Register now to get rid of these ads!

Making my 289 faster: heads? cam?

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by HotRod28AR, Oct 8, 2007.

  1. So I've got a Ford 289 with headers, 3 deuces and a decent cam in it, I dont know anything else it may or may not have. It's backed by a built C4 trans. It's pretty fast but just not fast enough. What would be a good plan of attack to really get some power out of this thing without going into it? Is there a good head/cam package out there that would be worth doing? I dont want to go crazy with it since we just had bad experiences having two other mills totally built, but I really want to make this thing pull. Any suggestions? Thanks,
    -Dean
     
  2. BlueFalcon
    Joined: Jul 29, 2007
    Posts: 191

    BlueFalcon
    Member

    im not 100% but i think you can put 302 heads on it. they have a more hollowed out combustion chamber and bigger ports.
     
  3. RoyalChoppers
    Joined: Nov 24, 2005
    Posts: 47

    RoyalChoppers
    Member

    Yes, the 302 heads do have a larger combustion chamber and larger valves, but you will lose compression in compared to the 289 heads. If you put some high compression pistons or deck the head you can have the best of both worlds. You can also do a roller rocker and roller lifter conversion to help things spin up.
     
  4. Choptop
    Joined: Jun 19, 2001
    Posts: 3,303

    Choptop
    Member

    Edelbrock alum heads with 1.94 valves and roller rockers,and matched RPM Performer Cam and intake.

    watch what you do though. You can make a high hp, high rev engine. Not the "pull" you say you want.

    consider a 347 Stroker kit.
     
  5. I go the opposite direction for a low rpm street engine. I use the late model 5.0 heads and cams. They are small port, high velocity. They make lots more bottom end than any of the original 289 heads. The only head to stay away from is anything from 1986. The 83 and newer are all similar. If you're looking for big horsepower, this won't help. This is only good for bottom and mid-range.
     
  6. tomslik
    Joined: Mar 3, 2001
    Posts: 2,161

    tomslik
    Member


    i thoght it was 351 windsor heads that use to be the big deal but they'd drop the compression a bunch...
     
  7. I put Trick Flow heads on my 289 (302 crank) and run a mild cam with a 6oocfm, dual point, and a 3.00 rear gear....completly woke the car up. The heads are key. You can get a lot more (increase cam size, carb, ignition, and rear gears) but you begin to lose dependability and economy (especially if you want to drive long distances, which I do).
     
  8. Rich Rogers
    Joined: Apr 8, 2006
    Posts: 2,018

    Rich Rogers
    Member

    Watch your exhaust size too. Ususally the max for smaller motor is 2 1/4". for best efficiency.That with alum. heads with 194's, hei maybe but I'd say a mid to upper 3's for a gear.The 289 winds quick and can take a bunch of rpms . Edelbrock also offers head and cam matched kits.good luck
     
  9. George
    Joined: Jan 1, 2005
    Posts: 7,995

    George
    Member

    Up to '76, '77 & up are 302 heads drilled for bigger head bolts.
     
  10. recycler
    Joined: Mar 27, 2001
    Posts: 661

    recycler
    Member

    Best return on investment on most Ford engines is a good set of aftermarket cylinder heads.
    Brad
     
  11. fast Ed
    Joined: Aug 12, 2007
    Posts: 207

    fast Ed
    Member

    Valve size for 289 and all 302s except Boss and the 90s GT40 versions in the Lightning pickup and 93 - 95 Mustang Cobra were the same size, 1.74 intake, 1.45 exhaust. Combustion chamber size varied by year, generally larger as they got newer.

    AirFlow Research 165cc heads will probably make the most power out of the box for a small cube SB Ford, but you may need to notch the pistons for valve clearance.


    cheers
    Ed N.
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.