Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum banner

289 Build Question

2K views 9 replies 6 participants last post by  dadurweird 
#1 ·
Hi all, now that school is out for the summer, my attention can be focused back in the garage. As a quick refresher/introduction, I’ve had my ’66 Galaxie for about 8 years, it has a 289 and c4. It gets around, albeit slowly with its age and 3.0 gears. The long-term plan is for a 393 stroker built from a ’69 351 that is in the garage but that will be quite a way out. Until then I’ve got a world class t-5 and a posi-center section with 3.5 gears to rebuild and install, though probably not until this winter. I’m a law student so I’m trying to make all this happen on a budget.

My immediate question revolves around the 289 in it now. I’ve added a 600 cfm Holley and Edelbrock Performer intake. I know that’s not ideal, but it is a step up from the stock 2bbl. I have a set of D0OE heads that I am planning on using for the time being. They are in good shape and I’m in the process of home porting and polishing them to increase their flow. I know when I install them I’ll lose about a point of compression. To combat this I was thinking of using Keith Black 116 standard pistons (Summit part number KB116KTM-STD). They are for a 302 but have a -2.6cc dome to them and I can get a used set of them locally for a good price. Would these pistons work to bring back that lost compression? Are there other issues I should be aware of?

If these are worth using, I’ll dingle ball hone the cylinders and install the slugs along with some shorty headers and an MSD 6 ignition, and 351 Edelbrock Performer intake, all of which (save the pistons) are sitting on my shelf. Next would be a cam, but I don’t have that yet, nor do I have one picked out.

I’m hoping that this combo would wake it up a bit but I lack the engine building experience that many others on here have. What are your thoughts?
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Nothing wrong with a 600 cfm carb. I have one on a 347 that dyno'd at 418 hp. And the throttle response and drivability is incredible.

Consider putting 1.90 and 1.60 valves in those DOOE heads. Shelby used them on his 306hp engines on the early GT350's. Several manufacturers make them for the Winsor engines.
 
#4 ·
Consider putting 1.90 and 1.60 valves in those DOOE heads. Shelby used them on his 306hp engines on the early GT350's. Several manufacturers make them for the Winsor engines.
The heads do have 1.9 and 1.6 valves installed already. They were rebuilt prior to me buying them a few years ago. They have been sitting so I'll need to lap the valves and I figured I'd try my hand at home porting since I've got the time and tools.
 
#3 ·
The 351 manifold won't fit on the 289, it will be too wide. I thought the 69 and 70 351 heads were the same, or very similar, and the good ones to use for an old school 289 upgrade. A cam change may be more important than pistons if there is a compression loss. Is there any point in putting better heads on the engine without running a cam that can take advantage of better flow? A new cam that appropriate would require new springs, so you're into a complete rebuild of the heads, then probably rockers and pushrods, etc, etc. If money is the issue, the best bang for the buck may be to save this money and put it towards the stroker build. With old parts, like the heads, you're really just buying cores for rebuilding, unless they have already been rebuilt.
 
#5 ·
The 351 manifold won't fit on the 289, it will be too wide.
I was wondering if it was the size of the heads or the block geometry that would determine that. I have two Edelbrock Performer intakes, one for the 289 and one for a 351 so either way I have that taken care of.

If money is the issue, the best bang for the buck may be to save this money and put it towards the stroker build. With old parts, like the heads, you're really just buying cores for rebuilding, unless they have already been rebuilt.
Money is a bit of an issue, but I'm more trying to put together a good motor with the parts that I have on hand. I would like to get the 289 built for less than a grand. I could potentially do that and add a cam/lifters/springs/pushrods and stay under that budget. I may not be able to do rocker arms at the same time but I could do those later. Would it be worth grabbing the pistons and combining those with the parts I already have or do you think that they would cause clearance issues with the heads?

Thanks a lot for your time and advice.
 
#6 · (Edited)
Even with flat top piston you should be able to get 9.4 to 1 compression with the DOOE heads. This is fine for a street car. Try to keep your deck heights to about .010 and use a head gasket with about .040 compressed thickness.

Stock Ford rocker arms are fine. I ran a 12 second bracket car with them way back in the day with a Crane hydraulic cam and springs. I would install screw in studs however.
 
#7 ·
falconfred ,

My c/r calculator shows a 4.030 bore 289 with a 58cc head at .010 down and .040 gasket at 9.0 with a -5cc ( average) flat top. 9.4 would be a 302. NO offense intended at all. I ran 12's with stock rockers too in the late '60s. The 306 HP engine in my '66 GT350 had 1.78x1.45 valves stock. The "R model" heads and "drag race heads" had the 1.88 x 1.625 valves. It took those heads to get mine into the 12's with a Le Mans cam and 5.14 gears w/ Casler slicks. Hard to believe that was 50 years ago.
 
#8 ·
69/70 351w heads have 61cc chambers. To get them to 54cc, .035 would have to be milled off the heads to get there. The intake will have to be milled also to compensate. Here is a post I made over on VMF about porting 351w heads. Its about 1/3 of the way down on the page.

J code 302 cast iron heads porting - Page 2 - Vintage Mustang Forums
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top