65-68 as far as I know
289 Years of Production?
Can anyone tell me when the 289's came out and then when they stopped making them? I'm almost certain mine is a 68. I ask this because i am in need of a flywheel and i have seen a few with different amount of teeth. One had 164 and the other 174. How would i go about finding out which one i need? My idea was to take the torque converter in and see what the drivetrain place says. Any idea's? Also, On a scale of 1-10 where would you guys rate the 289, i:e on terms of power,reliability,and upgrades? Also anyone have an idea of what's the most horsepower you can get out of a 289? I dunno the 289's just kinda fascinates me, a pretty small engine but they came out with 271 hp. My friend has a huge ass 69 impala with a 327 in it and it's been rated at a lame 235 hp. He has one hell of a time trying to get it to roast the tires. Mine is an a 63 Fairlane and i think it's a pretty good match as it definitely has enough hp to lay down some nice burnout's and then some, although mine has been bored. Any way enough of my rambling, looking forward to what you guys have to say.
Thanks,
Shawn
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Melkorr on 4/13/06 3:09pm ]</font>
Thanks,
Shawn
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Melkorr on 4/13/06 3:09pm ]</font>
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
1963 was the first year for 289's, '68 the last year. On the flywheel, there were 157 tooth and 164 tooth. Generally the larger one was used on full-size cars and pickups. You can use either one but but must use the matching bellhousing and blockplate to get the right starter location. The starter is closer to the block with the small flywheel. With the starter mounted, on the larger flywheel bellhousing you can easily read the block casting number. With the small flywheel, the numbers are covered by the starter-I don't have exact measurements at hand. All 351W and pre-1980 302 flywheels will also work. I too like the 289. I have one in a '67 Cougar that holds it's own against bigger engines at the strip, having run in the 12.80's. Run a solid lifter cam with enough duration so it can rev and give it some gear! My cam has 238 and 248 duration @ .050 and I have 4.56 gears (and toploader 4 speed) which is a bit much for the street but I have driven from Flagstaff, AZ to the strip near Phoenix at 75 MPH on the Interstate and gotten around 18 MPG. No problems with the power brakes either! The 271 HP cam had a good broad powerband and a modern version with more lift ought to make a good street cam. The Edelbrock RPM Airgap also works great. A well-built 289 with a 4 speed or T5 is a crisp, responsive engine that just sings when you get on it and is a blast to drive!
Forgot to mention: As to the most horsepower out of a 289; with the right heads, etc. you should be able to easily get around 400 and still run an automatic, preferably an AOD with high stall and 4.11 or 4.56 gears. According to the horsepower calculator I found at speedworldmotorplex.com, my engine is making about 390 HP (3600# car weight, 12.82 ET). I run ported stock '65 heads.
The 289 is a great engine, the origional one in my mustang ran flawlessly (I dont count the time the points went out) untill I pulled it for a built 302. Ive heard of them going beyond 200000 miles. You can make pretty good power with them too, although the stroker motors will always make more power.
67Coug,using a horsepower calculator based on ET is usually very inaccurate what was your avg. quarter mile MPH?thats a better way to gauge HP.
FYI the '68 289 is actually a C8 302 block with a 289 reciprocating assembly. I'm with ujt I love the 289. It seems all the manufacturers engines that are close to that CID are somewaht beloved. The 283 Chev,273 Mopar, even the 290 AMC
Stu
Stu
289's where a great engine, but over shaddowed by the larger strokers avaliable now.
A case of the "lil' Engine that could".... old childrens story. I think, I can...I think, I can.
I am always amazed at the amount of power you can squeeze from a 289 or 302, when comparing their output to much bigger engines.
A case of Overacheiving? Or just a reflection of good enough? Good enough ...meaning if I am looking for 350 - 400 HP, I can put a lot of effort into a 289/302 or clean up a BBF, put in a mild cam, breath on the factory heads and call it a day, jobs done....simply a No brainer.
Makes for a great stealth configuration - as long as you don't start'er up.
I am always amazed at the amount of power you can squeeze from a 289 or 302, when comparing their output to much bigger engines.
A case of Overacheiving? Or just a reflection of good enough? Good enough ...meaning if I am looking for 350 - 400 HP, I can put a lot of effort into a 289/302 or clean up a BBF, put in a mild cam, breath on the factory heads and call it a day, jobs done....simply a No brainer.
Makes for a great stealth configuration - as long as you don't start'er up.
>Also, On a scale of 1-10 where would you guys rate the 289
289 get's a 10. There were dragsters running injected 289s back in the day. It's a very good engine. 68 was the transition time, people open up a lof of 68 289s and see "302" cast into the block lifter valley.
If it's any automatic, you'll need either a 157 tooth flex plate with a 10 1/2" bolt circle for the converter or a 164 tooth with a 11 7/16" bolt circle. The C4 bell will dictate the flexplate - if it's a small bell, you have to run the 157T item because the other will not fit.
_________________
![]()
1967 Falcon 4 door w/351C - Owner built, owner abused.
70 Mustang 302 / 06 Ranger, 04 SuperCrew parts hauler
http://raceabilene.com/kelly/hotrod
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ckelly on 4/13/06 9:58pm ]</font>
289 get's a 10. There were dragsters running injected 289s back in the day. It's a very good engine. 68 was the transition time, people open up a lof of 68 289s and see "302" cast into the block lifter valley.
If it's any automatic, you'll need either a 157 tooth flex plate with a 10 1/2" bolt circle for the converter or a 164 tooth with a 11 7/16" bolt circle. The C4 bell will dictate the flexplate - if it's a small bell, you have to run the 157T item because the other will not fit.
_________________
1967 Falcon 4 door w/351C - Owner built, owner abused.
70 Mustang 302 / 06 Ranger, 04 SuperCrew parts hauler
http://raceabilene.com/kelly/hotrod
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ckelly on 4/13/06 9:58pm ]</font>
I had close to 230,000 on my 1967 289 before my recent re-build. I've put just over 2k on it since and it runs like a champ.On 2006-04-13 00:21, ujt389 wrote:
The 289 is a great engine, the origional one in my mustang ran flawlessly (I dont count the time the points went out) untill I pulled it for a built 302. Ive heard of them going beyond 200000 miles. You can make pretty good power with them too, although the stroker motors will always make more power.
Yes my Fairlane is an automatic c4. I'm trying to put the original copy of the trans that should be in there, in there. The one i took out was a van c4, the previous owners had a custom flywheel made so it would fit in my car. I personally love my 289, i comepletely agree with the little engine that could, no other way to describe it lol. Thanks for all the information, really apreciate it.
Err ok wait. So do i need to buy a fexplate or flywheel? The bellhousing on the trans im trying to put in for some reason wont fit. The torque converter wont go on the flywheel. The trans actually came with a flexplate. I'm pretty confused lol. Thanks again for any help.
Flywheel = clutch
Flexplate = converter
What kind of trans - pan fill or case fill C4.
Flexplate = converter
What kind of trans - pan fill or case fill C4.
i didnt know ford made a flex plate that big
What was the trap on this run?On 2006-04-13 00:19, 67Coug wrote:
Forgot to mention: As to the most horsepower out of a 289; with the right heads, etc. you should be able to easily get around 400 and still run an automatic, preferably an AOD with high stall and 4.11 or 4.56 gears. According to the horsepower calculator I found at speedworldmotorplex.com, my engine is making about 390 HP (3600# car weight, 12.82 ET). I run ported stock '65 heads.
BTW have you ran the car without your 2 buddies in the car? 3600#'s is a bit much for a 67 Cat, a '97 Cougar barely tips the scales at around 3500#.
Trap speed was about 106 MPH. I weighed the car at a readi-mix plant scale (definitely not the most accurate but all that was available). Take my tubby body out and it leaves 3350# for the car.
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum
A forum community dedicated to Ford performance owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about popular models such as the Mustang, Galaxie, Falcon, Fairlane, Torino, Shelby and many more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Recommended Communities
