Mercury Cougar Owners banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
49 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I am considering the engine to replace my worn out 289 4 barrel in my 67.

I just bought another C4 from WCCC so I can rebuilt it with some upgrades, then rebuild my original C4 stock and put it aside for safe keeping.

I want to do the same with the engine: get another 289 to upgrade, and swap it in, then I can have my original 289 rebuilt to stock and set aside for safe keeping.

I already have the closed chamber 2V Cleveland Aussie heads in the garage along with the boss style intake to put Cleveland heads on a Windsor block, and roller rockers for a Clevor hybrid to be built.

I am thinking of porting the 2V heads and building a really high turning "Boss" 289.

For some reason, a high rpm 289 sounds different than a high rpm 302 to me, and I like the sound of the 289 better.

Anyone tried this attempt before?

If you look up a user named svo65 on youtube and listen to his 289 on the chassis dyno, I am in love with the sound of that car at high rpm.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
11,000 Posts
The problem is that the Boss style heads work very poorly on a Boss 302 until it hits some pretty high RPM. There is just no torque at low RPM. With a 289 they would be even worse.

Best bet if the object is to have a car that is fun to drive get some cubic inches in there that match the breathing potentiaal of the heads. 351CI is a good place to start. 408 is better.


I am considering the engine to replace my worn out 289 4 barrel in my 67.

I just bought another C4 from WCCC so I can rebuilt it with some upgrades, then rebuild my original C4 stock and put it aside for safe keeping.

I want to do the same with the engine: get another 289 to upgrade, and swap it in, then I can have my original 289 rebuilt to stock and set aside for safe keeping.

I already have the closed chamber 2V Cleveland Aussie heads in the garage along with the boss style intake to put Cleveland heads on a Windsor block, and roller rockers for a Clevor hybrid to be built.

I am thinking of porting the 2V heads and building a really high turning "Boss" 289.

For some reason, a high rpm 289 sounds different than a high rpm 302 to me, and I like the sound of the 289 better.

Anyone tried this attempt before?

If you look up a user named svo65 on youtube and listen to his 289 on the chassis dyno, I am in love with the sound of that car at high rpm.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,142 Posts
You can probably snag a set of junk 351 2v heads cheap...but when you add up all the costs to make the engine rev like in the video (engine balancing,trans component mods for oiling) you're going to have a fortune in the build. I would recommend the Afr185 heads or similar and keep the revs down.
If you want support for your build go check out the 351c forum on the net. Lots of experienced advisors on that board
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
49 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Like I said, they are the 2V Aussie heads, meaning same port size as standard open chamber 351 cleveland heads. They just have tiny chambers for a higher compression ratio and better quench.

I was hoping the 289 winding up would be able to get the port velocities up enough to make it work.

I have no problem taking the time to blueprint and balance the engine myself to get it in to the 7000 RPM range.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
11,000 Posts
Starting with a 289 on the basis of using those heads is like pulling a plug wire to make it more interesting. If you start with a 351W or 351C and run it to 7000 RPM it will cost about the same and yield 50 more horsepower at any RPM.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
646 Posts
Gotta go with Royce on this. Remember the only substitute for cubic inches is cubic bucks!

BTW they only went with a 302 in the Boss 302 due to displacement rules for trans am.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
49 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Okay, the aussie heads will stay reserved for porting and putting on the 400 in my pickup then. Was just curious as to what might work and what wouldn't since I have the clevor conversion parts.

Back to the drawing board.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,518 Posts
Hell I like the idea. They will bolt right up (just need some spacers sleeves for the smaller head bolts), and drill and tap the heads for the water to flow where you need it.

It may not be the most economical build, but it would be a cool one. The little 289 would probably spin to 8 grand or well above with the right cam. It wouldn't be the most streetable engine on the road, but it would be a fun one.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,577 Posts
If it were me (a 351C guy), I would put the 302C heads on a 351C with .080" Cometic head gaskets for a true 10:1 which will run on pump premium. Yeah, that's the ticket! (and it's also what's in my 'Coug) :buck:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,279 Posts
7000rpm's and a 17 second ET
Big heavy car and an itty bitty motor.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
49 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
If it were me (a 351C guy), I would put the 302C heads on a 351C with .080" Cometic head gaskets for a true 10:1 which will run on pump premium. Yeah, that's the ticket! (and it's also what's in my 'Coug) :buck:

Yeah, my first vehicle I ever owned, the 77 F150 4X4 had the 351M in it, so I know my way around Clevelands. I managed to crack the block at a motor mount in it, so it now runs a 416 (400 bored .060) with the stock open chamber 2V heads but with a roller rocker conversion, mild cam, weiand intake and 600cfm Holley. That is a torque monster. I used to have a 750 Holley on it that would let it wind up faster, but it was unpredictable for how it would react in the low RPM range.

The closed chambers will end up on it, but that will have to be after a piston swap to get the piston face up higher to the deck at TDC. No use putting the closed chambers on it with the piston so far down in the hole.
Of course, Tmeyer sells the 434 stroker kit for the 400 block.........

The Cougar is my first time dealing with Windsor style engines, so I am learning as I go.

All I ask is to win the Powerball just once, I'm not greedy, just once, then I can order my Ford Racing Boss block 302 to put in the Cougar and not worry about building an engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
With the aftermarket support better for the "Clevor" engines I spent some time looking into this.. I wouldn't say don't do it just because it's a 289 but I have to say that from what I have read everyone's feedback is pretty bang on. You will have a brutal lag on the low end or maybe go crazy and run a 3500/4000 stall heh. Fact is though the cleveland heads on a small cube 289, although cool, just wouldnt have the displacement to take advantage of the huge ports. I was almost sold on doing a boss 351 "clevor" stroker for a while. The "Cool" factor of having the cleveland heads and intake on a 393 windsor stroker was just neat and I still like the idea. Fact is though everytime I would want to do something I would be limited on my intake and head choices. And you cant get away from the fact that just about any aftermarket set of aluminum heads is going to be better.

In the end, would a BOSS 289 be cool? uh huh :) I love the concept. Would you be able to get waaaay more bang for the same dollars on a boss 351 or 351 stroker? yup :) Reliable stroker kits are so affordable now (Scat and Probe for example) you can throw together a high winding small block for probably much less than it would take to get similar numbers out of the much smaller cubed 289.

But in the end I firmly believe you need to do whatever the hell you think is fun. heh.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
170 Posts
I pulled my 289 last week and after looking into building it up I decided instead to oil it up, stash it away and buy a crate engine. Ford Racing has very nice engines, the M-6007-X302 in particular has caught my attention, and will probably be what I end up buying, but there are some incredible Ford stroker engines on eBay.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
For what it's worth, I have run a Boss 302 ( 1969 vintage) in my '65 Mustang fastback for years. It flat out screams. Make sure you have a good steel crank and some good rods. I'm running a 3.89 rear gear with a wide ratio toploader and big tube headers.. The lag thing is bull****. It runs with anything comparable ...until it hits about 5K, then it really winds up. I went from a solid lifter flat tappet to an all roller valvetrain this time. I haven't fired it yet with that combination. I say go for it. The Aussie heads will work great ( I have a set for my 400 in my Ranchero). Best of luck on this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,883 Posts
Well, the 3.89's in your car help it get up on the cam. Once it's up, you just row the gears right and keep it there.
Royce is also very spoiled by big block torque in his 427 and 428+ cid cars. The wind up of the wee boss probably does feel weak to him. He's used to being hit by Mean Joe Green when he punches it.

I agree that the boss '2 isn't that tepid down low, but giving up cubes to a 289 displacement (from a 302) is making a marginal situation even more so.
If one wanted to build one of these, a 331 setup with the right pistons (for the canted valve heads) would be an interesting way to go, if one desired the small size of the wee-windsor block in the engine bay for ease of maintenance.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
11,000 Posts
How many Boss 302's do you own?
Well, the 3.89's in your car help it get up on the cam. Once it's up, you just row the gears right and keep it there.
Royce is also very spoiled by big block torque in his 427 and 428+ cid cars. The wind up of the wee boss probably does feel weak to him. He's used to being hit by Mean Joe Green when he punches it.

I agree that the boss '2 isn't that tepid down low, but giving up cubes to a 289 displacement (from a 302) is making a marginal situation even more so.
If one wanted to build one of these, a 331 setup with the right pistons (for the canted valve heads) would be an interesting way to go, if one desired the small size of the wee-windsor block in the engine bay for ease of maintenance.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top