how fast are 289's

MuscleMustangs · 07-20-2002, 12:46 PM

Recently I have been thinking about the stangs of the 60's and i got to wondering how much hp the old 64's-69's had with the 289. I would also like to know how fast they did 0-60. If anyone could tell me i'd appreciate it.

tinner · 07-20-2002, 02:18 PM

mine went 15.6 w/ a neck snaping 2.8 60' . My mods are a holley 4 bbl ,long tube hedders and a one legged 355 rear end.

fordkid68 · 07-20-2002, 08:44 PM

not sure what they run but the HP numbver were around 200 give or take 5 hp for different years.

ford kid

Rev · 07-20-2002, 10:06 PM

The 289 Hipo had 271 HP, but that was gross HP as apposed to net that we use now. The '66 K code (289 Hipo) with a 4 speed ran 15.6@92 in the 1/4 mile.

Rev

tinner · 07-21-2002, 05:13 PM

Quote:

The '66 K code (289 Hipo) with a 4 speed ran 15.6@92 in the 1/4 mile

Looks like they needed some traction 92 mph is good for mid 14's.

Rev · 07-21-2002, 05:25 PM

I was going purely on memory, maybe from some long lost source. I looked it up in my book MUSTANG by Randy Leffingwell. He says 15.9 @89 for the '65 K code 289 Hipo. There is lots of disparity though in magazine tests (some of the drivers suck badly). Remember these were using skinny, bias ply tires.

Rev

Rev · 07-21-2002, 06:13 PM

I did find another reference to the 271 Hipo in MUSTANG MILESTONES (collectors edition 1994). It quoted a Motor trend test from 1964 of 15.7@89.

Rev

tinner · 07-22-2002, 05:41 PM

I wonder why track times where so bad in the 60's . My car is not makeing 271 hp more like 200 fwhp . I ran 15.6 on a really bad run. Well I guess the 355's helped some , but not much considering the 2.8 60'.

1969Mach1 · 07-22-2002, 06:19 PM

Check out www.fomoco.com for hp and lots of info on the 289 threw '64 to '69, give you a better idea of the power.

§am.

6T9PONY · 07-24-2002, 01:20 AM

The HiPo 289 was rated at 271 GROSS HP--NOT NET HP! Rev stated this, but I don't think you caught it tinner. That 271 GROSS HP is actually somewhat comparable to your NET HP numbers. That's why your times are fairly similar. So the cars back then weren't "slower" than they are now. Horsepower is horsepower, and that hasn't changed a bit.

One thing that has changed is the way these cars put it to the ground. One reason why a 428 CJ/4-spd could only get mid 13s was because they used the skinny bias ply tires, Rev stated this also. The vintage suspensions are also inferior to the performance suspensions of todays sports cars.

tinner · 07-24-2002, 11:13 PM

Yea I caught it , I just don't see the accessories taking 70 hp maybe 40 hp. I think they over rated the 289 hi po to sale the pony car. That time I ran was a bad run (1st time on the track)I think it has a low 15 in it with a little traction.

Rev · 07-24-2002, 11:35 PM

Tinner, the HP figures look kike this:

1.) 271 HP gross = (271*.80) = 216 net

2.) 216 net = (216*.83) = 180 RWHP for 4 speeds)

3.) 180 RWHP is actually more than some recent tests show for the 271 Hipo 4 speed early stangs.

4.) 15.6 is not unreasonanble for the magazine tests using bias ply Goodyears.

Rev

mustangman65_79 · 07-28-2002, 08:01 AM

Don't forget, the old style air filters.

Also, 289 HiPo "k" code had a stock 10.5:1 compression ratio. I lloked all this up because the car I'm bying is a '65 fastback GT :k: code. Show quality.

mustang07 · 07-31-2002, 08:11 AM

"Engine options were:
260 V-8 (early)
200 Six Cylinder (4 lug wheels)
200 Horsepower 289 (C-Code)
225 Horsepower 289 (A-Code)
271 Horsepower 289 (K-Code) (aka Hi-po 289) "

-from Vintage-Mustang.com

07-20-2002, 12:46 PM	#1
MuscleMustangs Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: 205 Redwood Dr., New Albany IN Posts: 2	how fast are 289's Recently I have been thinking about the stangs of the 60's and i got to wondering how much hp the old 64's-69's had with the 289. I would also like to know how fast they did 0-60. If anyone could tell me i'd appreciate it. __________________ Ford all th way

07-20-2002, 02:18 PM	#2
tinner Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa rosa ca. Posts: 121	mine went 15.6 w/ a neck snaping 2.8 60' . My mods are a holley 4 bbl ,long tube hedders and a one legged 355 rear end. __________________ 65 fastback Keith Craft 408w 11:1cr AFR205's , Vic Jr. , 750 Speed Demon , MSD Digital 6+ , Aeromotive fuel system , Hooker Super Comp ,Headers , Art Carr roller C-4 w/ 10" converter and trans brake

07-20-2002, 10:06 PM	#4
Rev Registered Member Join Date: Nov 1998 Location: Houston, Tx. Posts: 3,887	289 Hipo The 289 Hipo had 271 HP, but that was gross HP as apposed to net that we use now. The '66 K code (289 Hipo) with a 4 speed ran 15.6@92 in the 1/4 mile. 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

07-21-2002, 05:25 PM	#6
Rev Registered Member Join Date: Nov 1998 Location: Houston, Tx. Posts: 3,887	You're right Tinner! I was going purely on memory, maybe from some long lost source. I looked it up in my book MUSTANG by Randy Leffingwell. He says 15.9 @89 for the '65 K code 289 Hipo. There is lots of disparity though in magazine tests (some of the drivers suck badly). Remember these were using skinny, bias ply tires. 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

07-21-2002, 06:13 PM	#7
Rev Registered Member Join Date: Nov 1998 Location: Houston, Tx. Posts: 3,887	Another reference I did find another reference to the 271 Hipo in MUSTANG MILESTONES (collectors edition 1994). It quoted a Motor trend test from 1964 of 15.7@89. 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

07-20-2002, 08:44 PM	#3
fordkid68 Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: fremont Posts: 306	not sure what they run but the HP numbver were around 200 give or take 5 hp for different years. ford kid

07-22-2002, 05:41 PM	#8
tinner Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa rosa ca. Posts: 121	I wonder why track times where so bad in the 60's . My car is not makeing 271 hp more like 200 fwhp . I ran 15.6 on a really bad run. Well I guess the 355's helped some , but not much considering the 2.8 60'. __________________ 65 fastback Keith Craft 408w 11:1cr AFR205's , Vic Jr. , 750 Speed Demon , MSD Digital 6+ , Aeromotive fuel system , Hooker Super Comp ,Headers , Art Carr roller C-4 w/ 10" converter and trans brake

07-22-2002, 06:19 PM	#9
1969Mach1 HEY I CAN SET A NAME NOW! Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,556	Check out www.fomoco.com for hp and lots of info on the 289 threw '64 to '69, give you a better idea of the power. §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

07-24-2002, 01:20 AM	#10
6T9PONY All about the Windsor. Join Date: Feb 2000 Posts: 2,052	The HiPo 289 was rated at 271 GROSS HP--NOT NET HP! Rev stated this, but I don't think you caught it tinner. That 271 GROSS HP is actually somewhat comparable to your NET HP numbers. That's why your times are fairly similar. So the cars back then weren't "slower" than they are now. Horsepower is horsepower, and that hasn't changed a bit. One thing that has changed is the way these cars put it to the ground. One reason why a 428 CJ/4-spd could only get mid 13s was because they used the skinny bias ply tires, Rev stated this also. The vintage suspensions are also inferior to the performance suspensions of todays sports cars.

07-24-2002, 11:13 PM	#11
tinner Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa rosa ca. Posts: 121	Yea I caught it , I just don't see the accessories taking 70 hp maybe 40 hp. I think they over rated the 289 hi po to sale the pony car. That time I ran was a bad run (1st time on the track)I think it has a low 15 in it with a little traction. __________________ 65 fastback Keith Craft 408w 11:1cr AFR205's , Vic Jr. , 750 Speed Demon , MSD Digital 6+ , Aeromotive fuel system , Hooker Super Comp ,Headers , Art Carr roller C-4 w/ 10" converter and trans brake

07-24-2002, 11:35 PM	#12
Rev Registered Member Join Date: Nov 1998 Location: Houston, Tx. Posts: 3,887	Tinner, the HP figures look kike this: 1.) 271 HP gross = (271.80) = 216 net 2.) 216 net = (216.83) = 180 RWHP for 4 speeds) 3.) 180 RWHP is actually more than some recent tests show for the 271 Hipo 4 speed early stangs. 4.) 15.6 is not unreasonanble for the magazine tests using bias ply Goodyears. 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

07-28-2002, 08:01 AM	#13
mustangman65_79 My poor 79 RIP Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Suisun City, Posts: 2,320	Don't forget, the old style air filters. Also, 289 HiPo "k" code had a stock 10.5:1 compression ratio. I lloked all this up because the car I'm bying is a '65 fastback GT :k: code. Show quality. __________________ '84 mustang GT turbo '85 LTD '89 Camaro Irocz z28 '94 Lightning '96 Trans am

07-31-2002, 08:11 AM	#14
mustang07 Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Wilmington, DE Posts: 2	"Engine options were: 260 V-8 (early) 200 Six Cylinder (4 lug wheels) 200 Horsepower 289 (C-Code) 225 Horsepower 289 (A-Code) 271 Horsepower 289 (K-Code) (aka Hi-po 289) " -from Vintage-Mustang.com

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
new to fast mustangs but not fast cars...I've a few ?'s	XGN	Windsor Power	3	07-03-2002 09:40 AM
Are these fast??	Dark_5.0	Stang Stories	13	05-16-2002 01:19 PM
Super cars and Fast and the Furious	#1 Pony	Blue Oval Lounge	9	01-29-2002 12:54 AM
289's compared GT-40P's???	Coolbreeze	Windsor Power	8	09-13-2001 12:10 AM
Pesky Supra, actually thought he had a fast car.	Unit 5302	Stang Stories	7	03-20-2001 01:34 PM