289 Build Help

[289nate]

You have to decide if you want to build the car to run low to mid 12s or into the 11s. Maybe you are better off just enjoying watching your son go to the dragstrip and keeping the car as a cruiser. Like I said before, the heads and intake are very capable of getting you a power curve to run in the 12s. How far into the 12s will depend on the cam. You will make more power across the entire rpm range with a properly designed link bar hydraulic roller. This would be ideal for a car to cruise around and take every once in a while to the dragstrip.

There are a few advantages using the upgraded stronger gear sets for the T5. They should physically fit your early (65-66?)mustang transmission tunnel more easily. There should be a slight weight savings even with the much heavier aftermarket gear set. It has also been theorized that they will not eat up quite as much power to the rear tire. Now for the bad. I was recently informed that G force no longer makes anything for the T5. That would leave Astro which for a synchronized transmission may actually have the superior gear set. You can buy the gears and swap them out yourself like I did with simple tools and a press. Bob Hanlon used to sell a nice video that takes you through how to rebuild one. I built mine with a G force pro shifted straight cut gear set. Some thing your son would love but not at all what you want.

I would suggest talking with T Moss in depth about your intake manifold, what other clients have run with them, and your goals. The guy has a ton of experience and a lot of fast cars under his belt. Who knows how many running in the mid 12s around your weight with a T5 transmission. I am of the opinion an intake like you describe is perfect for your application. It will also help keep the rpm range of the engine at a better shift point for a synchronized transmission.

Now if you want to try and go for it I am 100% on board with what Mike is telling you. Except I would still opt for link bar hydraulic lifters or a tight lash solid roller custom made for your application. Keep in mind that the intake lobe on my last build was only 224° at .050 inch lift. Tight lash solid roller that made peak power on the engine dyno right around 7000 RPM. Not a lot of seat duration but good amount of lobe area thanks to the roller lifter. You would have to buy a cam, valve springs, and new lifters even if you stayed flat tappet.

[frnkeore]

n2omike and 289nate,
I have to ask, what is your actual rear gear, what diameter tire are you using and what is your trap speed?

[n2omike]

n2omike and 289nate,
I have to ask, what is your actual rear gear, what diameter tire are you using and what is your trap speed?

My old 306's: Very similar aside from the heads.
750 DP carb
Vic Jr. Intake
Home ported 170 Twisted Wedge Heads
SFT Cam. 242/254 @ 0.050". 110 LSA. 0.560" lift
(289 headed engine used a 236/248 110 LSA 0.560" lift... Comp 282S intake lobe, 294S exhaust w/1..7 rockers on intake). Was a GOOD cam. Will probably re-use it and my old TW heads in my son's stock shortblock 351W.)
Toploader 4-speed
4.33 rear gear

Always ran nitrous, but made a few n/a runs. 289 headed engine ran high 11's set up and geared for the bottle. 170TW headed engine ran mid 11's set up the same way. Both engines were shifted at 6800 rpm. Both engines served as SOLE daily drivers for periods of time making 100 mile one way trips... 40 miles each way to work from there every day, and back home 100 miles. Used a 3.70 and 3.89 gear for the best of both worlds during that time. 289 headed engine ran 10.63 @ 126 on a 200 shot. 170TW headed engine ran 9.87 @ 136 on the same 200 shot. Car was 3200-3300 lbs w/driver. Tire was a 28x9 slick launched on the bottle via throttle switch. Best 60ft 289 headed engine was a 1.36. Best with the 170TW heads was a 1.31.... WITH my 160 lb son riding along in the passenger seat! Two more runs with him were both 1.32. All it did with my by myself was a 1.33. Go figure... Must need to move some weight around. lol

SFT cam is much less expensive on all fronts... the cam, lifters and springs. Assuming they break in correctly, they are also more reliable than a solid roller, and RPM better than a hydraulic roller. Don't really need 'solid roller' lift with the Edelbrock heads and only 289ci. SFT are great cams in these little engines. Jones knows what cam cores and lifters to use... as he does a LOT of flat tappet stuff. I used his cam and EDM lifters in a budget 0.600" lift 306 Gasser engine... and it was run three seasons with zero cam/lifter issues. Only problem was the valve stems started stretching in the cheap Chinesium heads. Had to keep opening the lash the last season. lol

Can go to my Facebook for more pics, etc... Search Michael Burch

[289nate]

The old 289 engine started with a 4.30 gear and ended up with a 4.56. 26 tall slick and 122 mph trap speed with the G force gear set. 120.xx with the stock T5z. Each are 2.94 first. 91 octane pump gas all motor deal I drove around very frequently. Even on an hour one way trip a few times. Could have used more gear. Never was brave enough to spray it like Mike. But after tearing that engine down I believe it could’ve taken a small’ish hit and been OK with the right tune.

New 306 in the works that will still be pumpe gas 91 octane Cali pee water. More strip then Street but will putt it around on the street still. I just won’t be able to drive it at 1100 RPM in overdrive anymore. Trying to get to my 64 falcon convertible together eventually which will be a cruiser and take care of that need.

The new 306 will peak close to 1000 RPM higher and make a fair bit more power. Sticking with the 456 gear and 26 inch tall slick for now after calculating RPM by estimated trap speed. Should be ballpark enough to start.

Mike is the one making the big power!

[frnkeore]

Thank you, both.

[jstauffe]

The great feedback continues and is causing me to refine my scope. I have a follow up question then I'll let this topic die a gentle hp limited death!

Instead of hp or et goal, what do I need to get maximum hp with the parts I have, and how close do I get to 400 fwhp? This is with the TMOSS ported 250cfm gt40 lower and tubular upper.

The mixed answers about cam shaft type have me pondering a hydraulic roller. Going thru a motor for a second time is a giant pain in the ass, and it may be worth the extra cost to me for peace of mind and never having to worry about oil.

Let's talk camshafts
N20mike what SFT specs would you recommend for my combo?

289Nate same question hydraulic roller?

Joe-71 you have a ton of experience building motors with this intake. Can you offer a cam recommendation as well?

ICL/LSA/Advertised duration/0.050/lift. Enough info so that I can plug it into Desktop Dyno for fun comparison.

Assume I can tune the efi, don't need closed loop at a rough idle, don't mind down shifting, generous piston valve notches, and am willing to replace springs in the heads.

To recap...
289, 0.030 over, 9.7:1, 0.035 quench, EStreet 5023 decked to 56cc, 7/16 rockers, 1.6 RR, balanced 28oz, forged pistons, stock crank/rods, ARP rod bolts, will survive 7000rpm.

Then it's time to shoot the engineer and build! They just announced the power tour route and the boys are pushing me to do it since it's semi close. Good motivational goal!

Thanks again.
Jonathan

[n2omike]

Choice 1
Remain slow, but not quite as slow.
Keep the LONG RUNNER intake, and cam accordingly with a hydraulic roller around 220 @ 0.050" on the intake.
May as well keep the 3.50 gear.
Won't be much faster. Will run like a lightly modded original Fox body mustang from back in the day. (pretty much what you have now)

Choice 2
Go a LOT FASTER with minimal mods.
Vic Jr. or similar shorter runner intake
SFT cam/lifters/springs around 236-240 @ 0.050" on the intake, a little more on the exhaust and a 110 LSA.
Add 3.89 gear.
Shift at 6800 RPM and HAUL ASS

Just have to figure out what you want.
Personally, if I were choosing Choice 1... I'd just leave it as is. Not worth the trouble.

[289nate]

Either way, I would suggest a hydraulic roller cam and a switch to the 3.89 or 4.11 rear gear. With your current intake, you could get away with a shift point around 6500 RPM. With the Victor Junior, you will probably be best moving that shift point up to around 7000 RPM. With a very noticeable shift in the power band down low.

Several years back I’d much prefer a solid flat tappet over a hydraulic roller. These days there is no reason to do that unless you’re trying to save money. A basic well thought out hydraulic roller will be perfectly comfortable at 7000 RPM these days.

Anyway about it, you will be into the build for a cam, set of lifters, valve springs, and measuring as well as purchasing the correct length pushrods.

Keep in mind my suggestions are coming from a guy who is building an 8500 RPM, solid roller pump, gas 306. Nice single plane intake, and a carburetor. Low RPM power is very mildly interesting to me this time around. It’s not like I’m some guy who is afraid to turn some RPM or am a huge fan of the long runner EFI intakes. I just realize when they have their place. You have to decide how fast you want to go and how comfortable you want to be cruising around.

[289nate]

I believe you mentioned you have an entry level dyno simulation program. I would put very little faith in that.

My grandfather helped design the wings for Boeing. My brother graduated from Caltech with a masters degree and honors. From there worked at JPL on the Mars Rover project. Now works on stuff for the government that he cannot talk about. All I do is ask him if we are safe. I was the athlete, not the mathlete. I get and respect the engineering side. But sometimes you have to talk to the right people trust them and then try to reverse engineer why it works.

[289nate]

Choice 1
Remain slow, but not quite as slow.
Keep the LONG RUNNER intake, and cam accordingly with a hydraulic roller around 220 @ 0.050" on the intake.
May as well keep the 3.50 gear.
Won't be much faster. Will run like a lightly modded original Fox body mustang from back in the day. (pretty much what you have now)

Choice 2
Go a LOT FASTER with minimal mods.
Vic Jr. or similar shorter runner intake
SFT cam/lifters/springs around 236-240 @ 0.050" on the intake, a little more on the exhaust and a 110 LSA.
Add 3.89 gear.
Shift at 6800 RPM and HAUL ASS

Just have to figure out what you want.
Personally, if I were choosing Choice 1... I'd just leave it as is. Not worth the trouble.

Today I just got my carburetor back from the guy who tuned the carburetor on the Gray Mare, which now or at least a bit ago, held the record for the fastest stock 5.0 L short block. When I dropped it off, the conversation was about what was fast just a short period ago and what is considered fast now. Its nuts!!! Starting to feel like the guy with the flat head Ford who is cool but not fast compared to a stock looking Coyote two door short bed 4WD F150 and a Whipple running 9’s with the a/c on.

[lefty o]

Choice 1
Remain slow, but not quite as slow.
Keep the LONG RUNNER intake, and cam accordingly with a hydraulic roller around 220 @ 0.050" on the intake.
May as well keep the 3.50 gear.
Won't be much faster. Will run like a lightly modded original Fox body mustang from back in the day. (pretty much what you have now)

Choice 2
Go a LOT FASTER with minimal mods.
Vic Jr. or similar shorter runner intake
SFT cam/lifters/springs around 236-240 @ 0.050" on the intake, a little more on the exhaust and a 110 LSA.
Add 3.89 gear.
Shift at 6800 RPM and HAUL ASS

Just have to figure out what you want.
Personally, if I were choosing Choice 1... I'd just leave it as is. Not worth the trouble.

Today I just got my carburetor back from the guy who tuned the carburetor on the Gray Mare, which now or at least a bit ago, held the record for the fastest stock 5.0 L short block. When I dropped it off, the conversation was about what was fast just a short period ago and what is considered fast now. Its nuts!!! Starting to feel like the guy with the flat head Ford who is cool but not fast compared to a stock looking Coyote two door short bed 4WD F150 and a Whipple running 9’s with the a/c on.

that about sums it up, what was fast in the 70's and 80's is a pooch compared with whats on the streets today.

[n2omike]

Comparing what was fast 20 years ago... and what is fast now is sort of irrelevant. He just wants to be able to keep up and possibly outrun the kids he hangs out with! lol They don't have super fast cars, but they are faster than his.

An engine burns air/fuel. The more air/fuel you can burn, the more power it will make. With only 289ci, one needs to spin it faster or use a power adder to keep up with similar cars.

A long runner intake will limit higher RPM power. It might run good up to around 6k rpm, but isn't going to win many races. To make a REAL change, he will need to do the mods required to spin it faster. 6800 rpm is ZERO issue with these engines long term. A 289 only has a 2-7/8" stroke. A 302 has a 3" stroke. If the valvetrain is good, they will rev 7k ALL DAY without issue.

Install a shorter runner intake, and LET IT REV. It's the ONLY way you are going to make significantly more power with the small cubes. This, along with a gear... and you'll be one HAPPY man.

OR...
You can be slow... and keep the long runner intake because it looked cool in the 90's...
Your choice.

[FC-Pilot]

I am surprised nobody made a plenum that bolted to the base of those intakes to make them into an EFI tunnel ram. That would make that intake into a shorter runner intake that could handle higher RPM and not hav ego change much. It could be a bolt on/swap. Unbolt your upper and bolt the new upper on. Maybe I am missing something about the intake. Just thinking outside the box.

Paul