A good friend of mine came over this weekend with his 65 mustang. Its a nice restoration with the "hot" 289 in it. I helped him tune it up and we took it out for a rip. I was surprised at how gutless it was even with all the bolt on upgrades. My old bone stock 340's would have put that motor to shame and I'm sure my Dads 273 commando barracuda would have eaten that thing alive. Were all the "hot" 289's turds back in those days? I took him out for a rip in my dart and sent him home sliding into depression. I kind of feel bad about it now LOL.
Comparison 340 / 289
- Thread starter 1969GTS
- Start date
-
LIE'S!!!!!!!!! Oh wait, I missed the LOL!!!
Good man, good man! Send him home cryin. That engine is suffering from a serious displacement issue. Great for people moving, but that's it.
mikedevore
Well-Known Member
In Short, Yes They Were Turds. As Most Of The Muscle Car Fords Were. To Me Ford Always Had Fast Race Cars, But It Never Translated Into The Street Cars. My Buddy Had A 69 Mach 1 With A 390 & 4-speed. My 69 340-auto Swinger Would Clean Its Clock. I Remember Racing A Guy With Boss 302 70 Stang. I Had Been Told That These Were Bad To The Bone, 4-car Links Later, He Knew What The Swinger Looked Like From The Rear. Another Freind Had A 67 390 Gt Stang 4-speed, It Got Smoked By A Mild 327 Small Block In A 55 Chevy. I Got A Chance To Ride In A Low Mile 428 Shelby Mustang Once, What A Joke. Now I'm Not Saying You Can't Build A Fast One, But The Stock Stuff Just Don't Cut It. To Me, Ford Didn't Get It Right Until The Fox Body Mustangs. A Freind Of Mine Purchased A New One In 1983, It Reminded Me Of My Swinger When I Drove It. Now The Chevy Stuff Was Somewhat Quick, If You Just Keep It From Breaking.
darndart
Well-Known Member
I remember back in the day, I ran my basicly stock 340 Demon against a supposibly "Hot 289" in a stripped out 63 Falcon, he had 12:1 compression, tunnel ram with 2-4Bbls, 4 speed, 4.56 gears, etc.,etc. I thought for sure I would get beat bad, but at the end of the 1/4 I had a whole car on him. And to make matters worse, he slammed on his 4 wheel drum brakes and almost side swiped my car! If there was ever a 390 Mustang that wanted to race, I was first in line to get a peice of that! Never lost to a single one. I do agree with (mikedevore) the fox body Mustangs were sweet, I have 2 myself and love them!
I was surprised that from a dead stop when he planted the gas it would only give up a little chirp. Even after we sorted out his timing he couldn't burnout. I guess they were the Mazda Miata of the day. He seemed scared when I took the Dart through all three gears with the tac light going off. When I hit second and the Dart did a little two step with the loss of traction he said "Holy F@#K" and grabbed the dash pad. Pony car vs Muscle car.
daredevil
Well-Known Member
not a ford man myself but my dad had a 70 mach 1 with a cleveland and a few upgrades that 340s wouldnt touch in the 70s. the runners in the heads are as big as rb runners. next time youre in a big machine shop take a look. the cleveland heads are impressive. ok now you can jump all over me.lol
A buddy of mine is a big ford guy and loves the 351 cleveland. I've seen him build a few, one of which went into a Pantera ...... big ports for sure. The 390 was a boat anchor though, I devastated every 390 I ran up against.
MopaR&D
Nerd Member
My neighbor has a '70 Mach 1 with a 351 Cleveland and he says he keeps up with most modern Vette's no problem. He also has a 289-2V powered '67 or '68 coupe and I'm sure that thing is pretty slow.
motorpirate
serial mopar owner
In 1984 I changed high schools.The "BIG DOG" at my new school had a '66 fastback Mustang,289 4spd,4bb"doublepumper",headers.
He was always trying to get me to race him in my '66 cuda,273 2bb auto single exaust.
One night he pulled up next to me at the traffic light in front of the local hangout and yelled THAT IS THE BIGGEST SUPIDEST BACK WINDOW I EVER SAW!!!I said 'it'll look smaller in a second". it did,and he never spoke to me
again!!
He was always trying to get me to race him in my '66 cuda,273 2bb auto single exaust.
One night he pulled up next to me at the traffic light in front of the local hangout and yelled THAT IS THE BIGGEST SUPIDEST BACK WINDOW I EVER SAW!!!I said 'it'll look smaller in a second". it did,and he never spoke to me
again!!
Great anecdote. My Dad had a 66 Barracuda S when I was a kid. I always thought it was a quick little car. My high school girlfriend and I loved the fold down rear seat and "big window" when I was lucky enough to borrow it. They were not my number one choice for an A body but I sure have fond mammaries "Freudian slip" of them.
SCredneck
LARGE member
The 289 was just a turd. It might run forever, but it would run like stink forever. A buddy on mine in high school had a 67 'stang with "hot" 289. I had a 64 1/2 "stang with 200 straight 6 and C4 auto. Kept him PO'd for 3 years b/c his 289 could never beat my straight 6.
Longgone
John/68 Barracuda & Dart
I had a 70 Mustang Mach 1 with a 351 Cleveland and as others have said it was fairly quick. Stock it was real good competition for a stock 340 Dart. My brother had a Mustang with a 289 and when stock it was a pig but with a decent solid cam and 4.11 gear it was really good for a hole shot but still not much once you got going. The Boss 302 engines are super high winding solid cam engines with a big set of Cleveland-like heads and again really good for hole shots and road tracks but not that much in the 1320.
ramcharger
Dismember
The 351C was one hell of an engine. Canted valves, big ports and valves right from the factory. 2.05" I and 1.65" E on the 2 bbl version and 2.19" I and 1.71" E on the 4 bbl heads. They were impressive. The ports on the 4bbl heads were HUGE! They could be had in a closed chamber version too.
cudavert
DARTAHOLIC
Don't decently warmed over 289's run in the high 14's? I think they do all right.....I've always heard early SB Fords have lousy exhaust ports, but hey....a 5.0 is just a punched out 289....and they're considered "giant killers". I'll bet a 289 with the right heads would be pretty competitive, for it's displacement, but not with those 60's heads. And I agree, those FE's (352, 390, 410, 428.....maybe not the 427) tend to be almost a joke.
cudavert
DARTAHOLIC
Oh yeah....it seems like I also heard that those 4-barrel Cleveland heads are actually TOO big, and many people recommend the 2-barrel heads for the street. Ford.......just can't seem to get it right....:-D
I used to know a few old time Ford men that raced Fords very well back in the day. The Cleveland 4v head is not just to big for the street, but way to big for the street never mind for passenger car service. The 2v head is they head to use for most applications.
While the 4v Cleveland head has alot of good points for racing, it also has to be worked on in a very particular manor. (I was told this and not given insight, after all, who cares, it's not a MoPar.)
This head was more or less, in a monor of speaking, (SP! coming) Homologated for racing. (Told you about that SP!)
Super Stock days required these things.
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:
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:
mikedevore
Well-Known Member
I OUT RAN ONE OF THOSE ALSO, A 70 351C-4V MACH 1. THE KEY WORD HERE IS "UPGRADES" TO OUT RUN A 340.
Dartnewbie
Former Dart owner
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 407
- Reaction score
- 0
I bought a 70 Mustang Grande with a 351c-2v from a guy who said the engine was toast. Turned out half the plugs weren't firing. Changed them out and it ran great. Had a FMX auto in it and chirpped the tires going into 2nd gear. Was a fun car. Now if I can only get my /6 1bbl to do the same thing.:cheers:
cuda65vpt
cuda65vpt
I used to know a Rat-pack guy that had a 64 Falcon Sprint with the 289HP in it. I don't know what he did to that motor but it would chirp when he hit 4th. I could beat him easy with my 318 4 speed 70 Barracuda though because he couldn't get enough traction.
I ran a modified 340 Dart back in the day. (60's early 70's) I always had fun woopin' up on the 289, 302, 351, 427 and 428 Furds. Was never beat by a small block Ford. Now the 427 was a different story. Got my a$$ handed to me by a couple of those. LOL
Outsider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
- Messages
- 514
- Reaction score
- 3
Since you mentioned "back in the day". I grew up street racing in Ford and Chevy country. In ANY kind of drag race, street or strip... I would gamble HEAVILY against a 340 Mopar vs a 428 CJ Ford. 428 CJ's were BAD motor scooters. 351 C Fords were excellent competition with 340 Mopars, stock...but the Mopars were like the Chevys, and had alot of fantastic performance upgrades readily available. If anyone was foolish enough to leave their hood open, I'd just look to see if the motor had been opened up, and I'd place my bets accordingly.
289s weren't "turds". 289 motors shouldn't be compared to 340s. They should be compared to 273s, and there is none. 289s whooped the 273s with little effort. Hence the abandoned D/Dart program.
289s weren't "turds". 289 motors shouldn't be compared to 340s. They should be compared to 273s, and there is none. 289s whooped the 273s with little effort. Hence the abandoned D/Dart program.
BWDart
Well-Known Member
A friend of mine in hs had a 67 rustang with a built 390, and I mean built, 4 speed car, sounded like a 10 sec car, ran low 14's, very disappointing. I could keep up fender to fender with mach 1 mustangs with my 56 chev wagon 3800# and basically stock 283 4 speed.
65barracudadude
Well-Known Member
I'm glad people brought up these issues here. I've raced a basically stock 289 in a '65 Falcon Sprint. 4 speed. All the motor had was a good intake,carb,and headers. It ran mid 14's all day with 300 gears. It was NO SLUG!!! And a 390 GT motor or a 428 CJ are BAD *** MOTORS!!!!! I dont care what anyone say's. I KNOW!!! I've been MOPAR my whole 35 years of being into cars. My older brother has been strictly FORD. He has had his '68 Torino GT Fast back his whole life with the 390 GT motor. And he now has a 428 CJ in it. He has never had to really do anything inside the motor on either one of them. He runs high 13's to low 14's all day with the original set up in that heavy of a car. 428 Cobra Jet, C-6, 9" "posi" 391 gears. Now for the 351 Cleveland. My uncle is still building race Fords. Back in the day, he did 351 Cleveland's. I rode in his 3/4 '63 Ford full size truck. He put a built 351 Cleveland in it with a small block C-6. 9" "posi" with 411 gears. THAT TRUCK WAS THE FASTEST DAMN THING I EVER RODE IN FOR MANY YEARS!!!! No one could touch it. And this is coming from me, who dispite all of the first hand, life long proof, that these particular Fords were a force to be recon with, decided at the age of 13 to go get me a '65 commando 273 barracuda. And anyone who wants to go ahead and say that the commando motor couldn't stand up to the 289 HP should re-think their comment. Remember the Falcon Sprint that I mentioned earlier?? I beat it at SIR drag way with my commando 273 STOCK!!! The only thing was though, I had the 8 3/4 under my car with 410 gears. And my car had better handling package and such. Sway bars,disk brakes,ect. Not like that mattered. The thing was is he had a 4/speed with crap gears. My original commando 273 was the best motor I've ever owned. 42,00 original "grandma" miles on it. I'm thinking that "grandpa" must have ordered the options on that car.
-
