[Bebob_429]

Hello,

I hope that you will help me with some good advice.
I am still considering/planning my coming engine rebuild. The engine is a 1968 289” with only few modifications. 600 CFM carb, Weiand Street Warrior Intake and JBA headders and 2½” exhaust.

I have decided that I will keep Ford iron cylinder heads to keep the engine stock looking (stealth) on the outside. The engine will be painted Ford corporate blue and should not look modified. I know that aluminum heads would be easier and better – but that is not what I want.

I know my original 289 heads from 1968 is probably the worst heads when it comes to performance. To fix that I have come across a set of 351W heads from a 1972 Mustang. They should have 60.4 CC chambers and 1.84 and 1.54 valves. Still better that the 63 cc and 1.67 and 1.45 valves of the 289 heads.

Which parts would I need to make the 351W heads work:
- Screw-in rocker arm studs?
- Guide plates?
- Rocker arms (roller)?
- Bushings because the head bolt are larger in the 351W heads?

Still haven’t decided on how to rebuild: stay with 289” or go for a 331” stroker kit – would the heads work in both situations?

Regards
Bebob

 

[sp66stang]

sounds like you got a good set up, yes the 351 heads will work in both combos. imo they are worth doing. yes to all parts you have listed for heads. plates, guides, rollers, and bushes.

 

[rex1965]

What cam are you using, if you are using the stock cam, most of your changes will not make much difference, the stock cam has like .368" lift at the valves and short duration, if you go to .5" lift at the valves and don't go crazy on the duration and overlap, you can see a significant gain in performance. Everything has to work together. The greatest benefit from the 72 heads is the hardened seats and valves for unleaded gas. My 2 cts. Good Luck.

 

[Ivy66GT]

You are correct that the 289 heads for '68 were low compression; the ones for '68 added about 10 cc more chamber volume dropping CR by a full digit. Even though 60 cc is less than your '68 heads it will still give you considerably less CR than any pre-'68 289. The main benefit would be the slightly larger valves.

Only the very early 289s had the 1.67" valves. Most were 1.78" and 1.45" according to my book.

 

[Bebob_429]

@SP66stang; Rex1965 & Ivy66GT: thanks for your reply.

I think that I would probably change the cam when the engine is rebuilt. Then I can get one perfect for the needs either 289" or 331". I think the 331" might be the better to go for...it would also give me about 10:1 compression if I am not wrong.

Would still go for a mild cam like the XE262 or something similar. Would I gain a lot with retro-fit lifters and a roller cam or is the benefit lager when the engine is reved to 7200 rpm?

Do any of you know which rocker studs and valve guides would be good for this setup?

K/R
Bernd