1964-1970 Mustang Member Tech & Restoration Discussion

289 vs 390

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Aug 18, 2004 | 08:52 PM
  #1  
bsmith13's Avatar
Thread Starter
GT Member
 
Joined: March 9, 2004
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
I really like the '67 Fastback, and hope to acquire one here soon (after the next set of braces). I was wondering what the pros and cons are of owning a 289 versus a 390. The idea of more horsepower appeals to me, but I was wondering if the 390 is harder to work on since it is bigger, and if a 390 is harder to steer because the engine is heavier. Any other info would be appreciated.
Reply
Old Aug 19, 2004 | 07:44 AM
  #2  
LMan's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: June 9, 2004
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Yes and yes. The plugs are a b*tch to change since they and the manifolds are all but touching the shock towers. It is a heavy s*cker, too. In stock form the 390's performance was nothing to write home about either.....

Im not really a FE-hater, I just play one on the Internet nah, Im really not, its just that the 390 as-stock doesnt overcome the disadvantages listed above. Just because it was the largest engine option in '67, that doesnt mean it was the best engine

390s can be built to run hard esp with head work, but you will pay big $$$ to get that "S" in the VIN. I recommend you find a C-code (less initial $) and put in whatever engine you desire. Now, if you really want that S-code, by all means, get one and work it over.
________
Club Royal Condos Wong Amat

Last edited by LMan; Aug 20, 2011 at 08:16 AM.
Reply
Old Aug 19, 2004 | 07:52 AM
  #3  
67shelby's Avatar
V6 Member
 
Joined: June 14, 2004
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
I would also suggest the smallblock for a new Mustang owner. FE's are often a big ole PITA. Smallblock engines are must more affordable, maintainable, reliable and economical.
Reply
Old Aug 19, 2004 | 09:07 AM
  #4  
bsmith13's Avatar
Thread Starter
GT Member
 
Joined: March 9, 2004
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Thanks! Your advice has helped a lot. I am a big fan of the 289 anyway, so this looks like a win-win recommendation for me.
Reply
Old Aug 19, 2004 | 12:34 PM
  #5  
Skorch52's Avatar
Bullitt Member
 
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
From: Muncy PA
I agree with these guys. The SB 289 has been a nice engine to work on, parts are affordable and you can get good performance out of them without sacrificing front end weight and road manners.

That said, I'm now ready to start building a 1970 429 engine, and looking for a car to stuff it in... (Sounds like a good topic to start...)
Reply
Old Aug 22, 2004 | 10:59 AM
  #6  
Galaxie's Avatar
I Have Admin Envy
 
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 6,740
Likes: 1
I have a 390, and I can't say anything bad about the engine other than it is a boatanchor.

The 390 is an easy engine to work on as well, about as basic as you can get.

If you are going to get a '67 and it does not have an engine, or you want to put something modern in it, how about a carb'd 5.0? You get a roller camshaft with that.
Reply
Old Aug 22, 2004 | 11:19 AM
  #7  
Nathan_H's Avatar
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: June 29, 2004
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
And they're, (carb'd 5.0) real easy to work on, Nathan.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CiniZter
General Vehicle Discussion/News
25
Apr 28, 2016 05:41 PM
Mustang65bob
Introductions
1
Sep 21, 2015 11:30 AM
MrMarsellus
1964-1970 Mustang
3
Aug 23, 2004 12:43 PM
TMSBrad
1964-1970 Mustang
4
Apr 4, 2004 07:11 AM




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:11 PM.