Vintage Mustang Forums banner
  • Hey everyone! Enter your ride HERE to be a part MAY's Ride of the Month Challenge!

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,489 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,492 Posts
Nice writeup up, but solid cams for most of us are to much work.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,489 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I agree, for the most part. It's the build science I like about a few of these Vids. The attention to details are interesting to me. I like they did not want to throw a 750 on it.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
7,074 Posts
I'm going to be a contrarian here. I thought the premise of the article was stupid.

"Rather, this article is about “reKreating” the 289 HiPo engine with modern parts while retaining as much of the K-code character as possible. The cost of restoring a 289 HiPo engine to Concours condition is too high, even if you can find NOS parts or surviving parts in good condition. Instead, this engine project will take advantage of new piston and camshaft technology along with upgrades developed for the lubrication, exhaust, and intake systems."

They are not building a k-code spec engine. They are instead sort of half-assing a modern interpretation of a K-code engine using parts that are kind of close to what would was used from 1965 to 1967.

My take on it is, "WHY"? Either faithfully recreate the engine down to the last nut OR build a modern high performance engine. They made way too many compromises to claim it's a k-code...so at that point why bother?

I just didn't see the point of the build.

Phil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
876 Posts
I'm nostalgic for my 282S cam, however, I didn't think the only diff between regular and hipo rods is the 3/8 bolt. I don't think you can drill out a standard rod to 3/8
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,783 Posts
I'm with HoosierBuddy... if you're going to "reKreate" then recreate... pretty much the only thing this build has in common with a real "K code" is the bare cylinder heads. In addition, at least THREE times that I counted the articles referred to the "K code" coming with a 480 cfm carburetor and NOT the 1.12" 600 cfm carburetor actually used.

I also noted the choice of a destroked piston with a metric ring package, something else besides a C3AE connecting rod, else they wouldn't have an issue with 3/8" rod bolts, no crankshaft bobweight, yadda yadda yadda.... I wouldn't even be surprised if they used the 351W firing order....

Anyhow, I enjoyed the 400hp 302 build a lot more...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,555 Posts
Nice writeup up, but solid cams for most of us are to much work.
Like anything else, practice helps. My HP was my daily driver for over 20 years. Got to the point I could do the job in under an hour.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top