283 vs 289!! (longest VS thread?)
[:0][:0][:0][:0]
0
-
Like I said earlier, I saw a factory produced 1963 1/2 Falcon HP 289 in California, that had the identical engine to my 64 (63 and 1/2) Ford Fairlane which was a special order machine itself. This Falcon was very beautiful and without question, fast. Undoubtedly, one or more were made as special order machines. Following is a post I just ran across that attests to another individual having knowledge of them, although he classified it as a 1963 vice a 1963 and 1/2 which it would have been:
http://bringatrailer.com/2010/03/27/you-spec-it-restored-1963-ford-falcon-roller/
Test drove a Sprint model just like this new in 1963. Had a 289 and a 4-speed, but Black interior. Wanted it very badly, however the dealer didn't want my 1955 T-Bird trad in!!0 -
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by fishkiller41
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by fishkiller41
"283= THE MOUSE THAT ROARED"!!
Where...[8)], In a vaccuum?! [:D][:D][:D]
YEP,, the vacuum behind my Nova II that sucked your Mustang down the strip!![:p][:p]
Okay, Fish...show me a factory mid-size chevy that can hang with this Bolt! [:D] BTW, bring your own iron lung. [:D][:D][:D]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzkEviShBUw
Didn't that car nave a big block in it.0 -
quote:Originally posted by PEZHEAD265
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by fishkiller41
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by fishkiller41
"283= THE MOUSE THAT ROARED"!!
Where...[8)], In a vaccuum?! [:D][:D][:D]
YEP,, the vacuum behind my Nova II that sucked your Mustang down the strip!![:p][:p]
Okay, Fish...show me a factory mid-size chevy that can hang with this Bolt! [:D] BTW, bring your own iron lung. [:D][:D][:D]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzkEviShBUw
Didn't that car nave a big block in it.
Yes, here's more info on the '64 T-Bolts: http://www.howstuffworks.com/classic-muscle-cars/1964-ford-thunderbolt.htm0 -
"Chev. did not have a factory engine program for Indy.
Butch"
And the reason was/is that the SBCs didn't have a bottom end that could sustain the abuse of long hours and RPM all up and down the spectrum.
Just could not.
Now, I admit, that the SBC was the turning point in engine development and a fantastic starting point for budget-limited racers, but has never been factory developed to meet its' potential.
Hell, even the long-forgotten - but GREAT - AMC V-8, with displacements from 290 to 401 cubic inches - owed its' success to the SBC.
There is no diminishing the pioneering role that the SBC played in the history of V-8 engines.
But face it...it just isn't the best design.
That role probably belongs to the AMC.
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by butchlambert
It is funny watching guys get upset over cars and guns. Ever have a guy tell you he bought a POS. No way! He would die and go to hell before he admitted it. The Mecury Comets and Ford Fairlanes had a 221 in 1962. The 63 1/3 Sprint had a 260, not a 221 or 289. Chev. had a 283 with 283HP FI in 1957.
Oh, Arkus Duntov produced the hemi Ardun Ford heads as a way to increase the horsepower on the Ford trucks. Don't remember why, but Ford didn't buy the idea and they became Ford flathead hotrod parts. Duntov did not develop the smallblock Chev. He did have a big hand in increasing the horsepower after it was introduced.
The Ford Indy car program relied on Lotus for their engine development and chassis. Chev. did not have a factory engine program for Indy.
Butch
There ya go, ya beat me to the punch on Doug.
I don't recall saying the blocks don't matter, because that's where the cam and lifters/tappets are. That's the angle that is better on a Chevy then a ford. If you can make the pushrod as straight as possible between the lifter and the rocker arm, you get better lift out of the cam. Any deviation from straight reduces the lift. Oh, then why not just increase the ratio of the rocker arm? Isn't that why FORDS have taller valve covers then a SBC? And changing the rocker ratio is a band-aide to try to fix the root cause.
I thought it was Cosworth that developed the FORD Indy and F-1 engines. Although Lotus has a relationship with FORD dating back to the 60's
F-1 and Indy engines are OVERHEAD CAM (and now solenoid actuated) designs that eliminate the mechanical marvel that is a push rod engine.
I'm sure given the chance Chevy Engineering could come up with a competitive F-1 or Indy engine.
A company named Ilmor has created a few successful F-1 engines (for Mercedes) and an Indy engine for Honda (I find this last bit very odd).
Oh and the '88 Indy 500 was won with a Chevy engine.
40 grand for a NASCAR engine might be cheap for you and Grump but it sure isn't chicken feed for me.[:D]
Edit: Doug you can't be serious about suggesting that the FORD Indy engine has the same block as the 289/302 cause your post sure reads that way.0 -
Ya know I love ya, X-1.
Doug0 -
I love you too but you're not getting my Bud lite!
And you know that you and I can ramble on for weeks when it comes to cars and redheads [:D]0 -
I here THAT !!
Doug0 -
quote:40 grand for a NASCAR engine might be cheap for you and Grump but it sure isn't chicken feed for me.
I'm talking street car guys. Found ford parts were always higher than chevy. So it was much easier to make horsepower on the street with a Chevy.
Also Fords just did not like me. Seemed to die when I road in them.0 -
iceracerx,
You are correct on Ilmor and Cosworth. I haven't seen many engines of any brand loose their lower ends in NASCAR.
Does your name indicate a love of ice racing? Did a lot of that when I lived in Alaska.
Butch0 -
Cosworth didn't have a indy motor until 1975 with the DFX. Lotus, Cosworth and Ford did team up in 1966 for Formula 1 engines the DFV. The first Ford Indy engines were production based 289 sleeved to 255 cu putting out about 370 HP with the Weber Carbs. Lotus and Ford Got together in 1963 with help from Dan Gurney. 0 -
Thank you.
Doug0 -
Just incase anybody wants to know Ed Cole is considered the father of the chevy small block 0 -
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by JasonV
289 every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
The 260 V8 was kind of a rare Ford small block but how many of you have heard of the Ford 221 V8?
Not I said the fly, and me neither said the skeeter. [:D]
yep I had 2 along time ago
in my shop I built fords
I had 2 221
1 260
5 2890 -
quote:Originally posted by fishkiller41
quote:Originally posted by PEZHEAD265
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by fishkiller41
quote:Originally posted by kimiOriginally posted by fishkiller41
"283= THE MOUSE THAT ROARED"!!
Where...[8)], In a vaccuum?! [:D][:D][:D]
YEP,, the vacuum behind my Nova II that sucked your Mustang down the strip!![:p][:p]
Okay, Fish...show me a factory mid-size chevy that can hang with this Bolt! [:D] BTW, bring your own iron lung. [:D][:D][:D]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzkEviShBUw
Didn't that car nave a big block in it.
[/quot NO. It did not.That was a bored,balanced,blur printed and stroked "283"...TYVM.
BTW: If U have EVER heard a Big Block ANYTHING spin up like that, U MUST HAVE BEEN/ARE TRIPPING!!( or never heard a real SBC in full song)
OH ,, ok ask ME a question, then put Kimi's posted link in there ?WTH?
THIS IS A SBC, that would,no doubt, SMOKE that BBford!!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGOKMHI-gWI&feature=related
Two notes of interest for you, Fish! [:D] One, the Ford is a factory produced car and its run of 9.32 at 151+ MPH is much faster than the 9.80's and 10+ times your SLOW chevy is crawling at! [:D][:D][:D][;)]0 -
Damn..
doncha jist HATE slow cars ??
Doug0 -
Naw, it was a stock iron block... I read it here.
"The 1963 Ford indy engine was a 289 special cast in aluminum with cast iron cylinder liners and reduced to 255 cubic inches and with pushrod heads.The same engine was used in the 1964 Ford GT.That engine produced 376 horsepower on pump gas and over 400 on alcohol."
And if you're not smart enough to create something yourself, just steal it.
"In 1964,Ford knew it needed more power,so the Double Over Head Cam was born.Ford bought a Meyer-Drake Offenhauser Indy engine to plot its power and torque curve.Ford made the first set of cammer heads with the same port size as the Offenhauser,and the first Quad Cammer tests showed poor torque coming out of the corners.Ford forgot their cylinder size was half that of the Offenhauser,so their port velocities were very low,so they cut the port sizes in half,and that fixed the problem."0 -
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
Naw, it was a stock iron block... I read it here.
"The 1963 Ford indy engine was a 289 special cast in aluminum with cast iron cylinder liners and reduced to 255 cubic inches and with pushrod heads.The same engine was used in the 1964 Ford GT.That engine produced 376 horsepower on pump gas and over 400 on alcohol."
Nobody mentioned cast iron just that it was production based it was just pointed out that it had nothing to do with cosworth until 1975. by the way Mickey thompson ran 255 chevy engines in 1963 they didn't do as well0 -
I used to have a 67 mercury cougar with a 289, 4 barrel carb, mated to a 4 speed manual tranny. My buddy had a 69 camaro RS with a 350 and automatic transmission. We raced each other many times on the interstate, and I would blow his doors off every time. He couldn't keep up with me. He would get close to my rear and I would downshift a gear and walk away from him.[:D]
That 289 was one of the toughest small block engines I ever had.0 -
"Production based"? What is that supposed to mean?
Since I've been involved with the design both "production" and "Race" engines I'm real curious about the meaning. And I sure do like to learn new things.
Maybe FORD/Lotus/Et Al used the same Forged crank? I doubt that because of the difference in material properties between Aluminum and Cast Iron.
Same Connecting rods perhaps? At the RPM an Indy engine would turn, doubtful.
Maybe they used the same "Freeze plugs" although Indy doesn't or didn't have any homologation rules.0 -
My vote is 289 0 -
quote:Originally posted by CHEVELLE427
FOR WHAT USE.
guess it wouldn't matter to me any way so I'm going with 283 just because if what it is (CHEVY)
I DON'T PREFER ANYTHING LESS THEN 396 ANYWAY
I remember the 69 SS 375hp,loved it[:p]0 -
283 = 283 hp 302 would not spin a main as easy cause of the oil getin in there thats why fords were so dependable.
my fav was 347 bowtie when you can find them.
SMALLBLOCK BABY0 -
Here is all that you asked for on the indy engine still not the tricked out coswort that you earlier tried to pass off
The 1963 Indy pushrod engine produced 375 BHP at 7200 RPM from 255 cubic inches
Ford powered Lotus cars were prepared for Indy in 1963, to be driven by Dan Gurney and Jimmy Clark. The engine for these cars was designed and built by Ford beginning in the fall of 1962. Bill Gay, Executive Engineer of Advanced Engines, assembled a team of engineers including Joe Macura and Richard Chen. Their objective was to build a racing engine of 255 CID, producing at least 325 hp, and weighing no more than 350 lbs. The competition the was Meyer-Drake Offenhauser. Ford purchased an Offy and tested it in one of their dyno cells. It produced 400 hp at 6000 RPM. The team had their work cut out for them!
The design project was divided into two phases. First, to baseline the 260 Fairlane engine that was to be the basis of the new engine. Second, to develop a reliable aluminum version of the engine. Work on the 260 began on Sept. 1, 1962. The high performance 260 used in the Cobra was the starting point, dubbed the Stage 0 engine. Stage 1 involved revised and enlarged intake and exhaust ports, and 12.5:1 compression through the used of forged pop-up pistons. The special intake manifold carried four 46mm downdraft Webers carburetors. Larger valves, hollow-stemmed intakes and sodium-filled exhausts were fitted to the heads, along with high silicon content aluminum alloy retainers. 7/16" screw-in rocker studs, with Loctite and further secured by roll pins. The connecting rods were taken from the 289 HiPo engine, fitted with bronze wristpin bushings, shot-peened and polished. The crankshaft used cross-drilled journals for improved connecting rod bearing lubrication at higher engine speeds. After several different camshaft grinds were tried, the 260 produced 325 hp on gasoline, meeting the power objective set for the Lotus racecar.
Work on the aluminum Stage 2 engine began on Nov. 1, 1962. The sand cast aluminum cylinder block differed considerably from the production cast iron 260/289 block. The front of the block and timing cover were completely redesigned to support a gear driven camshaft and water pump. Due to the softer aluminum, the deck thickness was increased 50% to 0.64 inches. Bolt holes were lengthened to a thread engagement of 2 X bolt diameters. Main bearing caps were wider and held by 4 bolts. Cylinder heads were attached by studs, using six per cylinder. Four addition studs protrude from the lower edge of the block, and four studs aim down from the heads themselves into bosses at the edge of the lifter valley.
The bore size was changed from the 260's 3.80" to 3.76", resulting in 255 cubic inch displacement. The block was fitted with dry cast iron sleeves, pressed in. The tops were grooved to carry a steel O-ring gasket. Oil and water passages were sealed with rubber O-rings and a bead of sealant ran across the lifter valley. This dry deck arrangement was later used on the Boss 429. All torqued down, there was a slight air gap between the deck and cylinder head, concentrating all the clamping loads on the cylinder sleeve O-rings.
Special aluminum cylinder heads were made up using the 260/289 production head as a starting point. These heads used aluminum bronze alloy valve guides, alloy steel valve seat inserts, steel valve spring seats, oil passages for the shaft mounted Y-block style rocker arms, and four additional bosses to hold the top row of head studs.
The production cast iron crankshaft was not up to the rigors of Indy. The racing engine used a forged steel crank, with revised counterweighting for internal balancing. Bearing size and type was identical to the 289 HiPo, tri-metal Clevite. The rod crank pins were drilled to lighten and and formed an oil reservoir. The ends of the holes were plugged with steel cup plugs, and pinned. This is similar to that found later on the 427. Forged pistons were used, with full-floating pins retained by double-helical spring retainers. Rods were taken from the Stage 1 engine, 289 HiPo, shot-peened and polished. The oiling system was highly modified and is explained below in the article on the 1964 engine.
I'm certain the two thompson egines were also highly modified which 1 threw a rod at the 1/2 way point which means the lower end might mean something afterall0 -
289,283? My Dual Quad 312 1957 T-Bird was comptetitive whith both of them in the mid '60s and still is. Friend had a '64 Chevy II witha a 283 and 4 speed. Never did beat the T-Bird until he installed a 350 horse LT1 350 in it. I took one ride in it and said you win. Car was scarry fast with the LT1. Another friend had a '65 Mustang convertable with the 271 HP 289, 4 speed, .389 rear end. T-Bird was stock with factory dual quad set up, 3 speed and .389 rear end. We ran within 1/2 car lengh of each other. Me ahead sometimes, him others. I think the 289 better than the 283. Still like my Y block. Had a 58 Ford sedan before the Bird. 292, 4barrel, 3 speed, .389 rear end. Would keep up with most of the 283's on the street in '63 to '65. 0 -
"The sand cast aluminum cylinder block differed considerably from the production cast iron 260/289 block."
Thanks for the info!0 -
Originally posted by JasonV
289 every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
The 260 V8 was kind of a rare Ford small block but how many of you have heard of the Ford 221 V8?
[/ quote]
I HAVE!!!!!!!!0 -
Slumlord - I was a Y-Block fan.
In a 5 year span, I owned 14 '57 Fords, and 2 '55 2 door posts.
I built many, MANY Y-Blocks, always using the ECZ-G heads.
One of my favorites was a 272 with those heads, that I put into one of the '55s - a 2 door post from the phone company, which had no backseat from the factory.
That engine was the only sreetable Y-Block I ever saw that could run at sustained RPM levels just above 7,000.
On a few that I ran, I used Sanderson headers - the others I designed and built (the headers) from scratch. I had my camshafts ground by a North Sacramento outfit named Valley Ring and Rebore. The first profiles I used were their off-the-shelf C-19 - later, they ground them to my spec.
Many other supposedly faster cars, were surprised by those ol' Y-Blocks.
I used Ford station wagon 9" rear axles and spring packs. The wagon rear ends were significantly narrower allowing more tire under the car without radiusing the wheel wells - just had to beat the edges back flat.
Those were pretty damned good times that will never be seen again.
Thanks for the memories.
Doug0 -
a friend a pinto, he wanted a v8, well we worked at it for some time.
we stuffed a 221. but the truth was the power in a pinto made a bad car even worse.0 -
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by fishkiller41
[:0][:0][:0][:0]
There is no 'verses' to it. They were both designed by the same person. When Duntov designed the small block Chevy there were some problems, and Ford ask him to designed their small block (221,260,289) he simply took the older Chevy design and engineered the flaws out of it.
History is really interesting if you take the time to learn it![;)]
Do you have a source for this info?
Duntov was a consultant with FORD BEFORE he worked at GM (1953). He burned some serious bridges at FORD by going to work at Chevy. Ed Cole headed the group that designed the Chevy 265 and Duntov retired from GM in 1975. When was it that he, Duntov, designed the FORD small block?
My source is my memory! I was a avid drag racer in my younger day. I recall this discussion in one of the magazines of the day and an interview with several of the big names in the 'business', one of which was Duntov and others like Ack Miller and they said Duntov was the one who contributed most to the design of the Chevy small block in the early 50's and in the early 60's when Ford wanted to go this route they contacted Duntov who was the most influential designer of the Ford small block. The Chevy had a problem with losing oil pressure at high RPM's and the rear mounted distributor as a problem. There were others, and they engineered most of the problems out of the Ford small blocks. The volumetric efficiency is better with the Ford for this reason. The real proof is when they took the 70 Z-28 and the 70 BOSS 302 engines and put them both side by side on the dyno. Stock the Z did 325 HP at 6800 RPM and the BOSS did 327 HP at 6600 RPM!!!
BUT every time they increased the breathing (carburetion and cams) the Ford would add about 10 to 15% more HP than the Chevy.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
161 comments