Solid Lifters and Cam in 1967 Mustang 289 V8 worth the effort? - Ford Mustang Forum
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 7 (permalink) Old 12-25-2007 Thread Starter
Rookie
Classic Member
 
jharley79's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Fayetteville
Posts: 29
 
Question Solid Lifters and Cam in 1967 Mustang 289 V8 worth the effort?

Hey all, I have a 1967 with a 302 in it right now. I'm about to pull the 302 out and put my 289 back in. I was wondering what it would take to go with solid lifters. I found a solid lifter cam and was wondering if it was as easy as just putting the cam in and putting solid lifters in. Would it be worth the effort? It's a stock 289. any input or advice is appreciated. Thanks
jharley79 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 7 (permalink) Old 12-25-2007
Made Member
Classic Member
V6 Member
 
Preacher17's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Enterprise
Posts: 433
 
Actually take a long hard look at a roller cam, I'm pretty much "old school" and was going to run a solid cam in my motor but I think it's time for this old dogto learn a new trick and go with a roller, they just perform better, more agressive profile with better streetability, and retro-fitting an old block isn't a problem, if you don't want to go roller then there are some pretty agressive hydraulic proifiles avaliable you can push a solid cam a bit further but with the added maintenance of periodic lash adjustments which have never bothered me but some folks don't like...but roller is the way to go...it just makes more sense.

1966 Fastback
1966 Coupe
1998 GT

"Government is not the answer to our problems, government is the problem."

Ronald Reagan
Preacher17 is offline  
post #3 of 7 (permalink) Old 12-25-2007
Apprentice
5.0L Member
 
Rejoin the Herd's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Location: Southwest
Posts: 158
 
Solid lifter cam in a stock 289 will not do much for performance. The idea of a solid lifter can is to be able to increase hp by greatly increasing RPM. To turn a 289 you need ported heads or after markets, larger valves, new valve springs (to match the cam), 4 into 1 headers, high rise intake, 600 cfm holley carb and forged pistons.

A mild roller will increase power in combination with tri-y headers, with cross pipe and high rise intake. Only need about 500, 550 cfm carb.
Rejoin the Herd is offline  
post #4 of 7 (permalink) Old 12-26-2007 Thread Starter
Rookie
Classic Member
 
jharley79's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Fayetteville
Posts: 29
 
Thanks for the input. Guess I'll just leave it alone. the 289 is just going back in till I build something else for it, so I don't want to really put any money into it and do the roller conversion or anything. Thanks alot guys.
jharley79 is offline  
post #5 of 7 (permalink) Old 12-27-2007
MACH I Member
Classic Member
5.0L Member
 
The Greek's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 3,184
 
It's best to leave it alone. You'd need to have the rocker arm studs changed to the threaded design, meaning machine work to the heads and also getting adjustable rocker arms to add to the list.
The Greek is offline  
post #6 of 7 (permalink) Old 12-27-2007
Apprentice
 
Garnoc's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: Mount Juliet
Posts: 52
 
Send a message via MSN to Garnoc Send a message via Yahoo to Garnoc
I totally agree - I had a solid cam in my 289 but later replaced it with a hyd and it ran great. I am in live with the 351 in my 65 - if you are looking for a lot of power and not a lot of money consider that as an option too. Squose in without a single cut!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rejoin the Herd View Post
Solid lifter cam in a stock 289 will not do much for performance. The idea of a solid lifter can is to be able to increase hp by greatly increasing RPM. To turn a 289 you need ported heads or after markets, larger valves, new valve springs (to match the cam), 4 into 1 headers, high rise intake, 600 cfm holley carb and forged pistons.

A mild roller will increase power in combination with tri-y headers, with cross pipe and high rise intake. Only need about 500, 550 cfm carb.
Garnoc is offline  
post #7 of 7 (permalink) Old 12-27-2007
Rookie
 
htwheelz67's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: mission viejo
Posts: 47
 
I'd sell both eng's and find a 85 up 5.0 roller shortblock and go from there. Hyd roller cams are so much better and with our low zinc oils flat tappet cams can be hit or miss on break in, the 289hp solid cam is an antique, there are smaller cams with newr technology that will make more power,more vacuum, idle smoother, turn higher rpms and use less fuel. If you took a 289hp and a late model 5.0 and put them on the dyno the peak hp would be almost exactly the same but the 5.0 would make way more low end torque, idle smoother and get way better fuel economy on 87 octane fuel vs 92 octane, on a 289-302 street driver you want as much low end as possible......

my 67 htwheelz's photos- powered by SmugMug
htwheelz67 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Closed Thread

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user 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, otherwise you will not receive the necessary confirmation email needed to confirm, validate and activate your new AFM member account.

Failure to provide a VALID email address, will result in the cancellation of your new AFM member account registration.

Email Address:
OR

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.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183