1975 'stang

04-16-2001, 03:32 PM

Hey canadian, if i were you i wouldn't decide to go with a 289 just because of mileage concerns. The 13 cubic inches doesn't make that much of a difference on mileage, it has more to do with how you drive it and the combination of parts you install on the vehicle. The 289 was always a good revving engine because it has a fairly short stroke (something like 2.87" compared to a 302's 3" stroke). The 271 horsepower 289 from the late 60's could rev to the moon becuase it had mechanical camshaft (not hydraulic) with a fairly decent cam (for back then) and actually had decent torque and very good throttle response because of the small port heads, small valves and small 4 Barrel carburetor (it was like a 450 cfm carburetor). I have an '84 (ugly) but i get regularly 16 to 18mpg even with a holley 600cfm carburetor and me behind the wheel. Of course i'm always cruising in higher gears and have overdrive (manual trans.) so i'd guess maybe 14 or 15 in a mustang II. Good luck on your decision

------------------
'84 Mustang 5.0 T5, FMS aluminum radiator & 180* t-stat, 1 5/8 shortys/2.5" duals, '88 GT tail lights and wheels, Holley 4160 4 BBL, FMS smog pump idler

[This message has been edited by 84stangLX (edited 04-16-2001).]

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Car Audio System in a 90 LX V8 stang convertible	ziggy_2k	Windsor Power	2	05-21-2002 12:33 AM
Stang Review by Fbody guy? Why not =)	SkarodoM	Blue Oval Lounge	7	10-27-2001 02:39 PM
Thad's stolen Stang	joe4speed	Blue Oval Lounge	12	04-06-2001 12:20 AM

04-16-2001, 03:32 PM	#8
84stangLX Guest Posts: n/a	Hey canadian, if i were you i wouldn't decide to go with a 289 just because of mileage concerns. The 13 cubic inches doesn't make that much of a difference on mileage, it has more to do with how you drive it and the combination of parts you install on the vehicle. The 289 was always a good revving engine because it has a fairly short stroke (something like 2.87" compared to a 302's 3" stroke). The 271 horsepower 289 from the late 60's could rev to the moon becuase it had mechanical camshaft (not hydraulic) with a fairly decent cam (for back then) and actually had decent torque and very good throttle response because of the small port heads, small valves and small 4 Barrel carburetor (it was like a 450 cfm carburetor). I have an '84 (ugly) but i get regularly 16 to 18mpg even with a holley 600cfm carburetor and me behind the wheel. Of course i'm always cruising in higher gears and have overdrive (manual trans.) so i'd guess maybe 14 or 15 in a mustang II. Good luck on your decision ------------------ '84 Mustang 5.0 T5, FMS aluminum radiator & 180* t-stat, 1 5/8 shortys/2.5" duals, '88 GT tail lights and wheels, Holley 4160 4 BBL, FMS smog pump idler [This message has been edited by 84stangLX (edited 04-16-2001).]