What do I have? (289 teardown) - Vintage Mustang Forums
 49Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-08-2019, 10:18 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
PB65stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 375
What do I have? (289 teardown)

PSA: Please bear with me - this is my first time ever looking at the internals of an engine, so I'm a total newbie when it comes to this stuff. Trying to learn and make a plan of attack here.

I pulled the 289 out of my '65 this weekend as I continue the overall teardown. Seeing as I was 14 when the motor was built, I didn't really get to be very involved in part selection. Couple that with the fact that my dad isn't the best at documentation, and I'm left trying to piece together what exactly is in my motor and what I should do to/with it. The engine was rebuilt in late 2001 and probably has less than 10,000 miles on it since then. My original plan was to fully rebuild again and do a roller conversion (at the recommendation of my engine builder), but as I got to thinking I was wondering if it made sense to try and limit doing a full rebuild and focus on heads, intake, and carb. The motor has always had a little tick, but I know it had an exhaust leak (headers) and I was told it had solid lifters, which made more noise (I've not been able to verify that and I doubt it based on cam info I've found). Here's what I've been able to decipher, based on receipts and what I've disassembled so far:

- C5AE-6015E 289 block - bored 0.040" over
- Turned crank/resized rods (no more information), ARP rod bolts
- Speed-Pro L2482F40 0.040" overbore flat-top forged pistons
- Clevite 229-1734 camshaft (looks like duration @ 0.050" is 204/214 and lift .448"/.472") with new (unknown) lifters
- Clevite 215-4051 push rods
- Clevite 211-1915 and 211-1932 exhaust and intake valves (stock replacements, it looks like)
- Comp Cams 144216 Magnum 1.6 roller rockers
- Edelbrock Performer intake (definitely being replaced)

Tonight I took the valve covers and intake off to look around, and everything seemed to be really clean and basically brand new to my untrained eye, outside of some oil in the area around the lifters and under the intake. Next I plan on flipping the motor over and pulling the pan to check out the crank and rods/bearings/caps, although I admittedly have little to no idea what I'm looking for. I've added a couple pics with the intake removed and I'd be curious if anyone notices anything alarming based on those (for instance, is there supposed to be any oil in the area under the intake? I don't know what's normal).

I've downloaded How to Rebuild Your Small Block Ford and I plan to read/learn, but what I'm wondering is where people would go from here. Do I stick with my original plan to have it all torn down again and rebuilt, or based on the specs and pictures should I just clean it up, verify everything is within spec, and just focus on a new intake and improving the heads? Any advice anyone has on what to look at next in the motor? Is the fact that the crank has been turned a major issue? If there are any particular pictures anyone wants to see, I'd be happy to get them.

I was running Tri-Y headers and an Edelbrock 600 carb, and plan to switch to Hipo manifolds and a 4100 (have access to both a 1.08 and 1.12 - leaning 1.08 for throttle response). This will be mated to a Z-spec T5 and used primarily for backroad/highway cruising - no track time. I would prefer more low end than top end power, as I generally stay below 4,000 RPM. Thanks for taking a look and for any thoughts or input anyone has as I venture into my first real engine rebuild experience.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_0224.jpg (530.9 KB, 28 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_0226.jpg (531.3 KB, 26 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  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-08-2019, 10:39 PM
Senior Member
 
New2me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Michigan
Posts: 358
What's the problem that makes you think it needs to be rebuilt? An exhaust leak could explain your tick, roller rockers can sometimes be a little noisy, and a stuck or collapsed lifter will also make a tick. Personally, I wouldn't do a full rebuild on a 10k mile motor unless something was majorly wrong with it.
New2me is online now  
post #3 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-08-2019, 10:39 PM
Senior Member
 
bbmach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Atl
Posts: 166
Garage
Oh boy!

A few questions.

I may have missed it, why did you take it apart?

Were you happy with how it ran before you took it apart (tick excepted)?
What are your expectations for when it's back together?
Budget? You don't need to tell us, but please have one for guidance. Could get expensive.
Oil pressure before it came apart?
Cylinder Pressure before it came apart?

From what you've posted, all sounds like a normal, mild rebuild. 0.40" is a little much, normal overbore is 0.30", but not detrimental.

If you had good oil pressure, I'd be tempted to leave the bottom end alone.

Yes, the oil in the valley under the intake is perfectly normal. That camshaft is/was a popular small block mild performance camshaft, also sold as a Ford Motorsport cam good for low end torque. With the parts you listed, it should have run quite nicely with good power and drivability (nothing wrong with the Performer intake).

I'd say: read the book, make a plan, set some goals and then ask lots of questions!
Turnall likes this.

1969 Mach-1 Mustang
460 / C6 / 9"
Back in Dixie DSO 22 (Charlotte)
bbmach is offline  
 
post #4 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-08-2019, 10:45 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tunkhannock PA
Posts: 19,432
Personally Iíd use it just like it is. Low miles, sounds like it was built with good parts. It ran before it should run again. I might pull the tappets and put some fresh assembly lube just because any oil there has long drained away. Iíd use a drill to pre lube the motor and turn it every 90* so the crank and rods get lubed well.

That cam will be perfect for your use. You will gain absolutely nothing going to a roller cam at this level. In fact at this range of cam the flat tappet probably has the edge over the roller cam. I wouldnít worry too much about oil. More and more oil on the market for flat tappet then years ago. Plus thatís not a killer profile with big springs.
dm289, PB65stang, 2nd 66 and 3 others like this.

Tom

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

Huskinhano is online now  
post #5 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-08-2019, 10:54 PM
Senior Member
 
FrankieThe69Kid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Marshfield, MA, USA
Posts: 1,742
It's normal to have some oil under the intake. The push rods are hollow to allow oil to go through it like a straw... and at first glance, I'd suspect you have hydraulic lifters. Easy to find out - loosen a rocker, turn it aside, take the push rod out, and remove a lifter. Then post a pic.
Did you try to address the exhaust leak to see if that's where the tick was coming from?
I know E-brock sells cam and intake kits that are designed to work together. Wondering if you already have such a set... and if so, why you'd want to mess with it.
You can flip the engine and remove the crank and rod bearing caps, remove the bearings, and check for scoring on the journals. If they're smooth and shiny, put it back together. If the crank was machined, the shop that did the work would have marked the rear of the crank with what bearing sets will work for whatever they machined it to. If you're in there anyway, might as well replace the bearings.
That's about all I got.
Good luck with the project.

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 #6 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-08-2019, 10:59 PM
Senior Member
 
j persons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Natchitoches, LA. at the edge of the swamp
Posts: 3,699
Why replace the Edelbrock Performer? That's a good manifold with your engine combination.
Huskinhano, 2nd 66 and Grimbrand like this.

John

The Fauxstang. Dynacorn 67 fastback. Dart SHP 363, Close ratio Magnum 6 speed, 3.70 Eaton Truetrac in a fabricated full floater 9", SorT coil over suspension. Still in pieces.
'14 SHO with most all the bells and whistles. Stock for now.
F-150 SCab daily driver
j persons is offline  
post #7 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-08-2019, 11:02 PM
Senior Member
 
Grimbrand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Sedgwick, Kansas
Posts: 367
With your combo, the Performer's also an excellent choice. I don't know that I'd upgrade it either, as it's so well suited to the RPM range you're talking about, and the 289's relatively small displacement.

If you really want more low-end grunt and power under the curve, your best bet would be to go to a 302 or even a stroker crank. You'd wind up with the same peak horsepower as the original 289, but the increased leverage of the longer crank would allow you to produce far more torque over a broader range.

Expense would be the downside, as you'd have to get new rods and pistons as well. It all depends on how bad you want more power, and exactly what kind of behavior you expect from your engine!
Huskinhano, PB65stang and 2nd 66 like this.
Grimbrand is online now  
post #8 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-09-2019, 07:09 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
PB65stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 375
Thanks everyone for the replies. Answers to questions/thoughts:

- I had planned on having the motor rebuilt (maybe too strong of a word - I figured it didn't need everything) because the "why not now" mentality took over. The car is stripped, and I have a perfect opportunity to do it and didn't want to regret it. It ran OK, but to be honest had never been professionally tuned and was probably not running nearly as efficiently as it could. That's what I'm trying to correct.

- Budget is a scary word. Let's just say I'm fully committed to the project and prepared to spend what it would have taken to get the motor to be a fun, spirited, reliable cruiser. My Mustang spreadsheet has a $3,000 number in that line, for what that's worth (excluding carb/Hipo manifolds).

- I didn't check cylinder compression before I pulled the motor. As far as oil pressure, it's always idled around 20 psi and goes up to 40-50 when cruising. It's always leaked oil, but that can easily be addressed with all new seals while it's apart. I do see some carbon buildup on the heads that I'm not sure indicates that it's using oil or not. Again, I'm just starting out on my engine knowledge journey.

- I had decided to replace the Performer based on everything I've read saying that it was no improvement over stock and that you don't lose any low end performance with an RPM or Weiand Stealth intake over a Performer, but gain more power. Is that not the case? I will say one way of thinking is that if saving money on engine work, why not spend a couple hundred bucks (or less if found used) on a new intake and gain some performance? Open to more discussion here.

- I know that this is not a full Edelbrock top end kit or cam/intake kit. The engine was rebuilt by NAPA, hence the Clevite cam. To my knowledge the builder just selected a cam with a profile that improved slightly over stock while retaining drivability.

In terms of goals/plan for the engine, number 1 is definitely smooth performance and reliability. If I'm being honest with myself, my days of caring about squeezing every absolute bit of power out of the car are behind me, and my primary objective is to be able to get in the car, fire it up easily, and enjoy driving it. That being said, I'd like it to respond and have some performance when I want to get on it a little bit. In my mind, 300ish HP at the crank would be a great number. With my upgrade from a 2.80 open 8" and C4 to 3.25 limited slip 9" and T5z, I'm pretty sure the motor will feel way more spirited than I'm used to anyway. I really want to spend my time driving and enjoying the car.

So, assuming everything looks good on the bottom end (still going to check bearings, etc.), it seems my second thoughts were the right ones and I'm best served to mostly leave it alone. Even so, it seems prudent to spend some time/money on the heads to get those breathing the best they can (especially if saving money elsewhere). I think the question becomes if the value is in porting/upgrading the valves in the stock heads or going for a low-cost aluminum head like an Edelbrock E-street or RPM. Anyone have experience with reproduction Hipo manifolds on aluminum heads? Headers are not an option - they gave me nothing but trouble and don't want to deal with the issues.

Thanks again for the insights.

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 #9 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-09-2019, 11:53 AM
Senior Member
 
Grimbrand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Sedgwick, Kansas
Posts: 367
The big thing to remember is that all the parts of your engine work together as a team. Right now, your Performer intake is very well-matched to the heads, cam, and RPM range you're trying to use. The size and length of your intake runners compliments what you've got.

It is probable that without any other changes, if you put on an Air Gap or even a Stealth, you would drop some low-end performance and economy, making the car less fun to drive, even if it picked up a bit of power on top. Granted, there's room for power improvement on top, but our little street driven Windsors can use all the torque you can get. If you wanted to do that in prep for some better heads or a cam, that would make more sense. Because you're running a manual transmission, I think you'd notice any drop in off-the-line less than if you had a C4 in there with the 2.80s, so maybe there is no downside at all for you. I do think that any improvement will probably be smallish, without changing other parts.

I'd also like to mention that despite being much stronger than an 8" rear end, which is nice if you intend to put slicks or drag radials on, your 9" steals about 4% more power. Given your gearing improvement, that probably won't be too noticeable except when it comes to filling your tank. It's also heavier, which will affect your ride quality. That may not be as noticeable.

Hi-Po manifolds rock for mild builds like yours. They do even better if you take the time to clean up the insides a little, to help flow.

And if you really want to get the best bang for your buck? Heads are where it's at. Any money you spend on heads pays huge dividends in terms of power. If there's someone who actually knows what they're doing near where you live, getting stockers ported might be a good choice. If you're able to get a set of good GT40P heads and get new springs put in for cheap, that would be even better. (They love the Hi-Po manifolds!) Otherwise, you're probably better off going with basically any aluminum heads.
PB65stang, 2nd 66 and BlakeTX like this.

Last edited by Grimbrand; 05-09-2019 at 11:58 AM.
Grimbrand is online now  
post #10 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-09-2019, 12:19 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
PB65stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 375
Thanks - and yes, very aware from all my reading about the need for everything to work in harmony, hence why I'm not at all opposed to changing plans and sticking with the Performer if it's the right decision. I do care most about low-end torque. I found a local head guru (apparently) that I'm getting in contact with about porting the stock heads. Quite frankly, while I think I could do it, I'd rather spend a little money and know it's done right especially given the overall savings on the motor.

I wanted to stick with iron heads given that would allow me to run the manifolds without gaskets and apparently get the best seal (again - that exhaust leak drove me crazy). A lot of what I had read was that the GT40P would cause clearance issues with the manifolds given the weird spark plug angle, but maybe that's not the case? There's a set local to me, but they want $400 for disassembled heads. At that price, I'd rather port my stockers and keep the nostalgia plus not have to replace things like valves and springs.

Seems the best plan of attack for now is confirm everything looks good on the bottom end, button it back up, get the heads worked, and stick the Performer back on with a 4100. Also plan to get the distributor recurved.
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.

Last edited by PB65stang; 05-09-2019 at 12:21 PM.
PB65stang is offline  
post #11 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-09-2019, 12:59 PM
Senior Member
 
Grimbrand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Sedgwick, Kansas
Posts: 367
$400 is just too much for bare GT40P heads, especially if they're not already set up to take better springs. I'd pass on that. The spark plug angle is a 'thing' but if you use a die grinder to clearance a few spots, it does not take much work at all to fit them. @Huskinhano has an awesome thread about putting a late-model GT40P motor in, doing this very thing.

They're the best cast iron heads that Ford ever made, but virtually any aluminum head is going to make more power.

Don't be afraid of gaskets on the exhaust manifold. Making sure both mating surfaces are clean and flat, and then torquing the exhaust bolts to proper spec will generally prevent any sort of trouble. I've never had a problem with a cast iron manifold leaking, ever - at least not ones that I put on. I suspect it's just that because the bolts are a slight pain to get to while the engine's in the car, people half-*** them a lot of the time. (pardon my French)

I think your idea about porting the stock heads is very sound from a lot of perspectives. Being your first effort at it, unless you just happened to have a spare pair of them lying around, you might not want to chance doing it yourself! Make sure that if you go this route, you explain to the guy doing the work exactly how you want to drive the car. Be very clear. Most of the people that do head porting are more into drag racing and they get pretty carried away sometimes. Hogging out the ports and bowls without knowing what you're doing will often hurt street performance even if it gives you more horsepower.

Your early heads are actually a fantastic choice to port, for someone that knows what they're doing!

Keep us posted. =)
Huskinhano, PB65stang and 2nd 66 like this.
Grimbrand is online now  
post #12 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-09-2019, 01:45 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tunkhannock PA
Posts: 19,432
The stock exhaust manifolds will work fine with the GT40P head with just a little minor grinding. Mostly at #8 by the flange and the other 3 removing some casting flash. Originally when I put my GT40P I was planning on 1 day. I did as much prep in advance as I could. This meant using the stock manifolds since I didnít have time to piece the exhaust system together to fit headers and make up a plug set. So I had also opened each port on the manifolds along with opening the exhaust exit as they reduced in size. The unexpected problem was the flange of the exhaust manifold was right where the Z bar adapter bracket for roller motors was. No way was the exhaust manifold going to work with the Z bar adapter bracket. So that but me behind weeks in getting the car running.

Personally Iím not completely sold on K manifolds. Both manifold styles only have a opening for a 2Ē pipe. I have it book marked on my PC on a Well known Mustang magazine tested a 67 Mustang with a 289 and 2Ē factory dual exhaust. They chassis dyno the A/C code manifold, the K code manifold and a set of try y headers on the same car, same day on the same chassis dyno with the same exhaust and mufflers. The A/C code exhaust manifolds made exactly the same power as the Kcode. They were both within 1 hp and 1 ftlb of torque. The try y made about 20 more hp IIRC. The fact that the try yís made more power should indicate the exhaust system wasnít holding the K manifolds back. Iím disappointed that the magazine didnít explore why the Kís didnít make more power.

I agree with @Grimbrand that with some minor work on your existing heads would do wonders. While I like the P heads in the end theyíre like any other cast iron factory head. By the time you do the basic cleaning and rebuilding with new valves and valve guides you have a fair amount towards a set of aluminum heads. The big trick with P heads to pay off is finding a used set you can just bolt on as is. $400 is crazy for a set you have to put together. My whole GT40P motor cost me $275 after I sold off what I didnít want, I paid $450 for the motor, trans and all the EFI parts.

Hereís my C code manifold. No issues on the passenger side.



2nd 66 likes this.

Tom

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

Huskinhano is online now  
post #13 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-09-2019, 02:04 PM
Senior Member
 
Grimbrand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Sedgwick, Kansas
Posts: 367
As-cast, the old K (and C!) manifolds often have a lot of flash and bumps in the way. With a little work on the die grinder, they can be made a lot better.

Huskinhano's right about the K not being a 'big' difference over the logs. Neither of these designs give you equal-length runners, and as such, they're not going to improve scavenging in any way. Think of them as a quieter, tougher set of shorty headers. They fit easy, and they don't make much fuss.

If they're clean inside, the K does flow a little more than the C, as it tries to make SOME effort of evening out the primary lengths.

If you want to actually have your exhaust help you make power, you need to step up to some Tri-Y headers (which scavenge at two RPM ranges; one 'boost' happens at midrange, and another over 5k) or some full length ones (which only give one 'boost' but it's a very strong one on the top end instead of two mild ones).
Huskinhano, Huntingky and 2nd 66 like this.
Grimbrand is online now  
post #14 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-09-2019, 05:50 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
PB65stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 375
Thanks for the comments on the GT40P heads - that helps. I agree the $400 is nuts...I'm not even considering those. I talked with a local guy today that seems to have quite a bit of experience porting vintage Ford heads, so that's the leading option right now.

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.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_0228.jpg (546.5 KB, 8 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_0229.jpg (314.6 KB, 8 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_0230.jpg (518.1 KB, 8 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 #15 of 36 (permalink) Old 05-09-2019, 06:07 PM
Senior Member
 
tom991's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Vero Beach, FL but currently live in Germany
Posts: 2,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB65stang View Post
Thanks - and yes, very aware from all my reading about the need for everything to work in harmony, hence why I'm not at all opposed to changing plans and sticking with the Performer if it's the right decision. I do care most about low-end torque. I found a local head guru (apparently) that I'm getting in contact with about porting the stock heads. Quite frankly, while I think I could do it, I'd rather spend a little money and know it's done right especially given the overall savings on the motor.

I wanted to stick with iron heads given that would allow me to run the manifolds without gaskets and apparently get the best seal (again - that exhaust leak drove me crazy). A lot of what I had read was that the GT40P would cause clearance issues with the manifolds given the weird spark plug angle, but maybe that's not the case? There's a set local to me, but they want $400 for disassembled heads. At that price, I'd rather port my stockers and keep the nostalgia plus not have to replace things like valves and springs.

Seems the best plan of attack for now is confirm everything looks good on the bottom end, button it back up, get the heads worked, and stick the Performer back on with a 4100. Also plan to get the distributor recurved.
While you're at it you may also consider threaded rocker arm studs and larger intake valves. When I did my heads I put in 1.94" intake valves, threaded rocker studs and had the exhaust ports opened up. I am also running a performer intake. With the head work I noticed an immediate difference in throttle response. I'm also running this Crane cam https://www.summitracing.com/int/par...view/make/ford I am not running roller rockers so you have a plus up on me but with my configuration I'm happy with the performance. I have a T5 as well and believe I'm running a 3.00:1 8" rear.
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