Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

• 4.6

  289

  302

  351

  429

[Russ]

Don't get caught up in the boss or HP, just over all choice. STANG OUT

[66GTKFB]

That's not a fair question. The 289, 302 and 351W are basically the same engine. They evolved from a 221 with a 260 in between. There are some differences as in 5 bolt and 6 bolt to the transmission in the 289, but that is part of the evolution process. The 4.6 L is a modern block that evolved into a 5.4 L. I got a 5.4 L in my van and I like it, and it makes a great Mustang engine. As to an engine series, there are several to consider, the FE blocks, the light weight cast iron blocks, the new overhead cam engines, etc. The key is what the engine was designed to do, modified to do, how it evolved and ultimately, it's reliability.
Jim 

[Russ]

Yeah I know but there are people that jsut liek a certain motor. Like I like the 351C but I have always been a fan of the 302. Please don't read to much into it,lol. If anyone wants me to add a motor let me know and I will, these are just the ones that stick out too me. STANG OUT

[Soaring]

The 289 and the 302 are the same engine.  They are not muscle car engines, but pony car engines.   The 351 series engines started the muscle car wave.  So, to ask which engine you prefer is like asking if you like chocolate or vanilla.

[Russ]

well I like vanillla, lol.

[Butch0240]

What up guy's, new to the forum just wanted to give a shout out to all the MUSTANG lovers! YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Russ]

What is up Butch, let me be one of the first to tell you welcome. You will find that the guys on here  have forgoten more knowledge about cars than guys on others site can ever learn. Everyone here is on point and would love to see you around here more often. Drop some post and help out with what you know, and even with what you don't lol thanks bro. STANG OUT

[Soaring]

If I had a '68 Mach, I think I would be beating the bushes to find a big block like a 428 Cobra Jet.   I can only shoehorn a 351 in my little engine bay though.  Talking about 351's.  The Clevo is a great engine in every respect except for the top end oiling problem, and the difficulty in finding parts.  On the flip side, the 351 Windsor is an easy engine to obtain, parts are readily available, and aftermarket hot rod parts for it are also available.  I guess it just depends on what you want the engine to do, and how much agrivation you are willing to put up with. 

[66GTKFB]

Glen,
If you had a 68 Mach, you would make history.
Jim

[Soaring]

Glen,
If you had a 68 Mach, you would make history.
Jim

Yes, we all know the Mach1 came out as a '69, but there are also purists who preach about the 68 1/2 Mach 1's.  Go figure.  Here is a guy who truly believes he has a 68 MACH1. 
http://www.mustangandfords.com/featuredvehicles/127_0306_68_mach_1/index.html

[66GTKFB]

And I have a 63 Mustang. . .

[Soaring]

A 63 Mustang is not as far fetched as it may seem.  As you are aware, there were prototypes. I doubt you will see them running around on the highways of America, but they did exist.   

[66GTKFB]

Exactly. The 68 Mach was referenced once in that Mustang and Fords article, then the article rambled on about trucks. And yes, there was a 1963 Mustang. It was actually called the Mustang II. It had a 289, the side scoops of a 66 and the grill that was a mix of a 65 and a 71. The original Mustang was a rear engine two seater with IRS. I think Ford went backwards in the design.
Jim

[rmodel65]

yeah i saw that car at the 40th annv show in nashville. i had a blast but got there and didnt have any cash to spend thanks to 2 flat tires     but it was cool seeing all the cars driving up from all across ga and tenn, and fla on our trip and driving thru the mountains was a blast. I hope to get my convertible up there one day it was a beautiful site.

[Thierry]

 If you are going this way, there is also a '62 Mustang  This is the prototype 1 with the rear engine Jim was talking about.

[Soaring]

Yeah, most of us have seen pics of that too.  It was a beautiful design, but not a real practical car for the general population to own.  I had a 1963 Corvair with the rear engine, and I really loved that little car.  It was a Monza, so had the dual carburetors and was a pretty fast little guy.