Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum banner

1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
691 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So, I have the car I want to build now, so here is what I came up with so far, starting from the back and working forward.

the car:

1968 falcon, 2680 curb weight per the 'net research.

1969 cougar 9 inch rear end, locked with 5.13 gears

"slapper" bars for the rear springs. with some radial t/a's for now.

Built/rebuilt AOD with shift kit and slight stall (buying another converter is no problem)

Engine parts I have:

forged flattop pistons and 289 rod combo +.030 (I will have ARP bolts installed)
1965 289 crank with oil slinger cut down
1997 explorer roller block and GT40P heads
600 CFM Edelbrock electric choke carb


Goal:

Make good power up high, I like the 289 and how it revs and want to have some fun with a radical little street machine version.

I want to run pump gas.

Peak power somewhere around 7500 and redline somewhere around 8500.

I have questions on the following parts:
what intake should I go with? (vic jr?)
what cam profile? what roller lifters for the roller block? rest of the valvetrain?
oil system? deep sump/windage tray/baffle/crank scraper? what type of oil pump? I hear differing opinions on HV HP and HP/HV oil pumps vs. stock pumps.
any thing I am forgetting feel free to add.

I would like to use what I have, so if my goal is unrealistic feel free to comment and suggest a better combo/idea on how to assemble things.

I am not set on an exact HP goal, just the best performance I can eke out of what I have. I chose the 289 as it does not have so many cubes to feed, so the heads, headers, and other parts I can find on a budget are not such a choke point.

Plus, who has a hot rodded 289 68 falcon anymore :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
691 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I thought the HO blocks were cast heavier than the standard 5.0's. Either way the roller cam setup is drawing me towards that block more than anything.


Also I want to hear what was the thought on running the pistons backwards, I heard some chat about that and don't remember if it was called BS or not.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,466 Posts
My first thoughts are... Use a 4R70. If you want power that high you need better heads and a bigger carb. After market rods would be a good investment. You will need very high quality valve train parts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,662 Posts
You would need some very very good parts to run that sort of rpm and and stay together.Also to make power at that rpm I don't think the stock heads are gonna cut it either...Also plan on solid lifters...I think a more realistic goal would be 6500 rpms...
I also don't think the curb wieght of a full street trim V8 model 68 falcon is that light...I would guess it would be closer to 3000 lbs depending on exact trim and drivetrain.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
691 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I know the 289 rods with hold serious R's with better bolts. and I am basing my ideas of valve train off of racers in this type of class: High-Revving Mustang Roller Engines - SpinTron Graphs - 5.0 Mustang & Supe

The reason I chose the RPM band I did is that my bone stock 73 302 (4bbl edelbrock on stock intake) will hit 6000 rpm in a heartbeat, so I figured another 1500-2500 rpm was not asking too much from a performance build.

better heads can come later, but gt40p's flow very well for what they are. iron headed engines make power too! lol.

The parts I have listed are what I have, so the aod will have to do for now. Any reason for going that way?

As far as the curb weight I would assume it was for the 6 cyl falcon, as all of my mods will add heavier parts than anything stock to a falcon.

Not trying to argue with you all, just trying to make some good back and forth here :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
691 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
You might also want to research finding a header that will work with those heads and fit in the falcon chassis...5.13s and radial TAs? :eek:
From my research any long tube headers will work (I have a friend who runs this combo and has no issues)

tire smoke :D Slicks will come later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
I thought the HO blocks were cast heavier than the standard 5.0's. Either way the roller cam setup is drawing me towards that block more than anything.


Also I want to hear what was the thought on running the pistons backwards, I heard some chat about that and don't remember if it was called BS or not.
Hyd roller lifters for high RPM withthe spring pressures needed retro fit steel lifters such as Crane has would be a better choice. Dont know my red line yet but easyl hiit 7200 without slowing down with stock roller lifters. Afraid there going to crack running up that high or more often. Think my shift point might be 7800 or so. Block also seems to twist and running up around 6500 eventually loose intake gasket seal along the valley. Each run to that point engine slowly starts burning more and more oil. Eventually change out the gasket stops oil burning. Untill hit the high RPM too often then the cycle starts over again.

Not realy a fan of P heads either. Think there a bit spark limited. Plug angle is aimed a bit to much towards the exhaust valve. Would rather have GT40s. You would need to port either version.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
Your combination is similar to mine. I too enjoy a free revving 289! What I run: '67 Cougar, 4 speed, 4:56 gears, about 3600# with me in it. Still the original 289 block and crankshaft, bored .040 with forged flat top pistons. Original stock rods with ARP bolts; just installed new bolts, no resizing, polishing, nor magnafluxing. Crank is still standard size, just polished. Stock oil pump. 5W-50 Valvoline synthetic oil. Solid flat tappet cam about .530" lift, 228 and 238 duration at .050" lift. GT40p heads w/stock size valves, dual valve springs, minor bowl porting on the intakes, and exhaust ports are opened up a bit ("Thermactor" bump removed and roof raised). Heads are modified for 7/16" screw-in studs and adjustable roller rockers, 1.6 ratio. Hardened pushrods and guideplates. 1 5/8" long tube Hooker headers with 3" by 16" straight thru header mufflers. Performer Air-Gap intake. AFB 625 cfm carb. Electric water pump drive, electric fan and big alternator pulley (not street driven at the present). Slapper bars and 90/10 rear shocks. Front sway bar removed. Drag radial tires (currently 275/50R 15 Nittos). Street tires are hopeless!
It has run a best of 12.74 at 107 MPH at Speedworld dragstrip in Phoenix, AZ. I usually run around 12.90 with 1.80-90 60 ft. times if the track is prepped decently. I have made hundreds of passes in the last 12 or so years. About 3 years ago I missed a shift, floated the vales one too many times (tired valve springs on '65 ported heads) and broke the head off an intake. This split the cylinder wall so I sleeved it and put in one new piston and used rod. The crank was still standard without any wear so running the stock oil pump is just fine! Added the GT40p heads at this time.
I do the burnout in 2nd gear at about 7,00 RPM, launch at 5,000-6,000 RPM and shift at aboiut 7200. Rev limiter is set at 7750. I have won a number of trophies bracket racing so this little engine holds its own!
Concentrate on the valvetrain: good springs, stiff pushrods, roller rockers, screw-in studs. Avoiding valve float is key to making that 289 sing at high RPM. Good ignition, too. I use a stock 302 electronic didstributor with the advance modified to give full advance by 3,000 RPM with an Accel 3000+ box with built-in rev limiter and Accel coil and matching wires. Total timing is about 31 degrees (GT40p heads don't need as much advance as the old 289 heads (or even the E7TE heads). I think a solid lifter flat tappet cam will do as well as an hydraulic roller at less cost. Just be sure to use the special break-in additive from the cam company. My cam was installed 12+ years ago and broken in with whatever oil was available then and to this day I don't use any additive.
You will need special headers with the GT40p heads to clear the spark plugs or do a lot of modilfying! Accel makes a short header plug that fits the GT40p heads which helps, but they cost about $15 each!
Hope this helps! Allan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,327 Posts
Random input:

  • You need solid lifters, strong springs, roller rockers, and a strong stable valve train to hit those rpms (like 67Coug) - hydro lifters will not cut it.
  • The block is fine (they all have the same basic strength), but the caps are the weak link for any 302/5.0 block, where they distort and crack the block through the main cap bolts. Ford rates them 400hp at 6000 rpm, but you can rev higher if you reduce the power like 67Coug. It's a trade-off between rpm and power.
  • GT heads do not benefit from lifts over ~.500 without porting.
  • GT heads make flow from shape - not size. Just hogging them larger will not help flow.
  • GT heads will limit your power, helping to avoid self-disassembly. :tup:
  • RPM stands for Ruins People's Motors ;)
  • The rule-of-thumb is to make your power goal at the lowest rpms you can to reduce stress. Higher rpms are only used to increase power as a last resort. RPMs are fine if you have the budget to build for it, and the breathing to make it productive.
  • Stress kills parts. Stress is exponential with rpms. The stress on the engine is doubled from 5700 to 8500 rpm. Doubled. This is why you can make 600 hp on boost or juice at lower rpms, but blow it up NA with less than 400 hp at 8000+.
  • RPMs that sound like a Kawasaki on crack does sound cool.
  • Is the goal actually power - or sound?
David
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
691 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Random input:

  • You need solid lifters, strong springs, roller rockers, and a strong stable valve train to hit those rpms (like 67Coug) - hydro lifters will not cut it.
  • The block is fine (they all have the same basic strength), but the caps are the weak link for any 302/5.0 block, where they distort and crack the block through the main cap bolts. Ford rates them 400hp at 6000 rpm, but you can rev higher if you reduce the power like 67Coug. It's a trade-off between rpm and power.
  • GT heads do not benefit from lifts over ~.500 without porting.
  • GT heads make flow from shape - not size. Just hogging them larger will not help flow.
  • GT heads will limit your power, helping to avoid self-disassembly. :tup:
  • RPM stands for Ruins People's Motors ;)
  • The rule-of-thumb is to make your power goal at the lowest rpms you can to reduce stress. Higher rpms are only used to increase power as a last resort. RPMs are fine if you have the budget to build for it, and the breathing to make it productive.
  • Stress kills parts. Stress is exponential with rpms. The stress on the engine is doubled from 5700 to 8500 rpm. Doubled. This is why you can make 600 hp on boost or juice at lower rpms, but blow it up NA with less than 400 hp at 8000+.
  • RPMs that sound like a Kawasaki on crack does sound cool.
  • Is the goal actually power - or sound?
David
Where would I find solid rollers for a stock spider? or do they make them?

Shameful as it may sound, there is really no other reason to do this high rpm v8 other than sound... :D I could probably make the same power with a 302 at much lower rpm, but, heck, a lot of folk do that ;)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,355 Posts
you want to learn about building engines ? thats true , do it your way .
need to ask , it will never be 100% your build , .

the question on where to get solids that work with oem spider .
you don't . solid rollers come as drop in's .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
my 2 cents, had a high rev 289 street/strip for 10 years with no problems. 1968 mustang, torker intake, set of hooker heads, 650 holley double pump, wide ratio top loader, 5.14 9 inch, hays clutch, stock 1967 block and rods, rods were polished and shot peened, arp bolts, windage tray in oil pan, stock crank, melling high pressure oil pump, cloyes double roller chain, 1969 351w heads 1.94 1.60 ss valves screw in studs and guide plates, cheep aluminum rockers, comp solid flat tappet cam 306D .592 LIFT, TRW 12.5 pop up forged pistons. with the 351 heads 65cc chamber it ran fine on 93 octane with 36 total timing. shifted at 7400 launched it at 6700. only ran 12.80 but was a hell of alot of fun. HOPE THIS HELPS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,337 Posts
Shameful as it may sound, there is really no other reason to do this high rpm v8 other than sound... :D
A couple of fart cans won't suffice? Whole lot cheaper. Even buying an older Mitsubishi would be cheaper and make more sense (to me anyways)...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,327 Posts
Shameful as it may sound, there is really no other reason to do this high rpm v8 other than sound... :D I could probably make the same power with a 302 at much lower rpm, but, heck, a lot of folk do that ;)
To each their own. You have your reasons. FOX BROS is another similar example to 67Coug of a stabilized valve train, but note neither is shifting within 1000 rpms of what you were wanting. When spinning that high, 1000 is a huge difference.

David
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
691 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
To each their own. You have your reasons. FOX BROS is another similar example to 67Coug of a stabilized valve train, but note neither is shifting within 1000 rpms of what you were wanting. When spinning that high, 1000 is a huge difference.

David
Well, they are shifting at approx 7500 which is where I wanted to make peak power. Red line I wanted a little higher.

as for an import with a fart can... that is no where near the sound...


Now on the topic of straight performance, I have a 351W at my disposal that is all stock with a (.040 overbore, E7's ect (yuck)). that is going into the falcon while I am building the 289. I also have access to a standard bore 69 W block. Would it be more cost effective to put money towards either W? Or does that roll into the whole 'you can't make good power unless you buy $1000 heads'

This is why I posted up, feasibility of a project is key to me. But if the project is going to cost a pile and not make much power, I will not get stuck on it just because it's 'cool'. It's good to talk some things over with some folks that are running something close and see whats what.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
691 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 · (Edited)
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top