Comparison 340 / 289

-
An actual 289 "hipo" is a pretty rare bird. I'm sure a lot of guys claiming to have one are not being truthful. Also, the heads are not very good at all. Its the same casting as the regular 4V 289, only with screw in studs. The stock E7 head that comes on a 5.0 is vastly better. The stock intake manifold is the same as a regular 4V 289 also.

Another thing I've found about them is that they had a solid camshaft stock, and most people don't get that you've got to set the lash and change your valvesprings lots more regularly than you do with a hydraulic cam. Also, you have to rev the thing to make the power.

As far as riding in one, 289 and 302s are misleading. They don't make a lot of torque, so you don't really feel like you're scooting as quickly as you are.

Also, anyone running a dual quad tunnel ram on a 289/302 needs to have their reproductive capabilities revoked.
 
I remember a guy with a 66 true Hi-Po that I saw beat a good running 396 Chevelle and a 68 383 Bird. Don't know what he had done to it other than Hookers and a 3310 Holley but it was wicked quick. I'm sure it wasn't stock as rummors said he had forged 11 1/2's and a cam that only sounded a little more than stock. I'd guess he was turning 7500 rpm.
But the 340?
That is a different thing. I remember seeing a stock 70 Duster 340 but had headers, beat a stock 440 6 pak Road Runner. They ran late in the day at the track and the Duster won by about 1 car. I don't remember the times or speeds. I had a 56 Chevy then with 327. I wouldn't pull on the track with them because I'd already had my butt handed to me by the Duster (it wasn't even close). I went thru 7 engines with that 56 and after the Duster, I decided I wanted a Dodge/Plymouth.
 
darndart said:
Take a look. Almost every 390 powered Ford was running in the 15 second range, and almost every 340 Mopar, even with auto trans and 3.23 gears was running in the 14's!

http://roadtests.tripod.com/index.html
Click to expand...
The 390 was an embarassment, but serious Ford guys didn't mess with 390s. In my experience, when money was on the line, most of the engines were 427/428 Fords, 454/427 Chevys, Ram air IV headed 428 or 421s ponchos , 455 Buick/Olds, and Hemi/440+6 Mopars.
 
Love this thread. As other has stated, the true Hi-Pro 289 was the K code and were very quick if properly maintained and a low gear (at least 4:11). Biggest problem, people wanted to modify them and it seems with each change they just got slower and slower. Not one else brought up the 71 Boss 351 with the solid lifter 351 Cleveland. That was the quickest of the older Mustangs. Ran in the 13's from the factory with 3:91 gears. They were big but quick.

Back then, a lot of Mopars suffered from the same issue that the Fords encountered. Most of the machine shops and speed shops worked mostly on Chevy engines. When someone took in a Mopar or Ford, they tried to set it up like a Chevy and ended up making it slower. Was hard to find a shop that specialized in these brands, especially Mopar, but when you did watch out, those suckers could run with a few specific mods.

Modern engines are a lot different. I also own an 08 Bullitt Mustang with a 4.6 (281 CID). Even with the factory somewhat inefficient tune, it runs mid 13s...off the floor. The new Challenger R/T with a 5.7 runs about the same times. It would be a drivers race. Granted that with a few mods, the Challenger will eat the Mustang for lunch, but I am still surprised what the current Mustang can do with a 281 engine.
 
PS; In case you may not have determined this, my garage contains Mopars, Chevys and Fords so I got all the bases covered. ;-) :) :)

(just no ricers)
 
In highschool a friend of mine had a 71 Mach 1,it had a 351 Cobra jet with a 4 speed!Man that car was quick(cause 1/2 of it was gone do to rust)LOL!I couldn,t believe when he told me he scrapped it.Police yanked his plates,that,s how rotten it was!
 
darndart said:
According to this Popular Mechanics road test the 5.7 Challenger could only muster a 14.4 quarter mile. And that was with a 6 speed and 3.92 gears. From what I read in the article it looks like the Challengers are just too darn heavy! Over 500 Lbs. heavier that a similar equipped Mustang GT.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/4309423.html#comments
Click to expand...

i don't believe those boys know how to drive one is my guess. my wifes r/t magnum, 5.7 hemi, will run 14.40's. it weighs 4400 pounds with me in it.
 
OK...more fuel to the fire. I am Mopar faithful, owned my 340 Swinger for 23 years, owned dozens of mopars through the years including a few Hemicars as I written about on other posts. HOWEVER, growing up, my Dad worked for Dodge but restored Mustangs, so it only stands to reason that I have had my share of those too. The early K code Mustangs were advertised as having 271 horsepower and they sure did. I had a '65 K code GT fastback, 4 speed, all stock that ran 14.03 @ 102 mph. Also, my '67 Shelby with the 306 horsepower 289 ran 13.92 @ 104 mph. Now, to add credance to your comments about the 390 my '67 GT hardtop with the 390 and 4 speed could only muster a 15.29 @ 99.
 
daredevil said:
not a ford man myself but my dad had a 70 mach 1 with a cleveland and a few upgrades that 340s wouldnt touch in the 70s. the runners in the heads are as big as rb runners. next time youre in a big machine shop take a look. the cleveland heads are impressive. ok now you can jump all over me.lol
Click to expand...
YA YOUR RIGHT thay are impressive looking and thay do work BUT the heads start working at 7000 and the crank explods at 6500.. haha.them ford guys are somthing. but i will say thay do make some prtty good farm eqp.
 
The 289 2 bbl stock was only around 200 hp..340's were underrated at 275 hp. The 289/271 hp version was more suited to run a 340.
 
LXguy said:
An actual 289 "hipo" is a pretty rare bird. I'm sure a lot of guys claiming to have one are not being truthful. Also, the heads are not very good at all. Its the same casting as the regular 4V 289, only with screw in studs. The stock E7 head that comes on a 5.0 is vastly better. The stock intake manifold is the same as a regular 4V 289 also.

Another thing I've found about them is that they had a solid camshaft stock, and most people don't get that you've got to set the lash and change your valvesprings lots more regularly than you do with a hydraulic cam. Also, you have to rev the thing to make the power.

As far as riding in one, 289 and 302s are misleading. They don't make a lot of torque, so you don't really feel like you're scooting as quickly as you are.

Also, anyone running a dual quad tunnel ram on a 289/302 needs to have their reproductive capabilities revoked.
Click to expand...

As LXguy says, The "K" code or "HiPo"289 is pretty rare and not the same as a regular 289. Putting a 4 bbl on a 289 would not make it a muscle car engine.

I have had both 340s and a real "K" 289 Mustang. I just happen to like Mopars more than everything else but that Stang was an amazing car. In stock form the "K" 289 is a nasty little motor. It was stock with solid lifters, 4.10 gears and a 4 speed. That with the headers, it was really fast especailly 0-60 where most of the stoplight action was, still not as fast as a 340 set up the same way in the 1/4.

By the time the 340 was out the "K" motor was gone so its not like a buyes could have had a choice between the two. A better comparison to the 340 would have been the "M" code 351 C.
 
Those of us that are sympathethic to the Ford 289 are trying to find a better comparison to the 340 than the 289. As stated earlier the 289 would compete well with a comparable 273 and a 351 C would be more competition for a 340.
 
I'll have to look a little closer at his stang but I remember my dads 66 S barracuda being able to light up the rear tires without too much trouble. He's barely able to get a squeak out off them. Its a nice car but notch back mustangs are not my favorite. I like all the old fast backs models but I'd want a bigger power plant than a 289 if I ever did cross over to the dark side.
 
Back in the day, a high school buddy that had 65 Stang w/289 4bbl dual exhaust stock mani's we raced and I beat him with my 70 Challenger w/bone stock 318 2bb. I must have had at least a few hundred pounds on him, the car that is... LOL! And still walked away from him.

The next year I put together a '69 Dart w/440 out of a Chrysler Newport (low compression job) and street raced it with him as my side kick. The Dart had skinny wheels and tires with hub caps. Definitely a sleeper. Oh course I didn't race too many off the line.

Well, now he owns his own Mopar - 64 Sport Fury w/440. You can find him on www.forbbodiesonly.com with the handle of Moose. Sweet Fury!
 
This thread rules... If only the fag at my highschool with the 67 Factory 2-barrel 289, now with a cute little 4 barrel, mustang convertable would read this and stop talking s#!t about my dart.....:angry7:
 
684mulas said:
As LXguy says, The "K" code or "HiPo"289 is pretty rare and not the same as a regular 289. Putting a 4 bbl on a 289 would not make it a muscle car engine.

I have had both 340s and a real "K" 289 Mustang. I just happen to like Mopars more than everything else but that Stang was an amazing car. In stock form the "K" 289 is a nasty little motor. It was stock with solid lifters, 4.10 gears and a 4 speed. That with the headers, it was really fast especailly 0-60 where most of the stoplight action was, still not as fast as a 340 set up the same way in the 1/4.

By the time the 340 was out the "K" motor was gone so its not like a buyers could have had a choice between the two. A better comparison to the 340 would have been the "M" code 351 C.
Click to expand...

Actual "K" Code 289s and the cars they were installed in were much different than a regular 289. If you ever drive one, I bet you would like it a lot.

100-0053_IMG.jpg


100-0063_IMG.jpg


100-0061_IMG.jpg
 
PFogel said:
The 289 in that Mustang must have had a very poor engine combination or very lazy timing. Back in high school I had a friend and his dad owned the Ford dealership in Maysville, Ky. His car was a 2+2 fastback K-code with the 289 Hi-Perf engine, C4 and an 8" rear with 4.11 gears. It ran with the 327/300 HP Chevelles that my other friends had. It was very respectable and ran low 13s at the strip in Clay City (with slicks).
I owned a '70 Mustang Mach 1 with the 351 Cleveland 4-barrel, 4-spd and 3.90 in the 9" locker. Guys, it really hauled *** and revved easily to 7,000 rpm. It's one of the cars I wish I had never sold but a collector offered me twice what I paid for it so I let it go. The man was generally right when he said there were some fast Ford race cars but the results never really made it to the streets. It amazes me how many muscle cars Ford put out and MOST did not have lockers in the rear!! You couldn't get my old friend Don Nicholson out of a Ford, especially after Jon Kaase came on board! Others ran great too like Fast Eddie Schartman, Hubert Platt, Phil Bonner, Roger Gustin and more back in the early days of Super Stock.
I think the Mopar 340 rates as one of the all time best small blocks of any brand. That big old 4.040 bore and that 3.91 stroke let it really buzz up. They respond to every modification that is sensibly done and they are very durable. I have seen them beat a lot of big blocks! I don't like the crazy banking angle of the lifters held over from the early hemis. I don't like that they don't have enough head bolts when you start adding compression. I have had my hot 340 push out the gaskets so badly that pressure forced into the water jackets blew out a freeze plug!
289 VS 340? No comparison!
Pat:cheers:
Click to expand...
Where have you been? Quite for too long. Welcome back.
 
Back in the day,I had a 1960 Galaxy, heavy *** car. Put a 63 390 in it, along with the 3 speed auto, and all kinds of 406 parts in it; Actually had fun.
Then got a ride in a 340 a-body. Never looked back.
 
684mulas said:
Actual "K" Code 289s and the cars they were installed in were much different than a regular 289. If you ever drive one, I bet you would like it a lot.
Click to expand...


now i see where mopar got the rallye dash from.lol j/k guys
 
289 is giving up too much displacement to a 340. I have read that back in the day, the 289 K code mustang was the D/Dart's nemesis. I have had 289's, 302's and also small block mopars. A better comparo to the 289 would be a 318, and the 318 was torqueier for sure. I still like those small block Ford engines. Sure are reliable. My wife's explorer 5.0 is running strong with 210,000 miles and only a t-chain and water pump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top