289 hipo - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Engine
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 05-23-2006, 09:18 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: sherman,il
Posts: 3
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
289 hipo

just need to know what the big deal is over a 289 hipo engine are they that powerfull.i work with a guy that has a very sweet 66 gt350 with a 289 hipo thats all he talks about he even bought another engine that needs rebuilt for big bucks.just trying to understand thanks ken.

    Advertisement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05-23-2006, 09:29 PM
lelandl's Avatar
Fiero2M8
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Dartmouth,Nova Scotia
Posts: 51
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
It all depends on your likes. The 289 hipo was a sweet little engine. 271HP and 306HP in Shelby form. Solids, aluminium intake, 480cfm? 4bbl, high flowing cast iron exhaust, dual points, 3/8 rod bolts, forged rods (The rod length was used for the Boss 302)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2006, 11:11 AM
crazy larry's Avatar
Member
 

Last journal entry: better comparison before and after shots
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: East Texas
Age: 43
Posts: 2,298
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
bottom line.

'65-'67 2V rated @ 200 hp
'65-'67 4V rated @ 225 hp
'63-'67 HP rated @ 271 hp


Last edited by crazy larry; 05-24-2006 at 11:13 AM. Reason: *according to my sources....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2006, 12:31 PM
brainsboy's Avatar
brains
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: tampa
Age: 42
Posts: 988
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I believe they had their own heads too.

Why is it special? Its special from a collectors standpoint. Because during the muscle car era, you had muscle cars, but then you had High performance versions. Dodge had a 340 4bbl, but then it had the race version 340 six pack. Ford had 289's with 4bbl's, but then it had the race version "HIPO". Ford also had the 302, then they made one with cleveland heads it was called the "TRANS AM", but just as it was released Pontiac used the name and patend it, so ford changed it to the 'BOSS 302'.

Last edited by brainsboy; 05-25-2006 at 07:00 AM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2006, 02:23 PM
lelandl's Avatar
Fiero2M8
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Dartmouth,Nova Scotia
Posts: 51
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by brainsboy
I believe they had their own heads too.

Why is it special? Its special from a collectors standpoint. Because during the muscle car era, you has muscle cars, but then you had High performance versions. Dodge had a 340 4bbl, but then it had the race version 340 six pack. Ford had 289's with 4bbl's, but then it had the race version "HIPO". Ford also had the 302, then they made one with cleveland heads it was called the "TRANS AM", but just as it was release Pontiac used the name and patend it, so ford changed it to the 'BOSS 302'.
I don't remeber them having different heads. The build sheet I have shows the same heads with 1.780 intakes and 1.45 exhaust. Compression was 11.6 for '63 and 10.5 for 64-67 due to the different chamber sizes. (48-51CC for 63, 52-55 for 64+)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2006, 03:10 PM
brainsboy's Avatar
brains
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: tampa
Age: 42
Posts: 988
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
just found a site on it, they did have their own heads

http://www.hipomustang.com/images/hipoeng/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2006, 05:14 PM
lelandl's Avatar
Fiero2M8
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Dartmouth,Nova Scotia
Posts: 51
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by brainsboy
just found a site on it, they did have their own heads

http://www.hipomustang.com/images/hipoeng/
I thought you meant they had special ports or something to make the heads unique to the HP. You are correct in that they had the screw in studs and the spring cups (I didn't remember the cups). But the heads themselves were the regular 289 as far as ports, valves and chambers, the items that affect flow. I believe the Shelby version had a different cam, aluminium intake (made a mistake in my original post, the HP was cast) and tube headers, but I don't remember what other changes, if any, to get 306HP.

Last edited by lelandl; 05-24-2006 at 05:23 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2006, 10:02 PM
onebadmerc's Avatar
I need a bucket of arc sparks
 
Last wiki edit: How to identify SB Ford heads without pulling them
Last journal entry: trunk floor
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Florence Colorado
Age: 43
Posts: 901
Wiki Edits: 1

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
The HP 289 had a nodular iron crank, spot faced 3/8" rod bolts, thicker main caps, screw in rocker studs, cast in spring pockets, special cast iron headers, a 480cfm Autolight four barrel carb, dual point mechanical advance distributor, high compression pistons and a solid lifter cam. Manual shift cars had a 10 1/2" clutch, standard four and two barrel carb 289's had the 10" clutch. This is about all I know off of the top of my head. If you have a HP 289 car you are a collector and know what you have. I once raced a 67 High Country Special with an original 289HP and smoked him with a warmed over 302 and 4:10 gears in a 71 Mustang. The 289HP's mustangs were not really that fast, they might pull low 16's with a good driver. As stated above, collectors value is high but if you want real power house SB Ford, build up a 5.0 or a 351W.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2006, 10:34 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: sherman,il
Posts: 9
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
289hipo

well personally i think that the 289 is only for collectors b-cause it does not have the power of a hemi or the almighty chevy 350
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2006, 10:45 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: sherman,il
Posts: 9
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
289hipo

how crazy is that rs
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2006, 10:49 PM
lelandl's Avatar
Fiero2M8
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Dartmouth,Nova Scotia
Posts: 51
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 17withaniroc-z
well personally i think that the 289 is only for collectors b-cause it does not have the power of a hemi or the almighty chevy 350
At 70 more cubes I should hope a 350 would well against a 289, but I have seen 289s and 302s smoke them. Now if you want to put a 350 against a 351C or 351W, then you are talking apples and apples. And a Hemi? Different class altogether.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2006, 11:01 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: sherman,il
Posts: 9
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
i understand what you are saying but why didnt ford slap a monster of a engine in those cars
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2006, 11:50 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Petaluma, CA
Posts: 136
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
"...why didnt ford slap a monster of a engine in those cars"

Because they wouldn't physically fit in the '64-66 engine compartment, the chassis couldn't handle it, and if you really wanted a monster from that era, a person should save up enough to buy a 427 Cobra instead.

A couple more tid bids.

The extra counterweight was needed to offset the weight of the heavier rods.
The motor mounts are unique to the HiPo.
I'm fairly sure the Mexican caps have a different casting # and are made from inferior metals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2006, 06:30 AM
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lakeland FL
Age: 66
Posts: 4,110
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
"back in the days"...63,64,65'....club "week end" road racing was the big thing, rally racing was also a big deal,

dollars per HP and/or dollars for HP parts, K code Mustangs were a steal compared to all others (British, Italian and German mostly).....

peak HP at 6,000 rpms, .471 solid lift cam, bigger clutch, 3.89 gears, dual point, red line tires, better exhaust system etc. etc.....drive it out of the dealership and go have fun at Limerock, Riverside, etc

wish I could recall what the "Hipo" option listed for....all the above and more for like $150 extra on a $2800 car.....
the "new" Mustang "Factory Racer" is like $100,000(?)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2006, 07:13 AM
lelandl's Avatar
Fiero2M8
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Dartmouth,Nova Scotia
Posts: 51
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 17withaniroc-z
i understand what you are saying but why didnt ford slap a monster of a engine in those cars
The companies all were still playing with small blocks through these years and while I know that GM had the cube limit for "small" cars, I am not sure about Ford. Chev still had the 327, Pontiac 326, Olds 330 in the 442, Mopar 318 and 273, even Rambler with a 287/327. Then in the late 60s you started seeing the bigger smallblocks: 350, 340, 302/351, 343.

I had a 302 in a '67. It had 289 rods, ported and polished '69 heads, Offy 180 intake, custom built Thermoquad 750, flat tops (10.5:1), balanced and blueprinted, Sig Erson hydraulic cam (I believe it was 284 degrees, .504 lift, 108 center), custom large sump pan, high-pressure oil pump, dual point Mallory. With 3:91 locker and a toploader I smoked many a big block on the street with it. Nothing like the sound of a 7000rpm screaming small block.

Today, I have an injected 302 in the works and a 429 with C6 tucked away for a future project.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Recent Engine posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need some info on Ford 289 and 302 water jackets onebadmerc Engine 5 01-09-2006 09:40 PM
LAST MINUTE HELP...289 to 302 or stroker exiled1 Engine 4 12-14-2005 03:41 PM
289? 392? 0r 351? exiled1 Engine 4 11-10-2005 04:40 PM
boring a hipo 289 65 mustang Engine 2 12-27-2002 04:40 AM
66 Stang with 289 HIPO and 4.62 gears... Tranny help USMCDCC Transmission - Rearend 4 12-23-2002 06:45 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.