Go Back   Australian Ford Forums > General Topics > The Pub

The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-05-2006, 01:51 PM   #1
OzJavelin
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
OzJavelin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,633
Default 289 Sohc

Just to prove nothing is really new .. I was reading an old "MuscleCars" magazine last night and found an article on smallblock Fords (written 1990) which detailed a 289 Windsor with SOHC:
"Ford engineers added aluminum cam boxes in place of the valve covers. The cams acted directly on the top of the modified rocker arms. The bump-sticks were driven by a 1-inch Gilmer belt that got it's twist from a crank-mounted pulley ... The result? With single 4-barrel, the engine cranked out 300hp. The 289 'cammer would also spin to 6500rpm with ease. The problem was that even with the additional rpm potential, the heads and manifold simply couldn't flow enough to keep up. Until that disappointment, Ford had intended to market the overhead cam setup as an over-the-counter kit to be installed by car owners looking for a higher level of performance. When the OHC didn't live up to expectations, the project found itself to be shelved."
I don't think 300hp from 289ci in the mid-sixties is too shabby? Kind of makes a SOHC 5.4L look under-rated. How cool would a SOHC 289 be in an XR GT?? Sweet!!!

OzJavelin is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 08-05-2006, 06:09 PM   #2
Bossxr8
Peter Car
 
Bossxr8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: geelong
Posts: 23,145
Default

Ford had a SOHC 427 available in the 60's. They made around 50 of them, they would have sold more but Nascar banned them from using it so they dropped it. Made around 600+ hp and revved past 7000rpm.
Bossxr8 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 08-05-2006, 08:15 PM   #3
smciner1
Detroit Locker Equiped TM
 
smciner1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Area 51 (tm)
Posts: 4,928
Default

It would certainly have had potential.
__________________
Apollo Blue 1974 XB Falcon GT, 557 HP
Blue Pearl 2004 BA FPV GT, 290 kW

Quote:
Originally Posted by MRJUCY
Simple give the car a rev & have a listen a Windsor makes a sort of wheezy drone similar to an angry Hugh Grant when a Clevo will sound like Satan has woke up with a hangover & realized he is out of coffee & cigarettes
Falcon GT Club of Geelong.
http://www.facebook.com/FalconGTClubGeelong
smciner1 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 08-05-2006, 11:00 PM   #4
nb_351
building the xe...
 
nb_351's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: western sydney - home of the mullet
Posts: 2,473
Default

i think everyone is wishing they built more of the 427 cammers... except the opposition... hehe
would have been the best motor out... imagine it in a gt40? or a cobra... or even a phase 2 like bil bourkes? hmmm
nb_351 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 08-05-2006, 11:13 PM   #5
philstoj
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
philstoj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,256
Default

The 289 in the shelby GT350 models was rated at 306hp, the R models a bit more.
The standard ford 289 Hp was rated at 271hp...
It obviously wasnt a viable option,otherwise they would have built it.
Also the 289's in the GT40's, and cobra's were rated at 385hp, and race ones that were fitted with fuel injection, and guerney westlake heads were rated at well over 400hp.
The 289 is a very nice little engine which wouldve been seeing well over 8000 rpm in racing cars back then, the 289 powered GT40's of the day had a top speed of 217 mph.
philstoj is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 09-05-2006, 08:17 AM   #6
OzJavelin
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
OzJavelin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,633
Default

... sounds like the 289 SOHC was basically a stock engine with the conversion .. imagine if it was setup to 289 HiPo specs .. or Shelby-ized??? Great little engines. Very cool ..
OzJavelin is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 09-05-2006, 01:59 PM   #7
fast66
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philstoj
The 289 in the shelby GT350 models was rated at 306hp, the R models a bit more.
The standard ford 289 Hp was rated at 271hp...
It obviously wasnt a viable option,otherwise they would have built it.
Also the 289's in the GT40's, and cobra's were rated at 385hp, and race ones that were fitted with fuel injection, and guerney westlake heads were rated at well over 400hp.
The 289 is a very nice little engine which wouldve been seeing well over 8000 rpm in racing cars back then, the 289 powered GT40's of the day had a top speed of 217 mph.
No, the Hipo 289 was rated at 271 hp. The standard 4 bbl was rated at 220Hp and the 2BBl was rated at 200Hp. (1966)Keep in mind those power ratings are not comparable to current measurement figures.
fast66 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 09-05-2006, 04:22 PM   #8
all4ford
XW 351
 
all4ford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Camden
Posts: 328
Default

Sorry if this is a dumb question. but how do they convert an engine to OHC, what do they do with the area in the block where the cam use to sit?
all4ford is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 09-05-2006, 05:16 PM   #9
OzJavelin
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
OzJavelin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by all4ford
Sorry if this is a dumb question. but how do they convert an engine to OHC, what do they do with the area in the block where the cam use to sit?
Good question actually? If it wasn't a solid lifter jobbie, then they need to at least block off the oil galleries and whatnot? I don't see any point in keeping the cam/lifters/etc in ...
Rod.
OzJavelin is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 09-05-2006, 07:57 PM   #10
turboute
turboute
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 502
Default

They could just leave it empty - as long as the oil returned to the sump there would be no problems in theory.
turboute is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 09-05-2006, 10:54 PM   #11
Barry_v
rocknrolla
 
Barry_v's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Adelaide, SA
Posts: 1,589
Default

well you would need the cam to still be turning so that the dizzy/oil pump would still be driven. so chances are they just left it there.
Barry_v is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 10-05-2006, 10:51 AM   #12
philstoj
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
philstoj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,256
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philstoj
The standard ford 289 Hp was rated at 271hp....

Quote:
Originally Posted by fast66
No, the Hipo 289 was rated at 271 hp. The standard 4 bbl was rated at 220Hp and the 2BBl was rated at 200Hp. (1966)Keep in mind those power ratings are not comparable to current measurement figures.

Exactly! the 289 hp is the hipo!!
philstoj is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 10-05-2006, 11:08 AM   #13
Rev28K
re
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Victoria - where being slow & incompetent is considered being "safe"
Posts: 1,323
Default

There were a couple of aftermarket companies back in the 80’s/90’s that had/talked about an overhead conversion to pushrod Ford V8’s (I can’t remember if they were Windsors or Clevos). I think they had different heads bolted on to the stock blocks. The drive to the OHC was taken by rubber belts (maybe chains) from the front of the crank.

Expensive as all hell – I don’t know what they did with the distributor drive.
__________________
Scuderia Rev: Otto the tow pig - 2007 3.0 litre Coupé, vernünftig schnelle aber kein peilstab, Bathurst 2007 und 2010 zwölf Stunde Gewinner Jaffa the angry ant - mid 70's Honda 市民の, 73 と立方インチ LSD Elle "the body" shell - early 70's Datsun フェアレディ coupe. いい体は彼女の内側、内側と土台を待つ
Rev28K is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 10-05-2006, 12:53 PM   #14
BJ
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,377
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bossxr8
Ford had a SOHC 427 available in the 60's. They made around 50 of them, they would have sold more but NASCAR banned them from using it so they dropped it. Made around 600+ hp and revved past 7000rpm.
Were did you pluck that figure from. Ford had to make 500 of them to get them homologated for NASCAR. If they only had made fifty than it would have put the 30 that Mickey Thompson race with nearly all of the stock ford had. Plus the 20 odd that ford had throw at Connie Kallita, and the other 10 that they gave Jack Roush for his race program. And there top rev range was 6800 not 7000rpm. The main reason was the 6foot timing chain in them. The Little 289 would have be a bit of a weapon though.
BJ is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 11-05-2006, 03:53 PM   #15
Bossxr8
Peter Car
 
Bossxr8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: geelong
Posts: 23,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BJ
Were did you pluck that figure from. Ford had to make 500 of them to get them homologated for NASCAR. If they only had made fifty than it would have put the 30 that Mickey Thompson race with nearly all of the stock ford had. Plus the 20 odd that ford had throw at Connie Kallita, and the other 10 that they gave Jack Roush for his race program. And there top rev range was 6800 not 7000rpm. The main reason was the 6foot timing chain in them. The Little 289 would have be a bit of a weapon though.
I got that info out of the story in Street Machine last month. They didn't make many as it was banned not long after they started production. Why be so pedantic?
Bossxr8 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 11-05-2006, 04:06 PM   #16
BJ
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,377
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bossxr8
I got that info out of the story in Street Machine last month. They didn't make many as it was banned not long after they started production. Why be so pedantic?
Because that how misinformation gets started that why. Like the fact that every one states that the four barrel Autolite inline carby is actually four single carbs, when in fact it's not and guess who started that one as well, yep good old Street Machine. I believe half of what they write and 10% of what i see in that mag. Call me pedantic if you like but unlike some i like to no the facts. :
BJ is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 11-05-2006, 04:59 PM   #17
Bossxr8
Peter Car
 
Bossxr8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: geelong
Posts: 23,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BJ
Because that how misinformation gets started that why. Like the fact that every one states that the four barrel Autolite inline carby is actually four single carbs, when in fact it's not and guess who started that one as well, yep good old Street Machine. I believe half of what they write and 10% of what i see in that mag. Call me pedantic if you like but unlike some i like to no the facts. :
Well maybe you should provide the exact numbers of Cammers produced.
Bossxr8 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 11-05-2006, 05:09 PM   #18
philstoj
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
philstoj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,256
Default

BJ is right though, there were quite a few more the 50 made as they did sell them over the counter as a complete engine (crate engine) aswell.
I dont know the exact figures, but even though they were banned from NASCAR, to qualify them, they wouldve made a minimum number much greater than 50.
As BJ said, they were fitted to various different drags cars, nitro funny cars,altereds,AFX cars etc.
Would be good to see if anyone knows how many they made.
As for street machine.....
philstoj is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Reply


Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 07:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Other than what is legally copyrighted by the respective owners, this site is copyright www.fordforums.com.au
Positive SSL