351W vs 302 vs 289
Login  | |
|
351W vs 302 vs 289 - 5/12/2006 11:11:34 PM
|
|
|
want_66fastback
Posts: 153
Joined: 12/29/2005
Status: offline
|
For an everyday street car which engine do you all prefer. I am looking for an everyday drive with good street performance.
I read some where thet the 351W had better gas mileage than a 302 has anyone herd this as well?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 351W vs 302 vs 289 - 5/12/2006 11:15:53 PM
|
|
|
6mustang6
Posts: 3594
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
|
If you want performance go with the 351W. They are tough, and can handle massive amounts of power. A 302 can also be a real good street engine...... A 289 while great back in the early 60's just doesn't cut it anymore with HP amounts. I going to be spending good amounts of money, and i just hope to push 300 HP with my 289.
_____________________________
2000 GT Mustang Convertible
1966 Mustang coupe- all original, soon to be 4v swap.
1967 Mustang Conv- Freshly restored.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 351W vs 302 vs 289 - 5/12/2006 11:18:57 PM
|
|
|
myshifter
Posts: 1364
Joined: 5/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 6mustang6
If you want performance go with the 351W. They are tough, and can handle massive amounts of power. A 302 can also be a real good street engine...... A 289 while great back in the early 60's just doesn't cut it anymore with HP amounts. I going to be spending good amounts of money, and i just hope to push 300 HP with my 289.
351 for sure and if you put together a fairly effieicent head, intake, cam, carb combo, 300hp out of 289 inches is relatively easy. Little over 1hp per inch
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 351W vs 302 vs 289 - 5/13/2006 1:12:20 AM
|
|
|
67Rally
Posts: 237
Joined: 5/5/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 6mustang6
If you want performance go with the 351W. They are tough, and can handle massive amounts of power. A 302 can also be a real good street engine...... A 289 while great back in the early 60's just doesn't cut it anymore with HP amounts.
What kind of crap is this? a 289 doesn't cut it with HP? How does a sub 10-sec quarter mile in a 66 or 6y Stang rate not cutting it?
Some of the statements people make are laughable. Dude, I'm not attacking you, but a 289 is quite credible on today's streets against today's vehicles.
< Message edited by 67Rally -- 5/13/2006 1:35:19 AM >
_____________________________
1967 Coupe-front disc, rear drum, Shelby 10-spk rims
289 4V-Hol 1850, Ed Torker II, Erson Cam, Roller Rockers, dbl roller, MSD Pro Street dizzy- MSD 6AL - Blaster 2
Toploader-9" rear
frnt bench, dlx dash & overhead cons
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 351W vs 302 vs 289 - 5/13/2006 1:36:31 AM
|
|
|
67Rally
Posts: 237
Joined: 5/5/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Baker
No mention of a 351C makes me sad, it is the best engine Ford ever produced.
I have a Cleveland sitting in my garage, waiting for me to decide what to do with it. I also have an extra set of 4v heads.
_____________________________
1967 Coupe-front disc, rear drum, Shelby 10-spk rims
289 4V-Hol 1850, Ed Torker II, Erson Cam, Roller Rockers, dbl roller, MSD Pro Street dizzy- MSD 6AL - Blaster 2
Toploader-9" rear
frnt bench, dlx dash & overhead cons
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 351W vs 302 vs 289 - 5/13/2006 3:12:39 AM
|
|
|
NinjaMatic
Posts: 56
Joined: 5/11/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 67Rally
quote:
ORIGINAL: 6mustang6
If you want performance go with the 351W. They are tough, and can handle massive amounts of power. A 302 can also be a real good street engine...... A 289 while great back in the early 60's just doesn't cut it anymore with HP amounts.
What kind of crap is this? a 289 doesn't cut it with HP? How does a sub 10-sec quarter mile in a 66 or 6y Stang rate not cutting it?
Some of the statements people make are laughable. Dude, I'm not attacking you, but a 289 is quite credible on today's streets against today's vehicles.
I'd like to see that timeslip/video of the car if you have it. Not every classic mustang running 10's is a 289. They're good engines, don't get me wrong... but I haven't seen one pull a 10 yet. Then again... i've seen 2.4 liters pull 10's - forced induction, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 351W vs 302 vs 289 - 5/13/2006 3:23:10 AM
|
|
|
Shifty101Easy
Posts: 2707
Joined: 2/17/2005
From: San Francisco
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NinjaMatic
quote:
ORIGINAL: 67Rally
quote:
ORIGINAL: 6mustang6
If you want performance go with the 351W. They are tough, and can handle massive amounts of power. A 302 can also be a real good street engine...... A 289 while great back in the early 60's just doesn't cut it anymore with HP amounts.
What kind of crap is this? a 289 doesn't cut it with HP? How does a sub 10-sec quarter mile in a 66 or 6y Stang rate not cutting it?
Some of the statements people make are laughable. Dude, I'm not attacking you, but a 289 is quite credible on today's streets against today's vehicles.
I'd like to see that timeslip/video of the car if you have it. Not every classic mustang running 10's is a 289. They're good engines, don't get me wrong... but I haven't seen one pull a 10 yet. Then again... i've seen 2.4 liters pull 10's - forced induction, of course.
i think he meant your average 289......u know the kind.....barely pushing over 200hp to the rear wheels.....yeah.......now if your are dumping thousands into that engine, then its a whole differnt story....as it is a whole differnt engine....
_____________________________
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2453417/4
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 351W vs 302 vs 289 - 5/13/2006 4:20:31 AM
|
|
|
usmcdevilmp
Posts: 143
Joined: 4/22/2006
Status: offline
|
Stroke it!
_____________________________
Semper Fi
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 351W vs 302 vs 289 - 5/13/2006 10:43:31 AM
|
|
|
myshifter
Posts: 1364
Joined: 5/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Baker
No mention of a 351C makes me sad, it is the best engine Ford ever produced.
Ya I wouldnt go that far, thats for sure. The 4V needs massive amounts of head work, they make no low end torque, you gotta spin them to 9k to make serious power, the blocks were casted horribly and core shift was a major factor and let's not touch on the oiling system. Other than that I loved spinning them up to 8500-9000.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 351W vs 302 vs 289 - 5/13/2006 1:08:23 PM
|
|
|
6mustang6
Posts: 3594
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
|
uh yeah..... a 10 sec car....... probably bored over, stroker, and every thing else. Im talking about a 289 that doesn't have any of those thousands of dollars mods done to it. im talking, a new intake, cam, and maybe heads. If i do that to my 289, there is no way to even dream of hitting 10 seconds in it..... im not near enough rich.
_____________________________
2000 GT Mustang Convertible
1966 Mustang coupe- all original, soon to be 4v swap.
1967 Mustang Conv- Freshly restored.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 351W vs 302 vs 289 - 5/13/2006 1:11:45 PM
|
|
|
Decurion
Posts: 402
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
|
351C the best engine ford ever made? PLEASE! Edelbrock makes aluminum heads for AMC engines and Oldsmobile, but not for the Cleveland, that should say something about it. Remind me again how much heavier is it than a windsor? Its a dinosoar, let it die. I would say the best engine for your appication would be a 302 roller with gt40 heads or something similar. Also since you say its your daily driver, and you didnt mention if you have power steering or not, but remember that the 351w is about 125 lbs heavier than a similar 302 which you may notice with manual steering. Also dont forget the clearance for the shock towers. Either 351 (particularly C, but W too) is going to be wider and make it a bitch to change things like spark plugs and installing headers.
< Message edited by Decurion -- 5/13/2006 1:13:11 PM >
_____________________________
-Eric
65 Falcon wagon, 5.0L, t5, 3.55 8", for show
65 Comet wagon, 302, c4, 3.55 9", for go
|
|
|
|
|
Printable Version
