289 vs 318 ..... Ford vs Mopar

FoMoCo vs Mopar

  • 289 - rated 210 hp

    Votes: 18 46.2%

  • 318 - rated 230

    Votes: 21 53.8%
  • Total voters
    39
-
289s have always impressed me. For such a small displacement they make can make some serious power. I remember years ago at the local drag strip there was a 64ish notch back mustang in the gear jammers class that would stay on the back tires for as long as he wanted. It was powered by a 289.
 
Something I have seen on the dyno is the 289 makes 200 to 220 hp but makes 300 to 320 tq. witch I think is impressive for the size.
If I told you what the new one for the Fairlane makes you'd call me names and throw rocks at me. The one thing about the W Ford motors is the amount of aftermarket parts available is nuts.
 
Last edited:
Another factor.....
  • autolite 2100 was rated at 287 cfm's feeding 289 C.I.
  • Carter BBD was rated at 280 cfm's feeding 318 C.I.
 
318willrun said:
Another factor.....
  • autolite 2100 was rated at 287 cfm's feeding 289 C.I.
  • Carter BBD was rated at 280 cfm's feeding 318 C.I.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I think that Ford, Chevy, mopar all have good engines that have potential in making power. I think it all comes down to personal preference and what you are wanting to do with your car and the budget you have to work with. It's a known fact that the mustang's of the mid to late 80's responded well to just simply basic bolt ons. A friend of mine had a 1989 mustang that ran a flat 14 et and he only had bolt ons, 3.55's, cat back exhaust.
 
Dan the man said:
Honestly, I think that Ford, Chevy, mopar all have good engines that have potential in making power. I think it all comes down to personal preference and what you are wanting to do with your car and the budget you have to work with. It's a known fact that the mustang's of the mid to late 80's responded well to just simply basic bolt ons. A friend of mine had a 1989 mustang that ran a flat 14 et and he only had bolt ons, 3.55's, cat back exhaust.
Click to expand...
Some truth, but some is fact. For sure they can all be made to be fast !! I think from the mid 1980's on down, it mattered what brand you bought for durability, and reliability. Personally, I've seen more small block chivies with rods hanging out the oil pan, and none on any other brand. I'm talk'n stock short blocks.
 
318willrun said:
Some truth, but some is fact. For sure they can all be made to be fast !! I think from the mid 1980's on down, it mattered what brand you bought for durability, and reliability. Personally, I've seen more small block chivies with rods hanging out the oil pan, and none on any other brand. I'm talk'n stock short blocks.
Click to expand...
Same here, I think that's because people who owned them would spin them like a chain saw, everyone thinks that you have to launch your car at 7k. The small block Chevys are known as hangernades
 
Don't forget when comparing them that the 289 was produced earlier and must have had higher compression. So combined with higher gears it's not such a good comparison.
 
TF360 said:
Don't forget when comparing them that the 289 was produced earlier and must have had higher compression. So combined with higher gears it's not such a good comparison.
Click to expand...

TF360 said:
To the 318 in a Duster
Click to expand...
The very early LA 318's had a little better compression, but certainly the 289's had better compression than the '72 and up 318's. Also keep in mind, the 289 is giving up 29 cubic inches to the 318 as well.
 
I have thrown some parts out of both Chevy and Ford motors. I have never (probably shouldn't say this) thrown any parts out of the bottom of a Mopar engine. Yes, I know it can be done but, I feel it's much harder to do in a Mopar engine and, here is why....Rod angle, look at how much wider Mopar engines (big block and small blocks) are than the competition. The width of the engines make it much easier on the rods under load and rpm to push the piston back up the cylinder. The Ford small blocks are almost unnatural on how up and down the cylinders are and, makes more likely to put some parts on the outside of the engine...lol Rod angle, in my eyes the same reason the slant six is...well...slanted.
 
cojohnso said:
But how come most every Ford small block I saw opened up stank with old oil sludge? General engine builders would say due to flat spots in their oil galleries. Thus they didn't have the best reputation of longevity? 318s ran forever.
Click to expand...
I wirked on one years ago snd it had mucho
Gu k in the lifters ballet.COM0LIMENTS OF Quaker State
 
An SCCA member I talked with in the early '90s showed me pics of his (I think) '66/273- 4V/auto Dart.
He bought it new, and used it to flat tow his Bug-eye Sprite. Anyway, what stuck with me were his comments about competing in autocross events with the Dart. Said the car was more than a match for any 289 'stang!
 
Last edited:
Not too knowledgeable about 289 or garden variety 302’s, but the 351c, killer flowing heads.
 
When I was a young kid the fastest car around was a 65 falcon. It was a 289 and it had a tunnel ram sticking out of the hood. Man could that guy shift a 4 speed.
 
One downfall of the 289 302 351W was the nilon tooth stock timming gear.

Of you have one and your approaching 160,000 miles better change it or you will have canted valves. ( The milage number came out of a SB Ford book and my own personal experience) pigtail shaped pushrods and canted valved
 
Last edited:
Dana67Dart said:
One downfall of the 289 303 351W was the nilon tooth stock timming gear.

Of you have one and your approaching 160,000 miles better change it or you will have canted valves. ( The milage number came out of a SB Ford book and my own personal experience) pigtail shaped pushrods and canted valved
Click to expand...
318's had the nylon cam gear as well... I don't trust either one!
 
I was just looking at the specs of 289

220hp (4bbl) really short stroke, huge piston

IIRC
273 (4bbl is 230)
 
289's had tiny exhaust ports. 69 351w 4v heads are a 40hp bolt on over 289 HP heads. Good heads really help a Windsors.
 
20210914_090702.jpg
Heard about this 65 Falcon in the early 70s. It had quite a reputation. The owner had this and a 67 Corvette fastback. In 1974, he was getting married and sold both. I bought the Falcon Futura 289. Heads were ported into water passages, heated in a foundry and welded. Chevy intake valves were turned down to 1.94", 1 5/8" exhaust valves. Racer Brown .525 lift solid lifter cam with 1.6 Chevy rockers, Holley 800 cfm double pumper, cranking cylinder pressure was 225 lbs.. Unhook the exhaust pipes and it sounded like the early funny cars. Some kind of made up T10 sprint car 4 speed trans from Holman-Moody. Early 8.75 Chrysler with 4.10 and Chrysler Super Stock springs and pinion snubber with added crossmember. In 1975, I had the builder move the frame rails in and widened the tubs 3". I bought 4 6" Cragar SS and had the rears widened to 9". Goodyear Polyglas F70s front and L60s rear. Car weighed 2840 lbs with 1/2 tank gas. Don't know any hp or torque but I could let the clutch out and just start rolling, then stomp it to the floor and it would pull like a 440. Then at about 6500 rpm, those L60 would bust loose. Ride it out until it stopped spinning, at 8000rpm yank 2nd and repeat, then chirp the tires hard in 3rd. I hung out with mostly 440 Mopar a-body drag racers and even they were impressed.
 
Last edited:
roccodart440 said:
The true comparison here would be a 289 vs 273, especially the HiPo versions. 271hp for the 289 for HiPo, unsure what the best 273 mopar put out.

Anyhow, my car used to have a warmed over 318 originally and i've been in my cousins comet with a 271hipo. Definitely would be interesting.
Click to expand...
275 HP 273 was the D-Dart build.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top