Comparison 340 / 289

LXguy said
An actual 289 "hipo" is a pretty rare bird. I'm sure a lot of guys claiming to have one are not being truthful. Also, the heads are not very good at all. Its the same casting as the regular 4V 289, only with screw in studs. The stock E7 head that comes on a 5.0 is vastly better. The stock intake manifold is the same as a regular 4V 289 also.

Another thing I've found about them is that they had a solid camshaft stock, and most people don't get that you've got to set the lash and change your valvesprings lots more regularly than you do with a hydraulic cam. Also, you have to rev the thing to make the power.

As far as riding in one, 289 and 302s are misleading. They don't make a lot of torque, so you don't really feel like you're scooting as quickly as you are.

Also, anyone running a dual quad tunnel ram on a 289/302 needs to have their reproductive capabilities revoked.

As LXguy says, The "K" code or "HiPo"289 is pretty rare and not the same as a regular 289. Putting a 4 bbl on a 289 would not make it a muscle car engine.

I have had both 340s and a real "K" 289 Mustang. I just happen to like Mopars more than everything else but that Stang was an amazing car. In stock form the "K" 289 is a nasty little motor. It was stock with solid lifters, 4.10 gears and a 4 speed. That with the headers, it was really fast especailly 0-60 where most of the stoplight action was, still not as fast as a 340 set up the same way in the 1/4.

By the time the 340 was out the "K" motor was gone so its not like a buyes could have had a choice between the two. A better comparison to the 340 would have been the "M" code 351 C.