289 vs 318 ..... Ford vs Mopar

FoMoCo vs Mopar

  • 289 - rated 210 hp

    Votes: 18 46.2%

  • 318 - rated 230

    Votes: 21 53.8%
  • Total voters
    39
-
318willrun said:
The very early LA 318's had a little better compression, but certainly the 289's had better compression than the '72 and up 318's. Also keep in mind, the 289 is giving up 29 cubic inches to the 318 as well.
Click to expand...
I had a 67 318 I don't know the compression I didn't know all the stuff that I do now to figure it out but it was stout little engine I "rebuilt" it and put 360 heads on it and a 340 intake (same heads and intake thsts on my 360 now) and I was surprised that the pistons were dang near zero deck. They where factory pistons I believe but they were not in the hole like the 318s from the 80s ive worked on. I wish I would have kept that short block when I sold my barracuda I pulled the heads and intake off and put the original heads and 2bbl intake back on. Id like to have that engine now it came out of a 67 belvedere. I'd like to have that car now. It was a pretty solid four door in the junkyard I wish I would have bought the whole car
And btw it was a dud after I "rebuilt" it lol I think I did everything wrong lol I used a summit cam with the original used lifters i used a used timing chain I dint degree or even check it probably wasn't even lined up right lol
 
Both had weak head flow. Windsor heads were very poor but so were teens. Cool engines yes but both were overall mediocre imo. 318 is a bit bigger so there's going to be a torque edge there.

If we're doing a comparison maybe the 273 vs 289 would make more sense. At least there were performance variant of 273.

Boss 351 is the highest powered HP "small block" of the muscle car era.
 
Mean416 said:
Both had weak head flow. Windsor heads were very poor but so were teens. Cool engines yes but both were overall mediocre imo. 318 is a bit bigger so there's going to be a torque edge there.

If we're doing a comparison maybe the 273 vs 289 would make more sense. At least there were performance variant of 273.

Boss 351 is the highest powered HP "small block" of the muscle car era.
Click to expand...
K code 289 was 271 horse like the D Dart 273 with 275 horse.
 
318willrun said:
318's durability is 2nd to none. However, I've not experience any 289's coming apart, and we've owned some higher mileage cars.
Click to expand...
My '67 Cougar had a 289. I raced a guy one night and heard a "kapow" and the engine died. Pulled it apart and found the nylon timing gear had sheared the teeth off.
 
cojohnso said:
I still do not understand Ford thinking? In the mid 60s they had the 427 platform. More than just a formidable engine program. Even developed a SOHC cam hemi version.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine has one of those ford hemi's in a 49' willys coupe.

Mostly unrelated to this thread, he also swapped a 5 cylinder mercedes turbo diesel out of an older 300D into an early falcon ranchero.
 
My brother had a 65 Mustang coupe with a 289 in it. We pulled it apart and ordered the 271 hp rods and cam, 10.5:1 forged pistons, Offy intake and a 750 AVS from a 440 Plymouth. Man than thing was quick. 3.90 geared 9" Ford limited slip rear. He said he broke into the 12's with borrowed slicks. Only problem with that 289, was keeping a transmission behind it. He rolled the Mustang coming home one night. We never raced each other, both cars were very fast. I never raced my best friends 350 Camaro either. Never seemed important back then. That 289 is the only non Mopar engine in the basement today.
 
Dana67Dart said:
One downfall of the 289 302 351W was the nilon tooth stock timming gear.

Of you have one and your approaching 160,000 miles better change it or you will have canted valves. ( The milage number came out of a SB Ford book and my own personal experience) pigtail shaped pushrods and canted valved
Click to expand...

Chevy timing chains would throw in the towel about 70,000 miles and fill the air filter with blowby oil at 30,000 miles.
 
mod5v said:
My bet is that the 289 cars had 3.5-3.9 rear gears and the 318 cars had 2.7-2.9 gears
Click to expand...
All my cars with 289's have 2.89:1 and 2.94:1 gears
65 and 68 Fairlanes 67 and 68 Mustangs
302 cars came with bout the same gears 70 and 84 mustangs.
 
Last edited:
Back in in SW Ga 1966-67 I went to a Jr college. There was a kid there that was a legend, had a 64? Mustang coupe, 289 4 speed, shifted by ear. Ran for $100. Lot of money back then. Seldom ever lost to anything.
He swore it was stock, but word was it had lots of Shelby influence.
It was a suitcase college and everyone went home on weekends. He had his mechanic tune it every trip home! I had seen him drive it 150 mi. for a race.
 
plymouth67 said:
I have thrown some parts out of both Chevy and Ford motors. I have never (probably shouldn't say this) thrown any parts out of the bottom of a Mopar engine. Yes, I know it can be done but, I feel it's much harder to do in a Mopar engine and, here is why....Rod angle, look at how much wider Mopar engines (big block and small blocks) are than the competition. The width of the engines make it much easier on the rods under load and rpm to push the piston back up the cylinder. The Ford small blocks are almost unnatural on how up and down the cylinders are and, makes more likely to put some parts on the outside of the engine...lol Rod angle, in my eyes the same reason the slant six is...well...slanted.
Click to expand...
biggest downside to the Windsor family is the 5/16 rod bolts, that was the common fail point. After that was the 600ish hp block limit. block would split.
 
Oldiron440 said:
Something I have seen on the dyno is the 289 makes 200 to 220 hp but makes 300 to 320 tq. witch I think is impressive for the size.
If I told you what the new one for the Fairlane makes you'd call me names and throw rocks at me. The one thing about the W Ford motors is the amount of aftermarket parts available is nuts.
Click to expand...

I love how small and light 289's are. Always thought they would be cool in a Miata, or street rod with a 5 speed manual.
 
66fs said:
True, that is why we ran K motor rods, they where spot faced with 3/8 rod bolts.
Click to expand...
My builder said my 289 had rods from a really small displacent V8 Ford built for Indianapolis. He said the rod bolts were .400". They looked really big even compared to the main cap bolts which I'm thinking were 7/16".
 
Back in the mid 60s Ford had special 289 parts under the name of GT40. Various heads, cranks and intake manifolds were made for the 289 and sold over the counter.
 
My brother had a '64 Fairlane 4 door with a 289 2bbl, but the valve covers were gold and said "special". Fastest "stock" 289 we've seen. Had a 3 on the tree.
 
This site is supposed to be modivating me to work on my Mopars not my Fords. :wtf:the deal?:lol:
 
318willrun said:
My brother had a '64 Fairlane 4 door with a 289 2bbl, but the valve covers were gold and said "special". Fastest "stock" 289 we've seen. Had a 3 on the tree.
Click to expand...

It may have had more to do with the manual trans than the motors. 2 barrel carbs are a very limiting factor.
 
66fs said:
It may have had more to do with the manual trans than the motors. 2 barrel carbs are a very limiting factor.
Click to expand...
and what gears it may have had. I also had a '64 Galaxie with a 289, 3 on the tree. I was amazed at how well the 289 moved that big car.
 
66fs said:
It may have had more to do with the manual trans than the motors. 2 barrel carbs are a very limiting factor.
Click to expand...

Maybe a stock 2bbl. WE make impressive power on 2bbls in the circle track cars.
 
plymouth67 said:
I have thrown some parts out of both Chevy and Ford motors. I have never (probably shouldn't say this) thrown any parts out of the bottom of a Mopar engine. Yes, I know it can be done but, I feel it's much harder to do in a Mopar engine and, here is why....Rod angle, look at how much wider Mopar engines (big block and small blocks) are than the competition. The width of the engines make it much easier on the rods under load and rpm to push the piston back up the cylinder. The Ford small blocks are almost unnatural on how up and down the cylinders are and, makes more likely to put some parts on the outside of the engine...lol Rod angle, in my eyes the same reason the slant six is...well...slanted.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, the slant six engines were slanted to make the engine shorter overall. This allowed them to fit into the new compact (for the time) valiant/Dart platforms. Regular inline six engines were much taller.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top