick with it, as it seems none of the options are "fatal". Again, I'm not trying to squeeze every bit of power, just improve where I can easily.

In terms of the heads, I think there was some confusion - I am not upgrading the valves at this time. Given that the heads were rebuilt with new stock-size valves just 10,000 miles ago, I am going to keep everything as is, put the roller rockers back in,
and have the intake and exhaust ports cleaned up. One thing the head guy did recommend is a sort of back cut or bevel on the valves, as he stated it allows air to flow better and it's something he does on all his heads. I don't know anything about this, but given the guy's reputation I figure he must know what he's talking about. I did tell him over and over that this is a street motor that I just want cleaned up, and he seemed to get it. He sent me some pics of 289/302 heads that he's worked on, which I've attached. Thoughts?

.
My opinion is that the Performer isn't garbage. It flows at least as good if not better than the stock iron intake and knocks about 50 lbs off of the weight of the engine and that in itself translates to something beneficial. Are you using a spacer between the carb and the manifold? If not get one even if you are using the OEM spacer here is a better one. Trans-Dapt Performance Carburetor Spacer 2584, https://www.summitracing.com/int/par...2584/overview/ It'll isolate the heat from your engine from the carburetor.

Opening up the ports on your heads will give you a noticeable increase in flow which translates to throttle response and HP. If while you're at it you want to go with the three angle valve work and it's within your budget go for it. You'll be happy with the results of the porting alone.
Huskinhano likes this.
tom991 is offline  
post #28 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-14-2019, 12:53 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tunkhannock PA
Posts: 19,689
I have a Performer 289 I havenít used yet and a cast iron 4V intake. I can tell you the runners are larger on the Performer then the factory head, so I donít understand why people say itís a copy when it isnít. The Performer 289 is designed exactly for what youíre going to be using it. Itís a street motor manifold not a race track manifold. One of the guys here has a son that works in a very well known engine shop that built a 331 for a customer. He posted dyno sheets of the motor. I donít recall how much it made but it was a lot. Since the customer was putting the engine into a Sunbeam Tiger they had to put on a Performer 289 for hood clearance. The owner did not want a scoop. The engine was dyno tuned with the Performer 289 and while it did loose some power it still made impressive power. You have it, use it. As for the person telling you itís junk, let them buy the manifold!

Youíre engine shop is giving you great advice. Back cutting the valves improves air flow. Many times itís not big things but attention to little but important details. Back cutting is very effective. You donít necessarily need big ports but efficient ports. Removing little lumps and bumps along with casting flash do wonders. Opening up as he did does a lot.

Keep the Performer, the cam and have some head work done and youíll have a extremely good running 289!
PB65stang and Grimbrand like this.

Tom

One thing great about getting older. A life in prison sentence is less of a deterrence

Huskinhano is offline  
post #29 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-14-2019, 01:06 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
PB65stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 389
Thank you. I am going to stick with the Performer that I have, do the 1" spacer (which I had already planned on), and do the head work while getting the manifolds and intake port-matched. As you said, hopefully that results in a very smooth 289 with some pep.
tom991 likes this.

1965 C-code Coupe - 289 w/ C4. 9" w/ 3.25 LSD, 4 wheel Street or Track discs, GT350 coils w/ Arning drop, 4.5" mideyes, Cal-Tracs.
PB65stang is offline  
post #30 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-14-2019, 02:58 PM
Senior Member
 
tom991's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Vero Beach, FL but currently live in Germany
Posts: 2,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB65stang View Post
Thank you. I am going to stick with the Performer that I have, do the 1" spacer (which I had already planned on), and do the head work while getting the manifolds and intake port-matched. As you said, hopefully that results in a very smooth 289 with some pep.
When it's all done let us know how much it has improved performance.
Grimbrand likes this.
tom991 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Vintage Mustang Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
289 Harmonic damper/balancer on a 302? jsbenami Vintage Mustang Forum 10 04-16-2019 07:14 PM
Borderline stock but reliable 289 build....hit a wall. xcelr8 Vintage Mustang Forum 16 01-16-2019 08:50 AM
302 internals in 289 block fylfot Vintage Mustang Forum 24 12-11-2018 12:13 PM
Timelapsed 289 Teardown! alex1965 Vintage Mustang Forum 7 07-15-2018 01:16 PM
'66 289 to '70 302 motor swap issues .. kml1966 Vintage Mustang Forum 9 04-12-2018 09:18 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome