Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

74NovaMan's 66 Mustang GT (Dad's first new car)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by DanStokes View Post
    The heads Russell posted say they're cast in Australia. Other than their fires, I'd trust the Aussies to cast decent aluminum, assuming the engineering was right to start with. Of course, the valves, springs, etc. may be from a third-world country. A heck of a deal if they're any good at all.

    Dan

    Alex Denysenko of http://moneymakerracing.net/ was the one responsible for these heads in the beginning. He was marketing them as a good performing street head and nothing else. They were basically a copy of the GT40X head. He had the foundry in Australia who cast aluminum parts for Ford in Australia. Since he was a little fish in a big pond he was having marketing problems in getting enough sales to meet foundry casting quotas. I'm assuming they probably have changed hands a few times so I can't comment on quality. I second what Dan thinks that the casting are OK but who knows on the rest? Do you want to ruin a new motor on a dropped valve? On the Mustang forum I hang out on there is a guy who had exactly this happen but it was with Trick Flow 170 heads.

    May I make a suggestion? If you haven't bought pistons or have the crank cut, turn it into a 302. In the long run it may be cheaper. There were a lot more 302's made then 289's. You might be able to get a complete 302 rotating assembly cheaper then a 289 set up. Another plus with the added cubes, it'll be easier to maintain CR since most aftermarket sbf heads are geared toward about 9:1 with a 65 CC chamber typically.

    The GT40P head is actually a pretty good head. They need only about 28* total timing. Headers are as bad as you think. I'm going to be using them on a 302 that's going into my 66. These are standard off the shelf MAC long tube headers.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	19013974.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	27.1 KB
ID:	873016

    Click image for larger version

Name:	19013920.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	55.4 KB
ID:	873017




    Click image for larger version

Name:	19013514.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	78.9 KB
ID:	873018
    Tom
    Overdrive is overrated


    Comment


    • Tom - Thanks for the info and ideas. If the heads and block check out I'm planning to keep it as stock as I can. Hopefully I will hear next week on that. If everything is OK, I'm looking at this kit from Summit:

      http://www.summitracing.com/parts/fem-csmhp729-311/overview/

      With these rods: http://www.summitracing.com/parts/sc...view/make/ford

      Your info above saved me from the misake of using this kit instead:

      Free Shipping - Federal Mogul Premium Engine Rebuild Kits with qualifying orders of $99. Shop Engine Rebuild Kits at Summit Racing.


      For my intended use, I do not really need forged pistons. Unfortunately, the cast pistons are built with about 13cc's of reliefs as opposed to 3cc's on the forged version.

      I'll probably upgrade to a high volume and/or pressure oil pump while I'm at it.

      I still have not decided on a cam, but I'm leaning towards something as close to stock as I can find.
      Chris - HRPT Long Haul 03, 04, 05, 13, 14, 15,16 & 18
      74 Nova Project
      66 Mustang GT Project

      92 Camaro RS Convertible Project
      79 Chevy Truck Project
      1956 Cadillac Project

      Comment


      • Again, let me recommend the FRPP oil pump drive. 'Tain't all that expensive and eliminates a weak spot.

        Dan

        Comment


        • Thanks Dan. The FFRP drive I found online did not show an application fit for a 289. I did find this:

          Free Shipping - Canton Racing Ford Oil Pump Driveshafts with qualifying orders of $99. Shop Oil Pump Driveshafts at Summit Racing.


          Either way it has made the "list".
          Chris - HRPT Long Haul 03, 04, 05, 13, 14, 15,16 & 18
          74 Nova Project
          66 Mustang GT Project

          92 Camaro RS Convertible Project
          79 Chevy Truck Project
          1956 Cadillac Project

          Comment


          • (cough... 331 kit fits... 4cc forged Probes.... cough... AFR 185's... cough...)
            Flying south, with a flock of bird dogs.

            Comment


            • I second Dan's suggestion - every rebuild on a small block ford should include an upgraded oil pump drive shaft.

              I am not a fan of high volume oil pumps on a fresh rebuild unless you intend on running bearing tolerances on the wide end or beyond nominal for some reason.

              High volume oil pumps take a lot more power to run and put more stress on the cam gear, distributor gear, and drive shaft, and really are not necessary. I have always used stock volume pumps. The engine in the falcon has a stock pump and runs at 50psi at cold start and never below 30psi at idle, with 10-30 oil.

              Something in the comp 260H range would be a great cam for this build IMHO.
              There's always something new to learn.

              Comment


              • Thanks for all the engine advice. Here is your opportunity to provide more. What do I want for compression ratio? Factory specs says 10:1. Am I likey to have problems with that running premium gas?
                Chris - HRPT Long Haul 03, 04, 05, 13, 14, 15,16 & 18
                74 Nova Project
                66 Mustang GT Project

                92 Camaro RS Convertible Project
                79 Chevy Truck Project
                1956 Cadillac Project

                Comment


                • I don't recall if you're using aluminum heads or iron. Direct effect on CR, of course.

                  Dan

                  Comment


                  • Dan - Assuming the stock iron castings for now.
                    Chris - HRPT Long Haul 03, 04, 05, 13, 14, 15,16 & 18
                    74 Nova Project
                    66 Mustang GT Project

                    92 Camaro RS Convertible Project
                    79 Chevy Truck Project
                    1956 Cadillac Project

                    Comment


                    • I'm pretty conservative when it comes to engine building but you'll want all you can safely use. My guess would be 9:1 and for sure no more that 9.5 :1. Anything more than that and you'll have to fatten the mixture and/or take out timing such that the total package will lose power. If you're willing to run race gas the equation changes a bit.

                      Dan

                      Comment


                      • FYI those are the wrong rods for a 289. You need 5.413" the 302 has a 3" stroke, 289 has 2.87". Ford kept the pin location the same in the piston and shortened the rod for 302 motor. Stock rods will be strong enough. The A code 289 which was the 4V version had 4 valve reliefs that had a total volume of 3 CC. The C code 289 which was the 2V had the same heads but had a dished piston that had a 13CC volume. You need to be careful because everyone automatically assumes a flat top piston is a 10:1 or higher CR. I've seen some flat top TRW's listing a 13 CC dish. On the small 289 it is very easy to loose a lot of CR very quickly. Measure everything before you assume! Ditto on oil pumps and driveshafts. A lot of power can be found in the 289 head by cleaning up the ports and using 351W valves.

                        A popular 289 cam that will idle smooth and provide a little more power is a hydraulic version of the so called HIPO 271 HP 289 solid lifter motor. Howards cam make a copy


                        217081-13 NA 288 288 218 218 .460 .460 113 107 Hyd. Hyd. 1
                        1600-5200 Near duplicate of the Ford Cobra Kit cam (FMC #C9OZ-6250-C).

                        This was copied from Howards catalog.

                        On the Mustang forum I also hang out on there is a guy who works in a Mustang restoration shop. He had a friend rebuild a 289 with stock 289 heads with a little home porting on the exhaust ports plus this cam made 325 HP on a dyno. He posted the print out of the dyno sheet. Personally it seems a bit optimistic to me. Take it for what it's worth. I say about 250 hp.
                        Tom
                        Overdrive is overrated


                        Comment


                        • if you're using 14cc pistons on a 2.87 strock 289 crank, even at .030 over (292), you'd have to have 48cc head chambers to make 9.5:1 ... and it would probably shroud the hell out of the valves and be pretty thin deck at that point. There were some "49" cc heads but I think most of them are going to be 54cc and get you around 8.8:1

                          A 4cc dish on the same setup with 54cc heads will be truly 10:1 if it is zero decked. Before I spent a dime on 289 heads or 302 heads, I'd take a serious look at the Edelbrock E-streets or even used aluminum heads that have been "upgraded". The typical small chamber size is 60cc, it'd take a flat top to get 9.5:1 with that. The 4cc dish will put it about 9.25:1 and with an aluminum head should run on cat piss.

                          Mustang 5.0's were about an 8.8-9:1 mill and got happy with added base timing but wanted better gas when you bumped it (on mine anyway) past about 12* base.

                          What were the casting numbers on your heads? It'll be by the pushrod holes on the bottom of the head.
                          Flying south, with a flock of bird dogs.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Huskinhano View Post
                            FYI those are the wrong rods for a 289. You need 5.413" the 302 has a 3" stroke, 289 has 2.87". Ford kept the pin location the same in the piston and shortened the rod for 302 motor. Stock rods will be strong enough. The A code 289 which was the 4V version had 4 valve reliefs that had a total volume of 3 CC. The C code 289 which was the 2V had the same heads but had a dished piston that had a 13CC volume. You need to be careful because everyone automatically assumes a flat top piston is a 10:1 or higher CR. I've seen some flat top TRW's listing a 13 CC dish. On the small 289 it is very easy to loose a lot of CR very quickly. Measure everything before you assume! Ditto on oil pumps and driveshafts. A lot of power can be found in the 289 head by cleaning up the ports and using 351W valves.

                            A popular 289 cam that will idle smooth and provide a little more power is a hydraulic version of the so called HIPO 271 HP 289 solid lifter motor. Howards cam make a copy


                            217081-13 NA 288 288 218 218 .460 .460 113 107 Hyd. Hyd. 1
                            1600-5200 Near duplicate of the Ford Cobra Kit cam (FMC #C9OZ-6250-C).

                            This was copied from Howards catalog.

                            On the Mustang forum I also hang out on there is a guy who works in a Mustang restoration shop. He had a friend rebuild a 289 with stock 289 heads with a little home porting on the exhaust ports plus this cam made 325 HP on a dyno. He posted the print out of the dyno sheet. Personally it seems a bit optimistic to me. Take it for what it's worth. I say about 250 hp.
                            5.155 on the 289 ... the 302 is 5.090

                            Stack height is the same, (.065 x 2 = .130, difference in stroke)

                            /edit 2 - when I say "Dish" I mean the valve reliefs plus any dish, a negative volume for the piston... almost any cam I have will require a cut into a true flat top with the heads I have excepting the funky E6TE.

                            /edit 3 - the rods you have listed are for a 331 or a 347 stroker (yeah, I mispelled Strock earlier on purpose) ... the stock rods fit with arp bolts and resized are plenty good for a stock-ish build.
                            Last edited by Beagle; October 28, 2013, 04:13 PM.
                            Flying south, with a flock of bird dogs.

                            Comment


                            • I don't know where the hell Summit got their numbers... none of them are adding up unless it's a pop up dome and even then I'm leary of what they are really using. There weren't any 73-76 289's.

                              "...Approximate compression ratio for 1968-72, 1977-82 302 CID is 10.14:1. Approximate compression ratio for 1973-76 302 CID is 9.54:1. Approximate compression ratio for 1973-76 289 CID is 9.75:1. "

                              I'd ask for the piston part number from Federal Mogul and look that up. Probably Speed Pro hypers, but they make a bunch of them so we'd have to know for sure to get the right numbers.
                              Flying south, with a flock of bird dogs.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Beagle View Post
                                5.155 on the 289 ... the 302 is 5.090

                                Stack height is the same, (.065 x 2 = .130, difference in stroke)

                                /edit 2 - when I say "Dish" I mean the valve reliefs plus any dish, a negative volume for the piston... almost any cam I have will require a cut into a true flat top with the heads I have excepting the funky E6TE.

                                /edit 3 - the rods you have listed are for a 331 or a 347 stroker (yeah, I mispelled Strock earlier on purpose) ... the stock rods fit with arp bolts and resized are plenty good for a stock-ish build.

                                Brain fart on my behalf, thanks for correcting things Beags.
                                Tom
                                Overdrive is overrated


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X