OBDII delete? '66 289 into a '00 153

[icetherice]

In the process of building up a 289 engine, carb'd. Wondering what speedbumps I'll run into shoehorning it into an OBDII chassis....anyone have experience?

 

[Dirtman]

I'll assume your state doesn't do emissions inspection. Getting it to run will be easy, there are maybe 6 wires needed to make that engine run. Getting it somewhat matched into the truck.... Not so easy. By that I mean tying in things like guages, using the factory ignition switch ect ect. But while you're dealing with that just run it off a toggle switch ignition and a push button starter.

 

[adsm08]

If you want things like the instrument cluster to work then you are going to have a far easier time keeping the EFI. If you don't care about things like speedometers and temp gauges just throw it in and wire the bare minimum, starter, lights, coil, alternator.

 

[icetherice]

I figured I'd at least get the equus tripod and inductive tach. Speedo..I could probably figure something out..equus makes those too.. The dash would basically be all custom though. Airbag computer is completely separate from ECM so that would still function. Plan is to keep electric fuel pump and regulate it down to bowl pressure at the firewall.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

You are probably not gaining much if any power with a 289...

 

[Dirtman]

270 horsepower isn't an upgrade over a 2.5 lima?

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

270 horsepower isn't an upgrade over a 2.5 lima?

I guess I missed the part where it was a heavily modified 289.

Stock most were well south of 200.

 

[Dirtman]

270 is basic horsepower for the factory high performance 289 in 65-68. The 2 barrel motors weren't that exciting but there's no "heavy modifications" involved to make 350+ hp from a 289. Its just an early 302. Even the even earlier 260 can make a ton of power and was the original engine used in the first AC cobras.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

270 is basic horsepower for the factory high performance 289 in 65-68. The 2 barrel motors weren't that exciting but there's no "heavy modifications" involved to make 350+ hp from a 289. Its just an early 302. Even the even earlier 260 can make a ton of power and was the original engine used in the first AC cobras.

gross hp is different than net hp.

A 270 gross hp K-code 289 is generally worth too much to put in a Ranger, Mustang guys go nuts over them. One probably wouldn't show a 225 net hp 5.0HO a whole lot.

 

[icetherice]

153: 149ft-lb @ 3000rpm, 119hp @ 5000rpm (MFI w 9.1:1 cr)
289: 258ft-lb @ 2200rpm, 195hp @ 4400rpm (2bbl w 8.7:1 cr)

AFAIK it's not a special 289. It came with C80E-M heads. I bored it .030 over. Got a 4bbl 600cfm edelbrock carb with vacuum secondaries, edelbrock dual plane aluminum 4bbl intake. I have standard '66 exhaust manifolds for it. Going with a flat tappet cam xe250h grind, advertised from 600-4800rpm. Might get a set of GT40 heads, one guy has some local and wants $350. I already have a T5 from a '95 SVT Cobra from the same guy.

I'm not here to build a horsepower monster. I already steered away from the roller cams because of the price and the higher rpm ranges/required valvespring upgrades. The faster you spin it, the more likely stuff is to break. I'm going back in with stock rods and rod bolts after I balance the assembly.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

SAE gross power

Prior to the 1972 model year, American automakers rated and advertised their engines in brake horsepower, bhp, which was a version of brake horsepower called SAE gross horsepower because it was measured according to Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards (J245 and J1995) that call for a stock test engine without accessories (such as dynamo/alternator, radiator fan, water pump),[32] and sometimes fitted with long tube test headers in lieu of the OEM exhaust manifolds. This contrasts with both SAE net power and DIN 70020 standards, which account for engine accessories (but not transmission losses). The atmospheric correction standards for barometric pressure, humidity and temperature for SAE gross power testing were relatively idealistic.

SAE net power
In the United States, the term bhp fell into disuse in 1971–1972, as automakers began to quote power in terms of SAE net horsepower in accord with SAE standard J1349. Like SAE gross and other brake horsepower protocols, SAE net hp is measured at the engine's crankshaft, and so does not account for transmission losses. However, similar to the DIN 70020 standard, SAE net power testing protocol calls for standard production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. This produces ratings in closer alignment with the power produced by the engine as it is actually configured and sold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#SAE_gross_power

It is what it is but don't think a 200 gross hp 289 is really 75hp more than a 119 net hp 2.3. You are modifying it so who really knows where you are going to end up though.

600CFM is kinda big, I have a 500CFM on my 5.0HO and I had to rod/jet it down because it ran too rich out of the box (new Edelbrock 1403). Throttle response is nice and snappy too.

On the subject of cams/valve springs arms make sure the 289's rocker arms are not worn, they are a cast iron thing that is supposed to push on the valve itself but they wear and can end up pushing on the spring retainer washer to the point the clips come out and it drops a valve.

On a new engine new valvesprings wouldn't be a bad idea either. The stock ones are 50+ years old, they have done their duty.

Careful with GT40 heads, 289 heads have smaller combustion chambers and GT-40's will lower your compression a tad. Much better rocker arms though. $350 is kind of steep unless they have been gone thru with guides and seats.

Also watch the flywheel with a T5 swap, they changed the balance of the 302 in '80. Yours is 28oz, the original engine hung on the T5 would be 50oz. People swap them into first gen Mustangs so someone somewhere must be making a 28oz flywheel for them.

289 manifolds do fit nicely, I sold the ones off of my decorative 289 to Twister and they fit in his BII great.

 

[19Walt93]

I agree about not using the GT40 heads, your 289 heads have smaller chambers for better compression and if you want a low RPM engine the smaller valves will promote increased intake velocity and fill the cylinders better at low revs. I would only recommend an Edelbrock carb if you don't know how to set up a Holley, the Holley will make more power and have better throttle response. My son raved about the Edelbrock on his T bird so we swapped carbs for a week. The Edelbrock cost me 3 tenths in the quarter and had soggy response. He runs a Holley now and sold the shiney POS. The fuel inlet mounted at the right rear should be a tip off that Edelbrock was confused, who has a rear mounted fuel pump? I have a Performer manifold on my Mustang and will be using one on the 351 going into my Ranger. If I was building a 289-302 instead I would look for an old Holley Contender manifold or a 83-85 Mustang manifold, they are close copies of the iron 289 4v manifold and would help low end torque. If you can stand the weight an original 289 manifold would work good,too. A 1", 4 hole carb spacer will help throttle response whichever manifold you use.

 

[19Walt93]

With a Holley I'd recommend a 600 cfm #80457, it's a basic electric choke, vacuum secondary carb that works great and costs a lot less than a Street Avenger. You may need to buy a secondary spring kit if you want to change the opening rate.

 

[19Walt93]

79 Mustangs and Fairmonts with 302's used a 28.2 oz imbalance flywheel with a 10" clutch that works with early engines.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I agree about not using the GT40 heads, your 289 heads have smaller chambers for better compression and if you want a low RPM engine the smaller valves will promote increased intake velocity and fill the cylinders better at low revs. I would only recommend an Edelbrock carb if you don't know how to set up a Holley, the Holley will make more power and have better throttle response. My son raved about the Edelbrock on his T bird so we swapped carbs for a week. The Edelbrock cost me 3 tenths in the quarter and had soggy response. He runs a Holley now and sold the shiney POS. The fuel inlet mounted at the right rear should be a tip off that Edelbrock was confused, who has a rear mounted fuel pump?

My fuel pump is mounted on the frame near the fuel tank like most V8 swapped Rangers. Engine drive pump interferes with the steering box.

No complaints with my Edelbrock, it probably isn't the only thing on my truck costing me 10th's in the 1/4. At about 1200rpm it toys with cleaning four MT's.

Starts easy, runs great, no gasket surfaces below the fuel level to leak, throttle response is as good as efi (not laggy the drive by wire crap either). I have had it 8 years almost to the day and have done nothing to it.

Watch the hood height when using spacers, you can run out of room fast.