Anyone have...

Never saw that article. Almost as interesting is the next page where the show the baseline for a '65 289-2V as having a peak of 98HP!
 
cfmustang":23kqdyrc said:
Never saw that article. Almost as interesting is the next page where the show the baseline for a '65 289-2V as having a peak of 98HP!

if you read further the guys throttle linkage was not opening all the way. After they fixed that its peak was about 140hp.
 
rommaster2":1ijyzoes said:
cfmustang":1ijyzoes said:
Never saw that article. Almost as interesting is the next page where the show the baseline for a '65 289-2V as having a peak of 98HP!

if you read further the guys throttle linkage was not opening all the way. After they fixed that its peak was about 140hp.

That sounds about right. My dad's '65 Mustang was very tired and my '78 Fairmont with a 55K mile 302 was slightly faster (rated 134 HP).

Ford used a stripped 289 and some equation magic to get the 200HP figure for '65.

Dean T
 
Yeah definetly, its kinda funny how low tech he standard motors really were. It takes very little to wake em up quite a bit :).

Shoot if ford hadnt been so cheap and had invested in a proper head it wouldn't have taken much for the 200ci to outdone or competed with a 2 barrel 289. Shoot a log headed one with bigger exhaust and carb and mild cam takes out a 2 barrel 260.
 
Back
Top