Vintage Mustang Forums banner

289= or not = to 4.7L?

2K views 32 replies 20 participants last post by  Hellcat6 
#1 ·
i just read a thread where a poster had called a 289 a 4.7L motor.

another poster responded saying it is" technically inaccurate and disrespectful". i had always thought a 289 displaces 4.7L, at least thats what i had read many times.

soooo... what does a 289 displace then if 4.7L is "technically inaccurate?"

i confused, and find this very important seeing as how i put custom 4.7L badges on the side of my cowl hood haha
 
#3 ·
then why did the newer GT's( 96-98) have the 4.6L badges on the fender,and were known as 281's.? i think all the later model GT's that had the modular motor are 281's right ? just like my 01 GT has under the hood.

i need to figure out what a 289 is , so i can go out there today and make a quick mod to my badges that way i dont look like a doofus if its in fact wrong lol
 
#5 ·
well then .

two thoughts:

ONE: it appears 4.7L is technically accurate enough then .

TWO: 4.7358615L would make one hell of an annoyingly accurate badge :)
 
#8 ·
cool, so i guess im not " dissin" on the ol 289 :).


....should be a 5.8 under there though hehe
 
#12 ·
" technically inaccurate and disrespectful"
Odd. We've shown it's accurate enough though commonly not referred to as a 4.7
I don't get the disrespectful bit. Ford has happily been giving their engines metric designations since the mid 60's. The Galaxies of the era were to be had with the optional "7.0L" engine. Metric-speak for 427 or 428. So what's the problem? Other than clarity through common usage, why not say 4.7 if you want?
Ford has been know to be a bit loose with their terminology anyway. 302's arent' exactly 302's, 5.0's are a lot closer to 4.9's. And does anybody remember the first "5.0"? I was actually 255 cubic inches, or 4.18 liters?
After writing all this I realized that I don't really even care about any of this ::
 
#14 ·
hmmm, this issue has to rate pretty darn low on the 'whocares' meter....
Pegged my Whogivesaratsass meter! :(

It is confusing if you slept through math... ::

289 x .016387 = 4.735843
yeah, DATS what I meant.....is it LOW on the meter or HIGH? *ponder* :p


RE: math: oh, hush, Einstein, and calculate pi to the final digit....we'll wait here until you are done ::
 
#16 ·
Yes, but if it's bored .030", it's not a 4.7L, but a 4.8L..!! ::

With a conversion of 16.39 cc's per cubic inch (rounded), the 350 Chev was a 5.7L, but the 351 Ford was a 5.8L. You could drive yourself crazy with this stuff if it were important to you. :p
 
#19 ·
for being so low on the hucares meter alot of ppl sure did respond to it lol.

i didnt sleep through math . i had done the math but didnt quite understand why that poster said it wasnt correct .

i figured there was some " reasoning" behind it all, guess not lol. i just wanted someone to clear it up for me real quick .
 
#25 ·
Has the engine been bored? .030" bore makes it a 293 CI or 4.801 Liters. You may be understated.

Dave
 
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