Posted by dwayne (IP: 209.239.30.216) on July 11, 1999 at 23:35:26:
In Reply to: 289s do NOT make more power than 302s... posted by T.L. on July 06, 1999 at 02:51:15:
: : I have a 65 stang with a 289,Ive owned 302's also..I think the 289 has a hell of alot more power.And its pretty much stock.The only mods to my 289 are,bored 30 over/with a 4 barrel/and aluminum intake..it seems like it has the horsepower alot quicker on take off than 302's do..
: :
: : : More stroke more torque ,( but some 289s did have some better valve
: Assuming both engines are set-up the same...
:
: sizes in them)its been a while since iv done one but i think tht the only difference are the piston skirts. someone please correct me if im wrong!!
:
: : : : Talking to someone today and he said that a 289 will bolt up to a mav without any modification...
: : : : advantages? disadvantages??
:i`m lead to believe that the engines in 69 were the ones to get as far as power goes. but i`ve owned an 81 mustang that had a 302 with 66 hypo heads and a 650 double-pumper and dual exhaust that chewed up everything out there. the one problem i found with older engines is that they don`t like living on unleaded gas. but if your looking for the best bang for the buck, i`d suggest carburating a 87 to 93 302 HO. check into it, its worth it.