289/302

[Guest Anonymous]

Simple question; What's the difference in the two engine setup's ie 289 running gear vs 302 running gear?

[blueovalz]

That is a very broad question. The only difference between a 289, and the early 302 motors is stroke (crankshaft has .130" more stroke on the 302) and rods (longer 289 rods). Basically that's it until you get into the roller 302 motors with the lighter, but same stroke, cranks (they need 50oz balancing vs the early 302 & 289 motors which used 28oz balancing). The transmission bellhousing will need to match the flywheel. The 157 tooth flywheel will require the slightly tighter bellhousing (for starter alignment purposes) verses the 164 tooth flywheel. Until you need a more specific answer, that's all I can offer up.

[Guest Anonymous]

I was interested in if there was any major running characteristics between the 289/302 eg power curve differences, or the ability to rev higher, get more HP from one or the other. In other words, would I favor a 289 or a 302 at the 300-350 HP range for use at the 1/4 mile drag track.

Steve

[blueovalz]

The differences are so minor that you may not pick up on them. You have your typical rod length/stroke ratio differences, and the difference of 11 cubes. I had a 289 in a '66 Mustang as a kid. Using the same equipment on both motors (when I later went for years using a 302) I would not be able to tell you whether the 289 was actually quicker, or that it was a old man's nostalgic sentimental memory that made it quicker. Anyway, I just finished swapping out the 302 and going back to a 289. This time I balanced everything with my desires to return back to my roots of some high rpm twisting. All in all, I would guess that at the nth degree of comparison, the 302 may be better, but I have no empirical evidence to prove it.

[Guest Anonymous]

Yea, I remember that you said a while back that you were going to do a 289 rebuild ( from your 302 ). I was reading in another area about a person 'looking for 350HP from a 289'. It was interesting reading ie potential mods etc. One thing that struck me is saying that a 350 HP output is maybe attainable at the 7k rpm. I will limit my car to 6k RPM with the MSD limiter, cause I think it may break at 7K. I love high reving engines which I why I drive a '93 300ZX/na. This is my first experience with 'Ferd mills', and so far am impressed with its design. My '77 is not yet running so just getting background on what maybe to expect.

Steve

[Guest Anonymous]

From what I understand, the longer stroke crank and added 13 cid gives the 302 a 12-15 lb/ft torque advantage over the 289, stock vs. stock. This goes right out the window though if you hop-up either one. Personally, I prefer the 289 with it's better rod:stroke ratio (better than the Boss 302, in fact); but good lowerend parts are getting hard to find. I've often wondered why Ford didn't come out with a revised set of 4V Indy heads and reinstate the 289 instead of developing the 4.6L mod motor.

[blueovalz]

One thing I'd like to add here is that for years (decades to be correct) I took my 289 to 7k repeatedly and sometimes to 8k with no special balancing. This was with a cam not designed for that range, and with cast pistons, and stock rod bolts. With that said, I had one piston ring land break (but the motor still ran fairly well), and I broke one crank (balancer was loose, so I don't know if it was a crack that caused the balancer or balancer caused the crack - chicken and egg scenario). Considering the small rods and bolts the factory uses, I felt this was outstanding. My current motor now uses good rod bolts, a balanced assembly, forged pistons, and a mild (by solid roller standards) cam. The grinder felt he was not padding the figure of 377hp with the current CR, cam, head, exhaust, and intake configuration at 7800 rpm. The torque band all the way up to 5K is just under breakaway torque for the 315 tires that I have, which for me, gives me the pleasure of not having to feather the throttle.