289 horsepower rating?

MetalHead · 03-07-2002, 09:33 PM

does anybody know for a fact what the stock hp is for a 67 289 2V, with a 3 spd manual? My friend and I are having this argument, and he thinks that a stock 289 2V from 67 comes with about 120-130 rwhp. I can't believe that it could be that low. And I know that Ford exaggerated their horsepower ratings back in the 60's so we don't know what to believe...

There is a website www.classicponycars.com that says it comes with 200 hp stock, but who knows.

72grande · 03-07-2002, 10:06 PM

I'm that friend, and I only wantfirst had experiance on this one. I dont want 100 people replying with what they think they shoul dhave, and waht people way they had ect. The only data I'll take seriously are first hand acounts of 1/4 mile time's, and dyno numbers, bone stock. And I mean real stock, no gear changes, no bolt ons, like the cars came fromthe factory.

Kisner · 03-07-2002, 10:24 PM

Can only tell you what Ford said in their shop manual - 200hp for the 289 2V. It shows 120hp for the 200 6 cylinder. Believe the high performance 289 had 271hp. Of course if Ford did fudge on their #s, then you'll have to get it from someone who's had theirs tested.

thehorse · 03-07-2002, 10:24 PM

Look on your identification plaque and read the (i think) fifth digit on the top portion. The letter will either read C, A, or K (this of course only implies if the stock engine is in your car. If the letter is C it produces 200hp@4400rpm, if it is A it produces 225hp@4800rpm, if it is the almighty K(like mine!not the stock engine of my car though) it produces 271hp@6000rpm. This is the factory numbers and are not entirely accurate(not accurate at all). But 289 engines do not have hp of 130. I don't think the factory exaggerated that much.

PKRWUD · 03-07-2002, 11:17 PM

200hp in stock form. Doesn't take much at all to add to that, though. Chrome valve covers alone bring it up to 225hp.

Take care,
-Chris

Really, 200hp

72grande · 03-07-2002, 11:26 PM

there is no way in hell they come with 200hp. I dismise that idea out of hand.

PKRWUD · 03-07-2002, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 72grande
there is no way in hell they come with 200hp. I dismise that idea out of hand.

Bet me.

72grande · 03-07-2002, 11:58 PM

haha, ok, but the burden of proof is on you. 200 at the crank should be about 170 at the wheels. Show me a stock 289 2V that put even 160 at the wheels as it came out of the factory.

--50 bucks?

fordkid68 · 03-08-2002, 12:32 AM

well I guess you could always say I am full of **** or that my friend is full of **** if you don't belive me but he got his 67 289 2v dynoed at 233 hp and it's all stock exept for the k&n air filter. now I know the k&n filter adds horeses but not 33 horeses. don't doubt ford or the 289.

ford kid

72grande · 03-08-2002, 01:32 AM

I am going to say your friend is full of ****.

PKRWUD · 03-08-2002, 10:22 AM

Below are specs from 3 different sources, as well as the dyno results from 289 rebuild done by a magazine. The article focused on engine balancing, and how much horsepower could be gained from a quality, STOCK rebuild. The only thing they did to the engine that was not stock was to install a stock replacement 4bbl intake and an out-of-the-box Carter 625 carb.

The first engine I ever rebuilt was a 289 2bbl in an engine rebuilding class in college. We weren't allowed to add anything that was not stock, or to stock specs. The only difference was that we had bored it .030" over to clean up the cylinders. On the college dyno, it reached 228 horsepower.

I'm not going to invest anymore time proving you wrong, but I shouldn't need to. I'm not sure why you are so convinced the 289 2bbl was so weak, but you should know that if you go around talking like that, you're going to look like an idiot to those in the know. Just some friendly advice.

Take care,
-Chris

thunderbolt · 03-08-2002, 10:41 AM

Sigh
67 289 w/ 2V carb was rated at 200hp but you have to remember this was pre 72 and hp was rated as gross not net. In other words, this engine made 200hp with the alternator, water pump, and everything else removed, at the crank. I have heard this translates to about 160 net hp. So at the rear wheels you can easliy have 120-130. Don't forget old autos sucked up about 25% where as manuals only suck up about 15%. These cars generally feel peppy because they were light weight and didn't usually have all the power robbers of today. (AC, PS, Air pump, etc...)

PKRWUD · 03-08-2002, 10:47 AM

While it is true that there is a measurable difference between an engine on a dyno and a car on a dyno, it is also true that the posted horsepower ratings from 1967 on were usually conservative due to limits and fines that were being discussed, and later enacted, by the govt. in efforts to curb emissions.

Mercury · 03-08-2002, 01:30 PM

Dang. I didnt see this thread till it was to late. ThunderBolt beat me to it.

I have no doubt that the Net Flywheel Horse power is as claimed by Ford in the 60's.

As Thunderbolt mentioned though, the ways Horsepower is rated now is diffrent. Back then it was rated with no nothing, no Powersteering, no Waterpump, No Fan, no AC.

Something else to think about is, how much of a drag those old Power Steering pumps and AC compressors put out. Todays stuff is alot more effiecint and doesnt take as much power to turn.

I think 120-130 RWHP sounds about right for a loaded C-Code 289, thats with an auto, and power steering.

I wonder what my ol' 289 turns out. Its got some balls to it. And in that light car it screams along pretty good.

1969Mach1 · 03-08-2002, 02:10 PM

I use www.fomoco.com I found it to have the best information about engines.
http://www.fomoco.com/index.asp?Dept=4&Tool=0

that link is directly to the site, just select your engine code and it'll tell you tons about it including a picture. I do agree it is 200 or plus horse power.

Take Care,
§am.

72grande · 03-08-2002, 03:51 PM

Guys, quoting the service manual isnt going to cut it. Its that very number I'm disputing. And the last link PRKW posted, if you read the text, it sounds like the only thing stock on that engine is the rods.

72grande · 03-08-2002, 03:54 PM

And thanks to the few of you who are being realistic. Perhaps 120 WHP is a lil low, but its a closer number to think about than 200.

thunderbolt · 03-08-2002, 06:10 PM

It's not so much about being realistic as it is realizing that that most of the arguement here is centered on two different HP rating systems. The first, gross hp of the C code 289, and the second which was posted at the very beginning, rwhp. The two are about as far away as you can get. I have seen dyno results for rwhp on old mustangs and they are really low. Modern engines are rated as net HP. (Not RWHP either) General rule of thumb is multiply gross number by .75 and it gets you into the net ball park. The next general rule is multiply by .15 to .25 for driveline loss to get rwhp. We don't like to admit our old muscle cars don't have the power of new cars but amazingly enough, 30 some odd years of technology and the need to improve effeciency have resulted in some pretty phenomenal power. At its heart though, the old 289 isn't much differnt from a 5.0 and so a 289 can make these same kind of numbers with the right work.

Kinson Cook, Jr · 03-10-2002, 08:47 PM

I can say with a dyno sheet that my stock '67 GT500 only made 230rwhp on the same dyno I run my S/W car on (which made over 300rwhp). It is sad to say but the old cars do not put out nearly the hp everyone thinks they do. The shop also said they had dynoed another Shelby GT500 and it also only made 225 hp, so face the facts that the numbers are not as high as one would believe.

Rev · 03-10-2002, 09:05 PM

All this is not really difficult to understand.

200 gross hp X 85% = 170 net at the flywheel. (Ford's figures).

170 net hp X 75% (C-4 auto) = 127.5 hp at the wheels.

I fail to see the problem.

Rev

03-07-2002, 09:33 PM	#1
MetalHead Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Monterey, CA Posts: 76	289 horsepower rating? does anybody know for a fact what the stock hp is for a 67 289 2V, with a 3 spd manual? My friend and I are having this argument, and he thinks that a stock 289 2V from 67 comes with about 120-130 rwhp. I can't believe that it could be that low. And I know that Ford exaggerated their horsepower ratings back in the 60's so we don't know what to believe... There is a website www.classicponycars.com that says it comes with 200 hp stock, but who knows. __________________ 67 Coupe 289, 2 1/4'' pipes w/ Flowmasters Edelbrock 600 cfm 4bbl carb, Edelbrock Airgap intake Hooker headers, MSD Ignition system Next: new tranny, T5 or Toploader

03-07-2002, 11:17 PM	#5
PKRWUD Junior Member Join Date: Mar 1999 Location: Ventura, California Posts: 8,981	200hp in stock form. Doesn't take much at all to add to that, though. Chrome valve covers alone bring it up to 225hp. Take care, -Chris Really, 200hp __________________ Webmaster: Rice Haters Club Jim Porter Racing Peckerwoods Pit Stop Support Your Local RED & WHITE!

03-08-2002, 10:22 AM	#11
PKRWUD Junior Member Join Date: Mar 1999 Location: Ventura, California Posts: 8,981	Below are specs from 3 different sources, as well as the dyno results from 289 rebuild done by a magazine. The article focused on engine balancing, and how much horsepower could be gained from a quality, STOCK rebuild. The only thing they did to the engine that was not stock was to install a stock replacement 4bbl intake and an out-of-the-box Carter 625 carb. The first engine I ever rebuilt was a 289 2bbl in an engine rebuilding class in college. We weren't allowed to add anything that was not stock, or to stock specs. The only difference was that we had bored it .030" over to clean up the cylinders. On the college dyno, it reached 228 horsepower. I'm not going to invest anymore time proving you wrong, but I shouldn't need to. I'm not sure why you are so convinced the 289 2bbl was so weak, but you should know that if you go around talking like that, you're going to look like an idiot to those in the know. Just some friendly advice. Take care, -Chris __________________ Webmaster: Rice Haters Club Jim Porter Racing Peckerwoods Pit Stop Support Your Local RED & WHITE!

03-08-2002, 10:47 AM	#13
PKRWUD Junior Member Join Date: Mar 1999 Location: Ventura, California Posts: 8,981	While it is true that there is a measurable difference between an engine on a dyno and a car on a dyno, it is also true that the posted horsepower ratings from 1967 on were usually conservative due to limits and fines that were being discussed, and later enacted, by the govt. in efforts to curb emissions. __________________ Webmaster: Rice Haters Club Jim Porter Racing Peckerwoods Pit Stop Support Your Local RED & WHITE!

03-08-2002, 01:30 PM	#14
Mercury The Redneck James Bond Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Fayetteville NC Posts: 1,707	Dang. I didnt see this thread till it was to late. ThunderBolt beat me to it. I have no doubt that the Net Flywheel Horse power is as claimed by Ford in the 60's. As Thunderbolt mentioned though, the ways Horsepower is rated now is diffrent. Back then it was rated with no nothing, no Powersteering, no Waterpump, No Fan, no AC. Something else to think about is, how much of a drag those old Power Steering pumps and AC compressors put out. Todays stuff is alot more effiecint and doesnt take as much power to turn. I think 120-130 RWHP sounds about right for a loaded C-Code 289, thats with an auto, and power steering. I wonder what my ol' 289 turns out. Its got some balls to it. And in that light car it screams along pretty good. __________________ 64 1/2 "D" code Red Mustang Coupe. Red Baron, 2000 Perf Red Mustang GT. 5spd. Stage 2 CNC heads with Large Valves, Comp Cams (270-274 dur .550 lift), Forged Crank, DRP pistons, Manly H-beams, Pro M 87 mm Mass Air, 24lb Inj, 75mm TB, Plenum Spacer ,Long Tube Headers, Homemade H-pipe, 2 chamber Flows, 4:10's, Steeda Tri-Ax, LKW 70/30's, Eibach Drag Springs, Steeda SubFrames, Battle Boxes, Rear Girdle, Adj uppers, Alunimum Drshft, Southside Lift Bars. Project Cars, 64 1/2 6cyl coupe, 1930 Model A Nostalgia Rod.

03-07-2002, 10:06 PM	#2
72grande Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Monterey Posts: 33	I'm that friend, and I only wantfirst had experiance on this one. I dont want 100 people replying with what they think they shoul dhave, and waht people way they had ect. The only data I'll take seriously are first hand acounts of 1/4 mile time's, and dyno numbers, bone stock. And I mean real stock, no gear changes, no bolt ons, like the cars came fromthe factory.

03-07-2002, 10:24 PM	#3
Kisner Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Posts: 290	Can only tell you what Ford said in their shop manual - 200hp for the 289 2V. It shows 120hp for the 200 6 cylinder. Believe the high performance 289 had 271hp. Of course if Ford did fudge on their #s, then you'll have to get it from someone who's had theirs tested.

03-07-2002, 10:24 PM	#4
thehorse Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 13	Look on your identification plaque and read the (i think) fifth digit on the top portion. The letter will either read C, A, or K (this of course only implies if the stock engine is in your car. If the letter is C it produces 200hp@4400rpm, if it is A it produces 225hp@4800rpm, if it is the almighty K(like mine!not the stock engine of my car though) it produces 271hp@6000rpm. This is the factory numbers and are not entirely accurate(not accurate at all). But 289 engines do not have hp of 130. I don't think the factory exaggerated that much.

03-07-2002, 11:26 PM	#6
72grande Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Monterey Posts: 33	there is no way in hell they come with 200hp. I dismise that idea out of hand.

03-07-2002, 11:58 PM	#8
72grande Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Monterey Posts: 33	haha, ok, but the burden of proof is on you. 200 at the crank should be about 170 at the wheels. Show me a stock 289 2V that put even 160 at the wheels as it came out of the factory. --50 bucks?

03-08-2002, 12:32 AM	#9
fordkid68 Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: fremont Posts: 306	well I guess you could always say I am full of ** or that my friend is full of ** if you don't belive me but he got his 67 289 2v dynoed at 233 hp and it's all stock exept for the k&n air filter. now I know the k&n filter adds horeses but not 33 horeses. don't doubt ford or the 289. ford kid

03-08-2002, 01:32 AM	#10
72grande Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Monterey Posts: 33	I am going to say your friend is full of ****.

03-08-2002, 10:41 AM	#12
thunderbolt Registered Member Join Date: Oct 1998 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 380	Sigh 67 289 w/ 2V carb was rated at 200hp but you have to remember this was pre 72 and hp was rated as gross not net. In other words, this engine made 200hp with the alternator, water pump, and everything else removed, at the crank. I have heard this translates to about 160 net hp. So at the rear wheels you can easliy have 120-130. Don't forget old autos sucked up about 25% where as manuals only suck up about 15%. These cars generally feel peppy because they were light weight and didn't usually have all the power robbers of today. (AC, PS, Air pump, etc...)

03-08-2002, 02:10 PM	#15
1969Mach1 HEY I CAN SET A NAME NOW! Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,556	I use www.fomoco.com I found it to have the best information about engines. http://www.fomoco.com/index.asp?Dept=4&Tool=0 that link is directly to the site, just select your engine code and it'll tell you tons about it including a picture. I do agree it is 200 or plus horse power. Take Care, §am. __________________ 1969 Mustang Mach 1Sold 351-4V Windsor, 4 Speed MACH 1 - Moving At The Speed Of Sound. 1979 Mustang Indianapolis 500 Pace Car For Sale - Email me for Info 302-2V, 3-Speed Auto One of 2,106 made One of 405 sent to Canada. Yes those are caution lights, and No you can't pass me when there on. Ricer Hater's Club - Member #4

03-08-2002, 03:51 PM	#16
72grande Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Monterey Posts: 33	Guys, quoting the service manual isnt going to cut it. Its that very number I'm disputing. And the last link PRKW posted, if you read the text, it sounds like the only thing stock on that engine is the rods.

03-08-2002, 03:54 PM	#17
72grande Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Monterey Posts: 33	And thanks to the few of you who are being realistic. Perhaps 120 WHP is a lil low, but its a closer number to think about than 200.

03-08-2002, 06:10 PM	#18
thunderbolt Registered Member Join Date: Oct 1998 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 380	It's not so much about being realistic as it is realizing that that most of the arguement here is centered on two different HP rating systems. The first, gross hp of the C code 289, and the second which was posted at the very beginning, rwhp. The two are about as far away as you can get. I have seen dyno results for rwhp on old mustangs and they are really low. Modern engines are rated as net HP. (Not RWHP either) General rule of thumb is multiply gross number by .75 and it gets you into the net ball park. The next general rule is multiply by .15 to .25 for driveline loss to get rwhp. We don't like to admit our old muscle cars don't have the power of new cars but amazingly enough, 30 some odd years of technology and the need to improve effeciency have resulted in some pretty phenomenal power. At its heart though, the old 289 isn't much differnt from a 5.0 and so a 289 can make these same kind of numbers with the right work.

03-10-2002, 08:47 PM	#19
Kinson Cook, Jr Registered Member Join Date: Aug 1999 Location: Alpharetta, Ga Posts: 395	I can say with a dyno sheet that my stock '67 GT500 only made 230rwhp on the same dyno I run my S/W car on (which made over 300rwhp). It is sad to say but the old cars do not put out nearly the hp everyone thinks they do. The shop also said they had dynoed another Shelby GT500 and it also only made 225 hp, so face the facts that the numbers are not as high as one would believe. __________________ 92 LX coupe S/W #8 11.28/119.12

03-10-2002, 09:05 PM	#20
Rev Registered Member Join Date: Nov 1998 Location: Houston, Tx. Posts: 3,887	All this is not really difficult to understand. 200 gross hp X 85% = 170 net at the flywheel. (Ford's figures). 170 net hp X 75% (C-4 auto) = 127.5 hp at the wheels. I fail to see the problem. Rev __________________ '66 Coupe, 306, 350-375 HP, C-4, 13.07 e.t., 104.8 mph, 1/4 mi. O.B.C. #2 '66 coupe

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
raced a Supra Twin Turbo	Stang35th	Stang Stories	63	08-23-2003 12:36 AM
Horsepower rating??????????	gtsr515	Windsor Power	1	03-29-2003 10:45 PM
Please Comment of Speed Secret # 2	jim_howard_pdx	Windsor Power	20	11-06-2002 11:44 AM
horsepower rating?	92CopStang	Windsor Power	3	11-22-2001 06:09 PM
1994-1995 5.0 horsepower rating	1985Mustang	Windsor Power	9	10-16-2001 12:26 PM