Google it

 

ROFL Thanks, buddy. =)

 

A "Crate 289" comment from another thread really got me thinking.

These engines always seemed to punch way above their weight, in terms of power/cubic inches. They love RPMs, make enough power to shame many a 350 Chevy (not to mention the old 283 and 327s), and were very fuss-free.

You can even get decent economy out of them!

Am I just looking through nostalgia-colored glasses here? Or were they as good as I'm remembering? I haven't driven one in a while.

I'm thinking maybe with gas prices being what they are, it could be really nice to run a 5 speed, some 3.55 or 3.73 rear gears, and see what kind of mileage you could pull down on a nice 289 build! Power and economy. What do you guys think?

Nothing to comment on the specific question but this does bring back memories of my first Mustang (1966 coupe, 289 2v, 3 speed completely stock). A family quirk I was raised with is fastidious tracking of gas mileage. In the 1973-1975 years I did several extended road trips of 1000 miles plus and was always pleased that I was able to get 25 mpg on the highway portions of the drives. It impressed me that a car with that kind of kick could get that kind of gas mileage.

Wayne

 

A "Crate 289" comment from another thread really got me thinking.

I'm thinking maybe with gas prices being what they are, it could be really nice to run a 5 speed, some 3.55 or 3.73 rear gears, and see what kind of mileage you could pull down on a nice 289 build! Power and economy. What do you guys think?

I built my 289 as a "stock" A code and added an AOD with 3.55 rear gear. Around town I get in the 16's mpg and typically in the 18's mpg on the highway. So economy isn't too bad, but your memory of the power may be nostalgic. I remembered my 289's from past years as muscle car material, but now I watch as every 4 cylinder turbo passes me by. So I say get the OD with matching rear gears, but plan to push that 289 nearer the 300 Hp to be powerful.

 

With factory stock heads and cam, they weren't exactly torque monsters. But a lot of people have managed 25 mpg hwy even running a carb, when tuned well.

Running a bit of compression and some modern heads, along with a better cam profile, I wonder if you couldn't stretch that to 30 mpg with proper gearing.

 

A "Crate 289" comment from another thread really got me thinking.

These engines always seemed to punch way above their weight, in terms of power/cubic inches. They love RPMs, make enough power to shame many a 350 Chevy (not to mention the old 283 and 327s), and were very fuss-free.

You can even get decent economy out of them!

Am I just looking through nostalgia-colored glasses here? Or were they as good as I'm remembering? I haven't driven one in a while.

I'm thinking maybe with gas prices being what they are, it could be really nice to run a 5 speed, some 3.55 or 3.73 rear gears, and see what kind of mileage you could pull down on a nice 289 build! Power and economy. What do you guys think?

What is a 289 other than a 302 with .13" less stroke? When you think about it, that's only .065" farther on either end of piston travel or about 1/16 of an inch. Had Ford decided to go with a 3-inch crank from the get-go, would we all be talking about the 231, 272 and 302 small blocks?

 

All true, Bart! But as much as I love all the 302s I've had, the 289 number still holds some magic for me. 15 lb-ft of torque less, and about 300 RPMs more (if that!) for the peaks... still a great little motor. The smaller bores of their earlier brethren were "okay", but when Ford brought them out to 4", magic happened. =)

 

I'm thinking maybe with gas prices being what they are, it could be really nice to run a 5 speed, some 3.55 or 3.73 rear gears, and see what kind of mileage you could pull down on a nice 289 build! Power and economy. What do you guys think?

I averaged 60mph on my two hour drive this summer (open farm fields, no stop/go, 70 deg out), have the factory 3-speed manual and 3:40 gears. The car was running just about 2800 rpm and we averaged 15.4 mpg which I was quite happy with. Is 5mpg more worth moving to a T5? Maybe, but for now its all working in harmony and I don't wanna mess with it.

If they could improve anything I wish they would have made the oiling system a bit more solid. The oil pump driveshaft snapping is always in the back of my mind.

 

“……If they could improve anything I wish they would have made the oiling system a bit more solid. The oil pump driveshaft snapping is always in the back of my mind.

you won’t have anything to worry about if you put in the ARP Chrome-Moly shaft. They are pretty indestructible. I have a high volume oil pump in my 289 K code with the adjustable pressure relief valve set for maximum pressure . Using Mobil 1 15w-50 or 0w-40 I would routinely get 80+ psi at a
Cold engine start up and 60-65 psi with a hot engine.

Never any problems with the oil pump driveshaft, even with many hours of cross country driving at 4,500 rpm or higher

.

Z

 

Ye Olde 289 ~~ a storied engine indeed.
I can attest to some high speed runs years ago that surprised me and I swore off, and decent fuel mileage into the mid 20s as recently as this last week. It's .030 over, mild head work, C9OZ type hydraulic cam, flat tops, iron intake, 4100, and a C4 then 2.80s behind. It was rebuilt in 1993. I drove it this morning. I plan to drive it some more today. There's not a cloud in the sky and that dual exhaust sounds awfully good...

 

Power and economy. What do you guys think?

tjm73 probably linked to the perfect "street" sbf in the 300rwhp thread. GOOD heads = 300+rwhp out of an stock 5.0HO shortblock with stock HO cam and an engine that drives like an factory stock 5.0, while pulling hard from 1500-5500 rpm. Don't underestimate Fords own upgrade of the 289". I saw an Mustang with stock 5.0 shortblock run a high 9s in an Youtube video yesterday. Turbo car running low boost.

 

I've always loved a high revving small block. I just watched a youtube video of a stock block and crank carbureted 302 making over 500 hp at 7k on the dyno. Lots of aftermarket goodies tho. AFR heads, big cam, pistons, programmable ignition, etc. but good lord.

What is a 302 but a bored over 289? It gets your wheels spinning...

 

What is a 302 but a bored over 289? It gets your wheels spinning...

It's a stroked 289 😉
Same 4" bore but 3" stroke instead of 2.87"

 

I'm getting 15+ on the open road with my 390, TKO (0.68) and 3.25 rear. I have no idea what's in the engine, but it's happy cruising at 1800 rpm. One day I'll take a long, full tank, drive and do some math for a more precise figure.

 

Great HP but unfortunately 500 is a cakewalk for even a crappy LS these days. I was in a show this weekend that put me in 1960-69 modified class which meant I pretty much lost instantly to an already overpopulated sea of Chevy's that had LS conversions. Surprise surprise. Was reminded pretty quickly why we decided not to do judged shows anymore.

 

Ford's own 351W can easily produce those same power figures with any decent heads, so it's not too crazy. There's nothing magic about the LS, it's just got the benefit of 50 years' experience over the Windsors.

For that matter, with a power adder on a 289 or 302, again, those numbers are easily achievable. You can even do it N/A, but that would cost, and I don't know how you could make it very streetable. Peak horsepower fails to impress me most of the time.

To be fair, the LS engines certainly do deliver! It's a solid design. I just hate seeing them applied to everything, especially in non-GM products.

It would sure bring a smile to my face seeing a 289 wafflestomping a built LS. =)

 

Back in the day (late 70's early 80s) I used my C code 66 as a daily driver. 3 speed manual and 2.8 rear gears.
Day in day out in city and mixed driving I got 16-17 mpg. On All highway trips to LA the best I ever got was 20.
I cannot figure out how anyone got 25 mpg out of a 289.

 

Back in the day (late 70's early 80s) I used my C code 66 as a daily driver. 3 speed manual and 2.8 rear gears.
Day in day out in city and mixed driving I got 16-17 mpg. On All highway trips to LA the best I ever got was 20.
I cannot figure out how anyone got 25 mpg out of a 289.

The guy that bought my foxbody daily drove it for a year and got 22mpg on his commute.
I always got 15-16 with it.
I just figured I'm a little heavier footed, lol

 

I was not a lead foot. Especially during the second gas crisis during the Iranian Hostage mess. I was trying to eke every mile out of my money as a poor college student.
$1.10 a gallon was killer when prices had been around $.70 just weeks earlier.

 

The best I ever did with my 289 was 21 mpg on a long, true highway trip. T5, 3.50:1, Holley 600 double pumper. AC used only sparingly. It ran well but there was definitely some tuning meat left on the bone, so mpg could have been better. I think 25 mpg highway is rare but possible with the right combo and tuning.

 

Remember, a "331" with a standard 4" bore is a 327. Just saying. That said, I like the little 289. Mine with:

• AFR165 heads
• Long tube headers
• Performer RPM intake
• Summit 600 cfm
• 218/226, .496/.512 112 LSA Cam
• .355 rear end
• T5-z

will get 15 around town easy and 21 on the highway.

 

Way back in 1981 or so, I took a day long trip around the Olympic Peninsula in Washington. I had my 65 with a freshly rebuilt 289 with a Holley 2 bbl carb, dual exhaust with stock exhaust manifolds, a C4 with 2.80 gears. Nothing really special. At the end of one tank of gas, I got 28 mpg. It was the only time I got mileage like that out of it. Usually it was the low 20's on long road trips with no city driving.

Earlier this month, driving from Reno to Bishop, CA, I got 18.8 mpg with a built 331 with dual carbs, Toploader, 3.55 gears in the rear, two guys, and the trunk full of stuff we picked up in Reno along with all our gear we needed for the week - along with a few high speed runs while passing folks.

 

Earlier this month, driving from Reno to Bishop, CA, I got 18.8 mpg with a built 331 with dual carbs, Toploader, 3.55 gears in the rear, two guys, and the trunk full of stuff we picked up in Reno along with all our gear we needed for the week - along with a few high speed runs while passing folks.

That is truly impressive. If I got 16 with my 289, C4 and 3.55's on the highway I had a nice tail wind.

 

...and the trunk full of stuff we picked up in Reno along with all our gear we needed for the week - along with a few high speed runs while passing folks.

Excerpt from -Confessions of a Bootlegger

 

I daily drive a 65 Convertible. Car has a plain D2 block (I don't know if it has 289 or 302 internals) with stock 2100 2 barrel. It had a C4 with 2.8 gearing and got around 16-19 mpg. I have since made a number of upgrades, 4R70W (.7 overdrive + lockable torque converter), 3.0 true track, electric fan, aluminum driveshaft, 225/45R17 wheels, running AC (Sanden 508) I can achieve 24-25 mpg on the open highway. I ran the 2.8 with the 4R70W for awhile and it was amazing on the open highway cruising 70 mph around 1500 rpm. I didn't get any mpg readings unfortunately, but it had to at least be 26 mpg with a plain stock engine.

I'm currently rebuilding a C5AE, stock 289 block with AFR aluminum 165cc heads, roller comp cam, 9.5 compression, roller rockers, late model firing order, and upgrading to Pro Flo EFI. Target horsepower should be around 360 hp. It should be a very efficient and peppy 289. It will be interesting to see if the mpg goes up or down. With all new less restrictive 2.5" exhuast, I'm expecting mpg to hopefully increase. Would be great to end up around 27 mpg if I keep my foot out of it.

 

Before performance aluminum heads became common, power potential was really about how well the factory iron heads could flow. I love Fords, but the harsh reality is most factory Ford V8s didn't flow very well. They were designed to be economy engines or truck engines.

The sad fact is the only factory version of the 289 that made decent power was the K-Code/HiPo version. It was a great little engine, but from the factory, the cylinder heads were puny. Racers did some SERIOUS porting of the heads to get more power. With ported heads and a BIG cam, a 289 will scream at higher RPMs. Down low, not so much. Overall, the factory HiPo 289 was an outstanding street engine and, with a few tweaks, was a great racing engine as well.

The only factory version of the 302 that had decent power was the Boss 302. This is because, with this engine, Ford finally fixed the puny heads issue by using Cleveland heads. Yeah, talk about overkill. But here again, with those ginormous heads, the Boss 302 absolutely screams at higher RPMs. Down low, not so much. But overall a factory Boss 302 was an outstanding street engine and, with a few tweaks, was an outstanding racing engine as well.

Even the 351W heads were too small. Back in the day racers told me if they ported the 351W heads, it was a case of "Jekyll and Hyde". Apparently, a 351W with ported heads was a decently potent package. Of course, it still couldn't keep up with the breathing characteristics of the Cleveland.

When Ford wanted to build a fast engine, they did and they did it very well. The HiPo 289, Boss 302, Boss 429 and Boss 351 were stellar. And, of course, the Ford 427 was legendary. When compared to what Chevrolet was putting out, those stellar Ford engines were just so rare. The Bowtie would drop their 350 into just about everything they made. The LT-1 was rare, but even base 350 would flow pretty well. And Chevrolet always had very good versions of their Small Block available in the Corvette. If you could get your hands on a Corvette engine, or just Corvette heads, you were screaming.

That's my take.

 

Before performance aluminum heads became common, power potential was really about how well the factory iron heads could flow. I love Fords, but the harsh reality is most factory Ford V8s didn't flow very well. They were designed to be economy engines or truck engines.

The sad fact is the only factory version of the 289 that made decent power was the K-Code/HiPo version. It was a great little engine, but from the factory, the cylinder heads were puny. Racers did some SERIOUS porting of the heads to get more power. With ported heads and a BIG cam, a 289 will scream at higher RPMs. Down low, not so much. Overall, the factory HiPo 289 was an outstanding street engine and, with a few tweaks, was a great racing engine as well.

The only factory version of the 302 that had decent power was the Boss 302. This is because, with this engine, Ford finally fixed the puny heads issue by using Cleveland heads. Yeah, talk about overkill. But here again, with those ginormous heads, the Boss 302 absolutely screams at higher RPMs. Down low, not so much. But overall a factory Boss 302 was an outstanding street engine and, with a few tweaks, was an outstanding racing engine as well.

Even the 351W heads were too small. Back in the day racers told me if they ported the 351W heads, it was a case of "Jekyll and Hyde". Apparently, a 351W with ported heads was a decently potent package. Of course, it still couldn't keep up with the breathing characteristics of the Cleveland.

When Ford wanted to build a fast engine, they did and they did it very well. The HiPo 289, Boss 302, Boss 429 and Boss 351 were stellar. And, of course, the Ford 427 was legendary. When compared to what Chevrolet was putting out, those stellar Ford engines were just so rare. The Bowtie would drop their 350 into just about everything they made. The LT-1 was rare, but even base 350 would flow pretty well. And Chevrolet always had very good versions of their Small Block available in the Corvette. If you get your hands on a Corvette engine, or just Corvette heads, you were screaming.

That's my take.

Well put, Klutch!!

The Ford engineering department really outdid themselves in a lot of ways; their engines were smaller, lighter, and in many ways, overengineered compared to the Chevy (and Chrysler!) mills.

But when it came to 'everyday vehicles' - as you said - they rarely bothered to let them breathe well and deliver on the promise of power. I'm sure that being restrictive in the horsepower numbers helped enhance their relationship with insurance companies, and the Fed to some degree as well.

Having small valves and ports does tend to enhance efficiency and low-midrange power, so that all worked well with their intents. Now that we have better means to control our engines' fuel, spark, and even air (thanks to better flow with intakes, heads, exhaust, and cam design), there are a lot more options for increasing power and efficiency at the same time.

Those early 351W heads were surprisingly similar to the 289/302 heads in '64-68 as far as runners and ports go. They did have bigger valves and slightly larger chambers. All of those early heads, when supplied with a good port job and a few other tweaks can make decent power! Unfortunately, while their restrictive runners work really well for filling the cylinders at low to midrange RPMs by increasing velocity, they sure hurt the top end. The Cleveland heads sure addressed that!

None of the factory heads (including stock Clevelands) really hold a candle to the better chambers, runner design, and valves of a modern head like AFR makes. But that's also a very simple avenue to hopping up a Windsor. Want more power? Use better heads. Presto! Nowadays, we can make power numbers that would have been ridiculous back in the 60s, unless you were running a supercharger. A pair of new AFR 165s shame even something exotic as the Gurney/Weslake heads.

What always amazes me about the Windsor is that they came from a 221 cubic inch engine that made about 100 horses at the rear tires (on a good day) with about 215 lb-ft of torque. A 347 stock-block stroker is the same size and weight (or less!), but would be expected to produce over 5 times that power output. Reliably. It's one of the things that makes me love SBFs so much. Big bang for such a small package.

I've gone with a 331 for my current build, wanting more torque for my 2.80 rear gears. But now that I have some steeper rear gears, I find myself wondering just what I could do with a smaller, lighter crank that's more eager to rev. Smaller diameter throws means less inertia! The old 289 might be a lot of fun. If this engine ever lets go, I might just go that route.

 

Shelby was highly fond of the "little" 289's; they had a better piston/rod angle ratio than 302's, and were super light and unbelievably rev-happy. His favorite was his 289 cobra over his 427, and thought the 289 was a better choice all around for "fun".

I still listen to this interview from time to time:

 

Shelby was highly fond of the "little" 289's; they had a better piston/rod angle ratio than 302's, and were super light and unbelievably rev-happy. His favorite was his 289 cobra over his 427, and thought the 289 was a better choice all around for "fun".

I still listen to this interview from time to time:

I forgot he was interested in planes too. I bet every pilot that has seen this got a big smile hearing those words.

 

Well, I love my 289/333. It's a little power house when built paying attention to details. It's a small compact block that punches out respectable TQ and HP. I luv my 5 bolt!

 

I think part of it is weight. The 289 is a sturdy light weight engine. Compared to a SBC, about 75 pounds less weight. Put one of these in a light weight Falcon, Mustang or a little English sports car, you have a pretty quick car. I think Carroll Shelby was getting about 380 hp out of them.

 

And then there was....... (if you like high revving small blocks...)

 

A "Crate 289" comment from another thread really got me thinking.

These engines always seemed to punch way above their weight, in terms of power/cubic inches. They love RPMs, make enough power to shame many a 350 Chevy (not to mention the old 283 and 327s), and were very fuss-free.

You can even get decent economy out of them!

Am I just looking through nostalgia-colored glasses here? Or were they as good as I'm remembering? I haven't driven one in a while.

I'm thinking maybe with gas prices being what they are, it could be really nice to run a 5 speed, some 3.55 or 3.73 rear gears, and see what kind of mileage you could pull down on a nice 289 build! Power and economy. What do you guys think?

Not specifically Mustang but same 289. 1st car was a '64 Fairlane 500 2dr HT, 289, 3-tree (later Hurst floor). Was the car I left home w/. 1st leg (cool morning, no hurry) of the 1,000 miles I was about to complete netted 28mpg. Best I ever saw but most highway driving came close (24+). As to power.......... on way home one evening noticed headlights gaining rather quickly . Confirming just another motorist as it pulled out to pass & no other traffic in sight, I throttled up to keep pace. He pulled ahead by a length before I was reeling him in. Nice '65/'66 Impala 2dr HT w/ 3 on board. Twice more tried within 10 miles; same result. Had 5ish mph on it flat out. Upon entering town headlights were flashing me. Pulled over & started talking; wanted to know what engine I had, his being a 327 4 barrel. This is where it gets interesting. I had purchased the Fairlane fr original owner (long time neighbour) who told me "ignore the (260) fender badges. it's a 289". I remained skeptical until removing heads for guides/seals/valve grind; 4in bore = 289. Both VIN code & fender badges stated 260.......... so I rubbed it in a little more telling him "260 2 barrel". Didn't believe me so pointed to badging & stated purchased fr original owner. He drove away humiliated & shaking his head. Guessing that 289 could haul the Fairlane to 115mph. Still miss that car but wouldn't have my current "precious" w/o selling it way back.

 

My first car was a white '64 Fairlane 2dr with the 260 and 2 speed Ford-O-Matic! Air conditioner worked well, too. =)

 

I chuckle at these threads when they pop up. Back in the day, Ford was building cars for the masses, and the masses were concerned with price, economy and operating cost. Ford was concerned with production and tooling costs.

Except for the short lived Model K six, Ford only offered an inline 4 cylinder until the flathead V8 and Lincoln V12 came out in 32. A six cylinder didn't show up until 41.

When my dad bought the Vista Cruiser in 65, he got the 330 Rocket V8. My Mom really wanted PS, PB, AC and an AT. The extra cost of the 400 would have made the car unaffordable. We put over 250k on that car with only a valve job and regular maintenance. When dad bought a 75 Nova, he got the 262 V8 specifically for the gas mileage. The Nova had a single exhaust that exited behind the passenger rear wheel. Just before the turndown, it split and a pipe ran behind the bumper and exited on the driver side, looking like the car had dual exhaust. My friends all thought we had a hotrod 4-door Nova.

 

It's no wonders that the bore spacing of 4.380" is common from the Ford Y-block through the "Windsors" to the 335's... Also the same bore spacing between the small sixes and the HSC inline fours... All so the same machining equipment can be used.