Comparison 340 / 289

The 289 in that Mustang must have had a very poor engine combination or very lazy timing. Back in high school I had a friend and his dad owned the Ford dealership in Maysville, Ky. His car was a 2+2 fastback K-code with the 289 Hi-Perf engine, C4 and an 8" rear with 4.11 gears. It ran with the 327/300 HP Chevelles that my other friends had. It was very respectable and ran low 13s at the strip in Clay City (with slicks).
I owned a '70 Mustang Mach 1 with the 351 Cleveland 4-barrel, 4-spd and 3.90 in the 9" locker. Guys, it really hauled *** and revved easily to 7,000 rpm. It's one of the cars I wish I had never sold but a collector offered me twice what I paid for it so I let it go. The man was generally right when he said there were some fast Ford race cars but the results never really made it to the streets. It amazes me how many muscle cars Ford put out and MOST did not have lockers in the rear!! You couldn't get my old friend Don Nicholson out of a Ford, especially after Jon Kaase came on board! Others ran great too like Fast Eddie Schartman, Hubert Platt, Phil Bonner, Roger Gustin and more back in the early days of Super Stock.
I think the Mopar 340 rates as one of the all time best small blocks of any brand. That big old 4.040 bore and that 3.91 stroke let it really buzz up. They respond to every modification that is sensibly done and they are very durable. I have seen them beat a lot of big blocks! I don't like the crazy banking angle of the lifters held over from the early hemis. I don't like that they don't have enough head bolts when you start adding compression. I have had my hot 340 push out the gaskets so badly that pressure forced into the water jackets blew out a freeze plug!
289 VS 340? No comparison!
Pat:cheers: