1966 289 build - Page 2 - Ford Muscle Forums : Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #16 of 33 (permalink) Old 11-12-2016, 09:26 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Cherry Hill NJ
Posts: 388
Re: 1966 289 build

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP66 View Post
Just picked up the engine and rpm intake getting carb this coming up week then starting head work and finalizing cam selection, in the meantime I was thinking about the fuel, is a stock style pump/lines/tank etc going to need any revision?
I've got a 420 hp 347 running with just an Edelbrock mechanical pump. No problems.

1966 Falcon, 347 stroker and C-4
falconfred is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #17 of 33 (permalink) Old 11-14-2016, 10:35 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Central West Virginia
Posts: 7,081
Re: 1966 289 build

The stock heads will cost almost as much to fully rebuild and set up for a new cam with valves, springs, retainers, etc as buying an aftermarket set of heads.... and not flow anywhere close to what something new would. Money (and power) ahead to buy aftermarket.

As for the cam... the old hipo cam is 50 year old technology. MUCH better stuff out there nowadays. For something daily driven, you need to ask yourself what kind of rpm range you're looking for.

If going with a solid cam that will be spun around 6000-6500 rpm, and still have good street manners while sounding good, the Comp 270S is a good match, especially when combined with a set of decent aftermarket heads. It measures 224/224 @ 0.050". With hydraulic, stick around 218 degrees, solid... low 220's.

As for going roller, a good solid roller setup will cost more than the aftermarket heads, once you're finished. A hydraulic roller is do-able, but unless you buy some good parts, will be all done by 6000 rpm, and will need a steel distributor gear installed to the distributor.

A good budget cam, is a solid flat tappet similar to the one mentioned from Comp. Just make sure the springs match, and are installed to the correct height... or if going with aftermarket heads, be sure they have flat tappet springs installed.

Good Luck


66 Mustang, Toploader 4-speed
Pump Gas 306, 9.88@135.67
http://www.mustangworks.com/cgi-bin/moi-display.cgi?220
n2omike is offline  
post #18 of 33 (permalink) Old 11-14-2016, 03:04 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Cherry Hill NJ
Posts: 388
Re: 1966 289 build

Seems like we might have some mission creep going on here, which is not all that unusual.

It seems you started off with a plan to make 300 to 350 hp with a used 289 short block, some mild head work and a few bolt on parts.

Is that still what you want to do?

1966 Falcon, 347 stroker and C-4
falconfred is offline  
 
post #19 of 33 (permalink) Old 11-15-2016, 06:32 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: North Iowa
Posts: 544
Re: 1966 289 build

Quote:
Originally Posted by falconfred View Post
Seems like we might have some mission creep going on here, which is not all that unusual.

It seems you started off with a plan to make 300 to 350 hp with a used 289 short block, some mild head work and a few bolt on parts.

Is that still what you want to do?
I seems it always happens when someone talks of using oem iron heads, the problem is the costs for valves, springs and machine work. You can spend two thirds the cost or more on a set of fifty year old heads that make 75 to 120 hp less than new a aluminum pair. This is especially true for the small Ford.

If you use stock heads you will need more cam and more rear gear to make the little 289 go.

Iowan



"One old fart with a few wild ponies"
Iowan is offline  
post #20 of 33 (permalink) Old 11-15-2016, 07:53 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Central West Virginia
Posts: 7,081
Re: 1966 289 build

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowan View Post
I seems it always happens when someone talks of using oem iron heads, the problem is the costs for valves, springs and machine work. You can spend two thirds the cost or more on a set of fifty year old heads that make 75 to 120 hp less than new a aluminum pair. This is especially true for the small Ford.

If you use stock heads you will need more cam and more rear gear to make the little 289 go.
Back in the day, right before all the aftermarket heads came out, I did a MAX port job on a set of 289 heads... and they flowed 218 cfm on the intake, and 175 cfm on the exhaust. This was GOOD for a set of 289 heads, and I had HOURS and HOURS and HOURS just in the grinding. Stock, the intake port is only 126cc, has a terrible design, and doesn't flow worth crap. The exhaust is even worse. My finished 'huge' intake ports measured 155cc.

Machine work and parts required:
New Valves
New springs
New retainers
New keepers
New valve seals
New guide plates
New screw-in rocker studs
New Valve guides
Possibly new exhaust seats

Clean and magneflux
Machine for new, larger valves (bowls will be way undersized for the larger valves, and will need ported to take advantage of the new valves)
Competition valve job
Surface
Machine for double springs
Machine for pc valve seals
Machine for guide plates
Machine for screw in studs
Install and hone new valve guides
Assemble heads, and set valve spring height using shims

The above is just what I can remember off the top of my head... will cost nearly as much, if not more than a set of aftermarket heads, and will make FAR less power. Plus, you're at the mercy of local machine shops that vary WILDLY in quality of work.

Stepping up to a NAME BRAND aftermarket head with the correct valve springs already installed is a 'no brainer' move. Just avoid the off brand Chinese stuff, as a lot of that stuff is complete CRAP.

Good Luck!


66 Mustang, Toploader 4-speed
Pump Gas 306, 9.88@135.67
http://www.mustangworks.com/cgi-bin/moi-display.cgi?220
n2omike is offline  
post #21 of 33 (permalink) Old 11-15-2016, 10:49 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: North Iowa
Posts: 544
Re: 1966 289 build

Quote:
Originally Posted by n2omike View Post
Back in the day, right before all the aftermarket heads came out, I did a MAX port job on a set of 289 heads... and they flowed 218 cfm on the intake, and 175 cfm on the exhaust. This was GOOD for a set of 289 heads, and I had HOURS and HOURS and HOURS just in the grinding. Stock, the intake port is only 126cc, has a terrible design, and doesn't flow worth crap. The exhaust is even worse. My finished 'huge' intake ports measured 155cc.

Machine work and parts required:
New Valves
New springs
New retainers
New keepers
New valve seals
New guide plates
New screw-in rocker studs
New Valve guides
Possibly new exhaust seats

Clean and magneflux
Machine for new, larger valves (bowls will be way undersized for the larger valves, and will need ported to take advantage of the new valves)
Competition valve job
Surface
Machine for double springs
Machine for pc valve seals
Machine for guide plates
Machine for screw in studs
Install and hone new valve guides
Assemble heads, and set valve spring height using shims

The above is just what I can remember off the top of my head... will cost nearly as much, if not more than a set of aftermarket heads, and will make FAR less power. Plus, you're at the mercy of local machine shops that vary WILDLY in quality of work.

Stepping up to a NAME BRAND aftermarket head with the correct valve springs already installed is a 'no brainer' move. Just avoid the off brand Chinese stuff, as a lot of that stuff is complete CRAP.

Good Luck!
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/edl-2027/overview/

This is 300 ish hp on a 289 but more importantly will bring up the torque.

Iowan



"One old fart with a few wild ponies"
Iowan is offline  
post #22 of 33 (permalink) Old 11-15-2016, 12:41 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Cherry Hill NJ
Posts: 388
Re: 1966 289 build

The Edelbrock kit uses very strong valve springs for a flat tappet cam - something like 110 lbs on the seat and 400 lbs open. This means you will have to be VERY careful with the break in procedure.

I just don't like flat tappet cams anymore with higher than stock spring pressure.

1966 Falcon, 347 stroker and C-4
falconfred is offline  
post #23 of 33 (permalink) Old 11-15-2016, 01:23 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: North Iowa
Posts: 544
Re: 1966 289 build

Quote:
Originally Posted by falconfred View Post
The Edelbrock kit uses very strong valve springs for a flat tappet cam - something like 110 lbs on the seat and 400 lbs open. This means you will have to be VERY careful with the break in procedure.

I just don't like flat tappet cams anymore with higher than stock spring pressure.
Good oil all the time is a must!!
I've got flat tappets with one hell of lot more spring than that, with no problems.

Iowan



"One old fart with a few wild ponies"
Iowan is offline  
post #24 of 33 (permalink) Old 11-15-2016, 06:16 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Central West Virginia
Posts: 7,081
Re: 1966 289 build

Use diesel oil with flat tappet cams. It has plenty of ZDDP, which is lacking in a lot of newer automotive oils... It's been reduced, as it can damage catalytic converters if the engine turns into a significant oil burner.

There are other oils that are good, but diesel oil is generally a pretty safe bet.


66 Mustang, Toploader 4-speed
Pump Gas 306, 9.88@135.67
http://www.mustangworks.com/cgi-bin/moi-display.cgi?220
n2omike is offline  
post #25 of 33 (permalink) Old 11-15-2016, 06:55 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: North Iowa
Posts: 544
Re: 1966 289 build

Quote:
Originally Posted by n2omike View Post
Use diesel oil with flat tappet cams. It has plenty of ZDDP, which is lacking in a lot of newer automotive oils... It's been reduced, as it can damage catalytic converters if the engine turns into a significant oil burner.

There are other oils that are good, but diesel oil is generally a pretty safe bet.
You need to verify before using because this has been changing over the last five years or so, I know Rotella doesn't.

Iowan



"One old fart with a few wild ponies"
Iowan is offline  
post #26 of 33 (permalink) Old 11-16-2016, 10:35 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Central West Virginia
Posts: 7,081
Re: 1966 289 build

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowan View Post
You need to verify before using because this has been changing over the last five years or so, I know Rotella doesn't.
Where did you see data on that? As long as you stick with CJ-4 or CK-4 Diesel oil, it should be just fine. The new FA-4 is not always backward compatible.

Another easy to find option is Mobil 1 15w50. It's the ONLY grade of Mobil 1 passenger car oil that has enough ZDDP at 1300 ppm.

There are other niche oils designed for flat tappet cams available from Brad Penn, Joe Gibbs, Lucas and Comp Cams.


66 Mustang, Toploader 4-speed
Pump Gas 306, 9.88@135.67
http://www.mustangworks.com/cgi-bin/moi-display.cgi?220
n2omike is offline  
post #27 of 33 (permalink) Old 11-16-2016, 12:39 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: North Iowa
Posts: 544
Re: 1966 289 build

Not looking to start a fight, I use Goe Jibbs or Amsoil , I prefer Amsoil.

Iowan



"One old fart with a few wild ponies"
Iowan is offline  
post #28 of 33 (permalink) Old 11-16-2016, 12:57 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: North Iowa
Posts: 544
Re: 1966 289 build

Quote:
Originally Posted by n2omike View Post
Use diesel oil with flat tappet cams. It has plenty of ZDDP, which is lacking in a lot of newer automotive oils... It's been reduced, as it can damage catalytic converters if the engine turns into a significant oil burner.
Where did you see data on that?

Iowan



"One old fart with a few wild ponies"
Iowan is offline  
post #29 of 33 (permalink) Old 11-16-2016, 03:39 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Cherry Hill NJ
Posts: 388
Re: 1966 289 build

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowan View Post
Where did you see data on that?
I've tried to do some reading on this and the results are confusing.

Here are some things that I have picked up, in no particular order.

1. ZDDP levels have been dropping in recent years due the fact that the phosphorus in ZDDP affects catalytic converter life.

2. ZDDP by itself does little good since it must be "activated" by molybdenum. You therefore must consider the levels of both to get a handle on how effective the oil will be in preventing camshaft and lifter failure.

3. Oils meeting API SM are limited to 800 ppm of ZDDP but only in certain viscosities. Rotella oils currently meet API SM.

4. Detergent packages in oil work against the protective qualities ZDDP as the tend to wash it off cam and lifter surfaces. Diesel oils have been using more aggressive detergent packages lately to allow for longer change intervals.

5. Aside from the changes in oil formulations U.S.A. companies that made lifters have exited the business due to reduced OEM demand. Many of the parts available today are made offshore and may not be of the same quality as parts available previously.

6. There is a lot of conflicting information out there, however it is generally conceded that cam and lifter failures with flat tappet cams are increasing, some say at an epidemic rate. Cam manufacturers typically blame failures on either the type of lubricant used or improper break in procedures. This is an easy out for the manufactures as it can't be either proven or disproven. Your chances of getting them to stand behind their warranties are almost zero.

I have built dozens of race engines over many years with flat tappet cams and high spring pressures with zero problems - until recently. I used a quality assembly lube and break in oil from a well known manufacturer and followed the break in procedure to a T. And the cam and lifters failed almost instantly.

With all of the conflicting and uncertain information out there, this is why I made the statement that I did. I do not like flat tappet cams with more than stock spring pressures. Spend some money and get a roller cam and all of the problems go away.

1966 Falcon, 347 stroker and C-4
falconfred is offline  
post #30 of 33 (permalink) Old 11-18-2016, 01:47 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Virginia
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by falconfred View Post
Seems like we might have some mission creep going on here, which is not all that unusual.

It seems you started off with a plan to make 300 to 350 hp with a used 289 short block, some mild head work and a few bolt on parts.

Is that still what you want to do?
That's still the goal in sight, I believe what has caused the "mission creep" is that I want a hydraulic roller and I want my stock heads ( yes I know the downfalls, but can't afford to throw down 1,000+ at one time on something I can build up to be where I want to be without overkill. ) and that being new to this I'm taking precaution in ordering my parts, but I want the heads and valve train to be able to handle the increase in power and flow and still have reliability, the cars going to be a daily driver, 300-350hp, some aftermarket suspension for handling, that's it. I just don't want to have to pull the motor back apart because something wasn't done right the first time.
JP66 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Muscle Forums : Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum 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









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1966 GTA Convertible Build Locations? tomato Fairlane Pages 1 06-03-2015 06:08 AM
How to build up a 1966 289ci grades Mustang Pages (1965-1973) 13 09-02-2010 04:41 AM
1966 fairlane gt build sheet 66fairlane4spd Fairlane Pages 3 08-06-2010 06:22 AM
First Build:1966 Mustang cliffavickery Mustang Pages (1965-1973) 9 05-18-2010 05:56 PM
1966 MUSTANG - STOCK BUILD-UP MNSJR All Ford Techboard 1 01-09-2004 05:01 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 Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

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