Engine choice - 289 or 351?
Dan
I am new to the world of classic Mustangs and restoring cars, and I
have a quick question about choosing an engine for my 65 Mustang. I am
currently living overseas in Asia, and as you might imagine it's
really hard to find spare parts of any kind for classic Mustangs here.
I just bought this car, and I have a local garage working on
restoring. The person who had the car before me put a 4 cylinder
Mitsubishi engine in it which really sucks. I was able to find a junk
yard which has a few Mustang engines for sale, but I am not sure which
one I should get. Two of them are 289s, but they look in pretty sorry
shape, and I guess will have to be totally overhauled. There is also
a 351 which appears to be in good shape and the guy said it works
fine. I know that the 351 appeared in a later model than the 65, but
will it still fit and work fine in a 65 ? If so, do you think it's
worth not having the headache of having to completely overhaul a 289
(which I guess would involve ordering lots of parts from the States
and having it shipped here) to put in a 351 in my 65 'stang? Also,
does the 351 offer a considerable more power than a 289?
I would really appreciate any advice, recommendations, or experiences
you can share regarding this.
Thanks a lot!
Dan
"One In A Million"
until 1969.
I know you can retro-fit them in a 67-68
But,the 65-66 I think, is a little narrower,making the install more tedious.
The windsor has more sizzle in it than the 289 cousin.
You never said what the original motor was before the 4cyl.or what
transmission is in it .
Not that it matters though.
*Note
There are more than enough parts in North America for both engines.
So it's basically a personal choice.
TMHO
Dennis
Another Day , Another Dollar,
Million Day , Million Dollar !
"Dan" <db...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:95a2cb58.01092...@posting.google.com...
Rene
news:95a2cb58.01092...@posting.google.com:
> Hi,
>
> I am new to the world of classic Mustangs and restoring cars, and I
> have a quick question about choosing an engine for my 65 Mustang. I am
> currently living overseas in Asia, and as you might imagine it's
> really hard to find spare parts of any kind for classic Mustangs here.
> I just bought this car, and I have a local garage working on
> restoring. The person who had the car before me put a 4 cylinder
> Mitsubishi engine in it which really sucks. I was able to find a junk
> yard which has a few Mustang engines for sale, but I am not sure which
> one I should get. Two of them are 289s, but they look in pretty sorry
> shape, and I guess will have to be totally overhauled. There is also
> a 351 which appears to be in good shape and the guy said it works
> fine. I know that the 351 appeared in a later model than the 65, but
> will it still fit and work fine in a 65 ?
It appeared in the 69 Mustangs, but the 65-66 Mustangs are narrower than
the 67+ Mustangs so fitting one in these earlier cars is difficult. I once
read a magazine article that did this, and from what I recall it is a
pretty tight fit.
>If so, do you think it's
> worth not having the headache of having to completely overhaul a 289
> (which I guess would involve ordering lots of parts from the States
> and having it shipped here) to put in a 351 in my 65 'stang?
If you are going to wind up ordering lots of parts, if you do decide to go
with the 289, why not just order a long-block 302, of course I say this not
knowing what shipping something that heavy overseas would cost, or perhaps
you could locate a nice 302 locally. It is dimensionally the same as a
289, just another option.
> Also,
> does the 351 offer a considerable more power than a 289?
It all depends on how you build up either engine. Some gross HP numbers I
have are:
2V 289, 200HP @4400 RPM, 288 ft/lbs @2400 RPM
4v 289, 225HP @4800 , 305 ft/lbs @3200
HiPo 289, 271HP @6000 , 312 ft/lbs @3400
2V 351W, 250HP @4600 , 355 ft/lbs @2600
4V 351W, 290HP @4800 , 385 ft/lbs @3200
> I would really appreciate any advice, recommendations, or experiences
> you can share regarding this.
I don't know, it sounds like a tossup to me. 289 = lot of work getting
parts and doing overhaul making it more expensive but easier to install.
351 = less work getting engine running, less expensive, but a bit more work
getting it into the car.
How about accessories? Do you have all the brackets for your accessories
for either engine? The 289/302 brackets are slightly different from the
351W due to the taller deck.
Dan
Thanks for your quick reply. Please bear with me, as I am brand new
to this, but could you explain to me the differences in the 351
engines? You mentioned a 351 "Windsor". How many different kinds of
351's are there and what are the main
differences/advantages/disadvantages between them? How can I know by
looking at it which 351 it is?
Oh, I am not sure what engine was originally in the car, but I am
pretty sure it wasn't a 289.
Thanks again for your help and advice,
Dan
"\"One In A Million\"" <asphaltc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<fVrq7.6090$ua.1...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>...
"One In A Million"
Big power from a small block.
Water outlet to upper rad hose comes out of Intake.
There was also a 351 Cleveland >
Very strong and powerful.
Very wide
The water outlet for the upper rad hose comes out of the front of the Block.
Check for casting numbers & casting Date codes,on the heads ,block ,intake
of the engines you are considering.
And post them here.
Then we'll have something more to go on.
BTW, Any info from Bill S. Is as good as Gold Bouillon.
--
peter
> important note: the 351 is a larger/taller block. stuff like brackets,
> intakes and distributors from a 289/302 wont fit
>
> > > > does the 351 offer a considerable more power than a 289?
definitely
you would probably need to beef up the frame w/ torque boxes and put in stronger
coil spring too
peter
>
amy gendron
that's funny 302 heads are the same as 351 Windsor heads. Hmmm must be the
block that's different???news:MXJq7.6717$ua.1...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
Webmaster
> A 302 with different heads?
> that's funny 302 heads are the same as 351 Windsor heads. Hmmm must be the
> block that's different???
Yep! The 351 Windsor block is wider than the 302. The 351 Windsor, from what
I'm told, will not fit in the early Mustng II's but the 302 will. As for the
difference in the heads, I beleive the 351 Windsor has bigger intake valves
than the 302 heads. Other than that, the heads are basically the same size.
Webmaster
Webmaster
> > > Hi Dennis,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your quick reply. Please bear with me, as I am brand new
> > > to this, but could you explain to me the differences in the 351
> > > engines? You mentioned a 351 "Windsor". How many different kinds of
> > > 351's are there and what are the main
> > > differences/advantages/disadvantages between them? How can I know by
> > > looking at it which 351 it is?
> > >
> > > Oh, I am not sure what engine was originally in the car, but I am
> > > pretty sure it wasn't a 289.
> > >
> > > Thanks again for your help and advice,
> > >
> > > Dan
Dan:
If memory serves me right, you said your Musdtang is a 65, am I correct?
I beleive the choice of engines was either the 200 in-line 6 cyl, or the
289, and maybe the 260. But I don't think the 351 Windsor was in production
in 65. If you had a 351 Windsor in yours, it was a swap. Bill S., can you
shed some light on this?
Webmaster
Ed Nicholson
a transmission as well, that would be the way to go. A 351 is taller and
wider, I don't think that they fit under a 65-66 hood without a small scoop.
--
fast Ed N.
Thunder Snake # 27
68 Cougar 289 EFI restomod
95 T-Bird SC 5 spd. 1 of 574 14.99 @ 92.28 mph
remove SPAMATIC6895 to reply by email
"Dan" <db...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:95a2cb58.01092...@posting.google.com...
Stuart & Janet
is based on the general design of the smaller block however. The heads were
different from casting point of view but are interchangeable. ( '69 351W
heads are slightly better than the 302 of the same year)
Dan post your VIN number the second letter says the original motor in the
car. It will be a C,A,K or T
C is a 289 2 barrel
A is a 289 4 barrel
K is a Hipo 289 4 barrel
T is the straight 6
another letter for the 260 but I can't recall what that is.
HTH StuK
--
ThunderSnake #11
Remove SPAMATRON9000 to reply by email
Never give in! Never give in! Never, Never, Never, Never - in nothing great
or small, large or petty
never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. - Sir Winston
Churchill
"amy gendron" <amy...@gate.net> wrote in message
news:9og7kg$g5h$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
Rene
> A 302 with different heads?
> that's funny 302 heads are the same as 351 Windsor heads. Hmmm must be
> the block that's different???
Well, not exactly. The design of both engines is the same but the 351W did
have slightly different heads up through about 1977. The heads had larger
intake ports, plus larger intake and exhaust valves, and 4 extra bolts for
the intake. All 351W head bolt holes are 1/2" vs 7/16" on the 302. Of
course those differences are minor and wouldn't prevent you from using the
351W heads on a 302 and at one time the early heads, in particular the 69
heads, were seen as a good upgrade for the standard 302 heads.
Yes you are correct the block is different, it is much beefier, has bigger
main journals, a taller deck, and uses a slightly different bolt pattern
for the oil pan, neccisatating a unique oil pan. The connecting rod
journals are also bigger.
The easiest way I have personally found to diffentiate a 351W and a 302/289
without having the two side by side is to look at the timing chain cover
boss on the block. The boss on the 302 is nearly flush with the deck,
while it is not even close ( well 1" inch away :) on the 351W.
Dan
5F07T749450
So, I guess this means originally a 6 cylinder, 200-1V engine in
there, right?
I am going to check out the 351 engine later this week to see if it is
a WIndsor or Cleveland.
Thanks a lot,
Dan
"Stuart & Janet" <skynochSPA...@golden.net> wrote in message news:<jGSq7.71$WL6.17...@radon.golden.net>...
Patrick M. Carrube
motors (289 vs. 351) i say bigger is better. As a matter of fact i have a
460(actually 468) pumping out 600+hp. I had to redo some crossmembers and
install and comstom front end out of a Mustang II. With the motors you have i
say go with the 351. Let me tell you though that the 351 will have to be
Windsor and NOT A CLEVELAND. The cleveland is bascially a small big block and
wont fit. The windsor will squeeze in there and make plenty of hp for your
2500lb car....good luck my friend
Dan
> >
> > Check for casting numbers & casting Date codes,on the heads ,block ,intake
> > of the engines you are considering.
> > And post them here.
> > Then we'll have something more to go on.
Well, when I went back to the store selling the engine, the guy told
me he wasn't sure if it was a 351 or if it was even taken out of a
Mustang. He thinks it could have been taken from a different Ford
model. Oh, the joys of living overseas! Anyways, the engine is
automatic, has 8 cylinders, is blue, and has "Powered by Ford" written
on the valve covers. This is the number that I found on the engine:
IW2311396
Actually I am not really sure if the first character is an I or a 1,
it was hard to read. Does anyone have any idea what engine this
might be or what kind of car it was taken out of? The owner of the
store is telling me it should fit in my 65 Mustang, but how can I take
his word for it if he doesn't really know anything about the engine?
:) Oh, this guy also told me that the 8 cylinder Mustangs back then
were all automatic tranmission. Is this correct?
Thanks so much for any help!
Dan