I have no time ever, but I ported 65' 289 heads 1.94/1.60 using David Vizard's techniques. Stock bottom 302h.o, cam,rollers,ported RPM manifold etc. Feels like a hopped up big block. Need to dyno but in a Ford Maverick, wild ride to say the least.
well, ref your comment on Weber's, I was pretty happy with the 640 ft-lbs of torque you squeezed out of my engine with a mild cam and lower (10.5:1 compression)! It's a rocket on acceleration! (and yes, they do look cool, I get lots & lots of positive comments). Hope all is well with you and I love what you built for me!
@@lykinsmotorsports what size cam? I wanted to duplicate the build with my dad when I was in HS. That cam was fairly loppy but learned big is not always best
Some quick math yields a compression height of 1.055." That's totally doable with an NA engine, utilizing a thin crown and a tight right package. Awesome stuff!
Hey Brent another awesome build. You are such a perfectionist and as always the numbers show this once dyno time comes!,, These small blocks are just the cutest thing but also able to provide stout power! My GM mates could not believe how well my little 302 used to go in my Falcon. Keep the great builds coming. Jon from Downunder
Currently for FIA spec (as enforced in Europe) it's standard non rail rockers, no titanium valves or retainers and valve sizes as per FIA homologation( 1.88/1.64). I think cam lift/dur is free but since you have to have the standard rocker and a 7k rpm limit (mandatory MSD chip) you are limited anyway. Period blocks only( at least that's what the casting number says!).
Cam limited to .500 lift, what ratio rockers were allowed? ...wish Ford would have lengthened the 289 cylinders, and beefed up the lifter valley, like they did for the 302.
hi i always thought webers on 351c helped low end response? so i am a little curious on your statement here, is it a 289 thing you are speaking of?. tks for all the vids solid work!
The hp numbers are very impressive do you think that the 5.7 rod was the biggest difference in making such good numbers the and did the stock stroke crank weigh in similar to stock and also the attention to detail is appreciated
![*SUPER RARE* THE PARADIGM IS BACK?!?!? Fortnite Item Shop [August 6th, 2024] (Fortnite Chapter 5)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ru6xSH1RaPw/mqdefault.jpg)
I have no time ever, but I ported 65' 289 heads 1.94/1.60 using David Vizard's techniques. Stock bottom 302h.o, cam,rollers,ported RPM manifold etc. Feels like a hopped up big block. Need to dyno but in a Ford Maverick, wild ride to say the least.
A lot more power than I thought it would make with those heads.
well, ref your comment on Weber's, I was pretty happy with the 640 ft-lbs of torque you squeezed out of my engine with a mild cam and lower (10.5:1 compression)! It's a rocket on acceleration! (and yes, they do look cool, I get lots & lots of positive comments). Hope all is well with you and I love what you built for me!
Hey Dennis! Yes, your engine with a Performer RPM and less cam will make 640 hp and 640 lbft. But the Webers are eye candy.
@@lykinsmotorsports what size cam? I wanted to duplicate the build with my dad when I was in HS. That cam was fairly loppy but learned big is not always best
Some quick math yields a compression height of 1.055." That's totally doable with an NA engine, utilizing a thin crown and a tight right package. Awesome stuff!
Nifty engine in its day!! They were preety class perfect back then.. The look was great with 4 Webers..
Hey Brent another awesome build. You are such a perfectionist and as always the numbers show this once dyno time comes!,, These small blocks are just the cutest thing but also able to provide stout power! My GM mates could not believe how well my little 302 used to go in my Falcon.
Keep the great builds coming. Jon from Downunder
Ready to start on a 289 project and like your builds. 400 hp be perfect
"very" nice build..!..!..IMO...one of fords best motors...excelant #'s on the dyno...!...!...!..for a little 292...!
Cut my teeth in on these little engines. Seems like a lifetime ago.
Currently for FIA spec (as enforced in Europe) it's standard non rail rockers, no titanium valves or retainers and valve sizes as per FIA homologation( 1.88/1.64). I think cam lift/dur is free but since you have to have the standard rocker and a 7k rpm limit (mandatory MSD chip) you are limited anyway. Period blocks only( at least that's what the casting number says!).
The little Ford engine must have ended up on one of those nasty Shelby Cobras. With just over 400 HP, what a ride !
Wow great hp and tq for that build size and compression.
Great numbers and a beautiful build. Thanks.
Such a sweet sound.
You built one pretty small block. Great numbers too.
Nice! If I had more money that is how I would have built mine.
I guessed about 375 H.P., which would have been similar to "back-in-the-day".
One word... WOW!!!!!..... 🙂👍
Thanks Brent!
Thanks for sharing.
Cam limited to .500 lift, what ratio rockers were allowed? ...wish Ford would have lengthened the 289 cylinders, and beefed up the lifter valley, like they did for the 302.
Very nice 👌. Any idea what kind of power this would make back in period in a Cobra or GT350?
hi i always thought webers on 351c helped low end response? so i am a little curious on your statement here, is it a 289 thing you are speaking of?. tks for all the vids solid work!
Wives tale that a Weber setup is superior to a correctly-spec'd intake/carb setup.
Weber's on a track will obliterate a single plane.
As with all generalizations, it's wrong. :-)
The hp numbers are very impressive do you think that the 5.7 rod was the biggest difference in making such good numbers the and did the stock stroke crank weigh in similar to stock and also the attention to detail is appreciated
What size are the valves?