Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Saw these on ebay:
Ford early 289 Heads, Tiger,Mustang,Falcon,Galaxy,etc - eBay (item 280563264326 end time Feb-13-11 18:07:37 PST)

Which offer one of the few ways to get a bump in compression ratio in a 260 over the stock 8.8:1 CR.

By my math, going from 54.5cc combustion chambers to 49.2cc takes the CR up to about 9.4 or 9.5:1. A nice bump, but not too aggressive.

The heads in the listing are claimed to be NOS, which I don't care about, but I'm just curious how often these come up...?

I was planning on procrastinating on any engine upgrades for a while, but if this is a once-in-a-long-time opportunity, I might have to ask for an advance on my allowance from The Missus.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
True HiPo heads are pretty rare, especially ones that have been rebuilt. One note on these, on the exterior top lip there will be a casting of 19, 20, or 21. These numbers represent a true HiPo head. Drivers side will be in the front outer corner and passenger side will be in the back outer corner. Only those three numbers are a real HiPo head. $1000 seems a bit pricy. I did however pay $600 for mine to get rebuilt. I would say if they are the real deal, buy them!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
34,853 Posts
Hold on. Weren't all the HIPO 289's made in 64 and Later not earlier?? Merc didn't have a hipo 289 until after 64 and I think it was 65 for the Stangs before they got a K code.


I'm not fully sure, but I think a C3 389 is simply the upgrade from the 260 rather than a HI PO...

Anyone else care to measure in here?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I'm going off of the info at Mustangtek:
Heads

Specifically:
C3OE

Lists the C3OEs as 49.2cc, 1.67/1.45" valves

Higher comp, bigger valves than what should be stock on a 260 (1.59/1.39")

Asked the seller and he said the valves were "roughly 1 3/4 and 1 1/2" and measured them at 53cc...?

Probably worth a little more verification...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
731 Posts
Hold on. Weren't all the HIPO 289's made in 64 and Later not earlier?? Merc didn't have a hipo 289 until after 64 and I think it was 65 for the Stangs before they got a K code.


I'm not fully sure, but I think a C3 389 is simply the upgrade from the 260 rather than a HI PO...

Anyone else care to measure in here?
The HiPo came out in '63 for Fairlanes and Cobras as well as over the counter. I know, I have one verified by Bob Mannel and it was cast in Nov of '63.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,097 Posts
You can't go by just a casting number...the 260's had C30E casting also.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
So...is there any way, short of measuring (which is tricky in itself) to figure out if these are 49.2 or 54.5cc heads?

While we're at it, why are heads always measured in cc for American motors measured in ci? So confusing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
So...is there any way, short of measuring (which is tricky in itself) to figure out if these are 49.2 or 54.5cc heads?

While we're at it, why are heads always measured in cc for American motors measured in ci? So confusing.
Looking at his ad again, he had a typo !! they are C3AE heads and are 54cc chambers with pressed in rocker arm studs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,010 Posts
In that case they are not HP heads.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,309 Posts
... I have one verified by Bob Mannel and it was cast in Nov of '63.
Which would, being after mid-summer of '63 of course, make it correct for the 1964 model year.
So...is there any way, short of measuring (which is tricky in itself) to figure out if these are 49.2 or 54.5cc heads?
The chamber shape (edge outline) is different between the versions. Although slight, it's noticeable once you see the differences, and can be identified that way.
While we're at it, why are heads always measured in cc for American motors measured in ci? So confusing.
Because precision liquid measuring devices are generally lab equipment and that means default CCs. Even when measuring piston features, head ports, carb accelerator pumps, etc., the default for this reason is lab metric.

David
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
What are the block visual differences?
My 66 had dual point non vacuum distributor thick balancer an oil slinger on the front of the crankshaft timming gear the main caps were thicker than standard 289 looked like 68 302 main caps. My mustang had chrome valve covers and air cleaner and streamlined exhaust manifolds I promply threw away for headers.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,014 Posts
SO the blocks are virtually identical to the NON Hi Po blocks. The HI PO is a bolt on upgrade at the factory?
Maybe it's all hogwash, but I always heard that the nodular content of the block was higher in the 289 HiPo then the standard 289s. They also used larger 2 bolt main caps which I pretty sure has been proven.

Other then that the rest of the parts were bolt on.


I've never owned a 289 HiPo, this is just tribal knowledge that I've gathered along the way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,309 Posts
Ha - I totally missed it the first look, but the block below was cast on October 15th, not November if this is the one you're referring to. Remember, Ford does not use I or O because they look too much like 1 and 0. So, November would be an L. Just a bit of semi-useful trivia.

David

... it was cast in Nov of '63.

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
34,853 Posts
Well higher nickel content is all hogwash if you ask me. I personally think that it's where the iron is made not the block it's made into that get's the "higher nickle" content.

It's simply not monetarily feasible to tell the Iron supplier that I want "Regular Iron" for this side of the foundry and a "Stronger Iron" for 'that' side of the foundry where we use different metal's to make higher HP engines.

So I'm just going to believe that for now on, the 289's never had a Hi-Po block, but a simple engine code change and some bolt on upgrades.

Kind of like a GT 390, with the 3 bolt exhaust. It's the heads and intake that make it a GT, not the block in my personal point of view.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,014 Posts
Well higher nickel content is all hogwash if you ask me. I personally think that it's where the iron is made not the block it's made into that get's the "higher nickle" content.

It's simply not monetarily feasible to tell the Iron supplier that I want "Regular Iron" for this side of the foundry and a "Stronger Iron" for 'that' side of the foundry where we use different metal's to make higher HP engines.

So I'm just going to believe that for now on, the 289's never had a Hi-Po block, but a simple engine code change and some bolt on upgrades.

Kind of like a GT 390, with the 3 bolt exhaust. It's the heads and intake that make it a GT, not the block in my personal point of view.

I totally buy that point of view as well, it seems more feasible, but more importantly *cheaper* to do it that way.

the only block changes I know of that were drastically different from more production engines are in the 385 series, mainly the heavy web 4bolt main d1ve-6015-AA blocks, not to be confused with some of the other 6015-AA blocks that lack the 4bolt/h.webs... heh heh ford makes things so confusing sometimes...

Where's that Makin Progress thread FE? ;)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
34,853 Posts
Well I don't know squat about the 385's but the FE's in some pickup applications had extra webbing between the cylinders like the 428 did, I think so... I had me a 390 with it standard bore also.. I suppose that even some early 352's had it when they were the First Ford engine to push 300 HP out the factory door. I'm not positive though.

Not that it matters. I've never seen an FE break the block at the webbing when it wasn't the fault of the crank braking from a thrown rod.... It's the design of the 289 and 302 that has the valley split in twain by pushing the HP over the top, not the FE's....

I know for SURE that I'm going to study closely the next couple 289's I tear apart. and Keep notes ;)
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top