|
Author
|
Topic: 289 or 302 block
|
WARDF
Journeyman Posts: 44
From: Cecilia, Ky. USA
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 11-21-2002 12:42 AM
   
I have an 85 302 block and a 65 289 block. Would there be any benefit to using the 289 block for a build up? Is the block any stronger than the new block? Are there any differences that make this block unusable as a 302?
IP: Logged |
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 26811
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 11-21-2002 10:19 AM
The 289 blocks were produced with better and more material. Subsequently they are somewaht stronger. They seem to hold their bores straighter and have more rigidity. The 82 and up 302's are very light and flimsy by comparison. Given the choice I would always use the 289 block.  ------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
MCA member# 53321
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"
Quote #3: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch!"
IP: Logged |
johnmustang
Gearhead Posts: 6061
From: British Columbia , Canada
Registered: Nov 2001
|
posted 11-21-2002 11:05 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Moneymaker:
The 289 blocks were produced with better and more material. Subsequently they are somewaht stronger. They seem to hold their bores straighter and have more rigidity. The 82 and up 302's are very light and flimsy by comparison. Given the choice I would always use the 289 block.
ALEX , How much can you bore out a 65 - 289 and not worry about heating problems or weak walls. Have been told that you can go 90 - 110 , I always thought that about 60 - 70 was about the max you could safley go. Looking forward to your answer.
JOHN
------------------
65 2+2 FASTBACK
68 COUPE (SOLD)
87 TAURUS WAGON
98 F150 XLT TRITON V8 4.6, 4 WHEEL DRIVE
Member:Vancouver Island Mustang Association
M&M #1710
MyPhotoPage
MY TRUCK
IP: Logged |
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 26811
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 11-21-2002 11:24 AM
In the past when 289 HIPO blocks were scarce, service Boss 302 blocks were crap, and the Mexican blocks were still a myth, I used to regualrly bore HIPO blocks .120 over just to see what they would take. 
This was on our way to boring them out to accomodate a 4 and 1/16 389 Pontiac sleeve.
They were very thin at .120 over but still had enough cylinder material (just barely) if you filled the block.
I normally bore most race/super performance projects .060 with no hesitation when incorperating a 289 block. The ONLY time I bore the blocks .030 is at the customers request when future rebuilds are a concern.
------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
MCA member# 53321
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"
Quote #3: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch!"
IP: Logged |
johnmustang
Gearhead Posts: 6061
From: British Columbia , Canada
Registered: Nov 2001
|
posted 11-21-2002 12:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Moneymaker:
In the past when 289 HIPO blocks were scarce, service Boss 302 blocks were crap, and the Mexican blocks were still a myth, I used to regualrly bore HIPO blocks .120 over just to see what they would take.
This was on our way to boring them out to accomodate a 4 and 1/16 389 Pontiac sleeve.
They were very thin at .120 over but still had enough cylinder material (just barely) if you filled the block.
I normally bore most race/super performance projects .060 with no hesitation when incorperating a 289 block. The ONLY time I bore the blocks .030 is at the customers request when future rebuilds are a concern.
Thanks ALEX JOHN ------------------
65 2+2 FASTBACK
68 COUPE (SOLD)
87 TAURUS WAGON
98 F150 XLT TRITON V8 4.6, 4 WHEEL DRIVE
Member:Vancouver Island Mustang Association
M&M #1710
MyPhotoPage
MY TRUCK
IP: Logged |
69maverick
Moderator Posts: 1486
From: Thomaston,CT.
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 11-21-2002 04:12 PM
I would go with the 85 block for a few reasons! It will alot easier to get a bell housing and a tranny!Plus the rods in the 85 are better than the 65 block and I'm sure there are more!
IP: Logged |
JCQuinn@work
Gearhead Posts: 898
From: Lakewood, CO, USA
Registered: Jun 2001
|
posted 11-21-2002 04:58 PM
I think the bellhousing bolt pattern has been the same from the mid 60's through 1994. As far as I know they haven't changed the rod design since 1968.
The only significant difference other than the 82 and newer blocks being weaker is the lack of the clutch boss in the newer blocks and the higher lifter bore in the roller cam blocks. The lifter bores in the newer blocks will interfere with some of the solid rollers and require special roller lifters or machining the block.Personally I would use an early block, there is a picture on the NMRA forum of a late block which split right down the middle making two four cylinder blocks with 1/2 a main for each, I've never seen an early block do that. Yes I realize that some people can break anything. John Someday I will learn to look at my spelling before I punch the "Submit Now" button [This message has been edited by JCQuinn@work (edited 11-21-2002).]
IP: Logged |
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 26811
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 11-21-2002 07:00 PM
All 1964.5 and newer small block Ford engines have the same 6 bolt pattern on the back of the block.
I was quite clear on the other advantages for using a 289 vs a late 302 block.  ------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
MCA member# 53321
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"
Quote #3: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch!"
IP: Logged |
n2oMike
Gearhead Posts: 2680
From: Spencer, WV
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 11-21-2002 08:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by 69maverick:
I would go with the 85 block for a few reasons! It will alot easier to get a bell housing and a tranny!Plus the rods in the 85 are better than the 65 block and I'm sure there are more!
Well... As has been said, aside from the earliest 289's, they all use the same bellhousing. As for the rods, you're way off base. The 289 rods are of a stronger design. The ribbed caps are definitely stronger. The earliest 302 rods also used this design, and are preferred over the current 'smooth cap' units. These are the units Joe Sherman specified for his budget 400hp 302 buildup a few years ago. Alex is dead-on with his posts on this thread. You may want to re-read them. As for the 85' block being a hydraulic roller unit, that's fine as long as you don't care to rev the thing over 6k rpm (as with long runner fuel injected engines) but to make serious power with these small displacement engines without a power adder, they need (and love) to have their tach spun on around a bit higher than that. Solid lifter cams are the hot ticket with these little bruisers. Good Luck! ------------------
Mike Burch
66 mustang real street
302 4-speed 289 heads
10.63 @ 129.3
http://www.geocities.com/carbedstangs/cmml_mburch.html
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/healey/367
http://www.mustangworks.com/cgi-bin/moi-display.cgi?220
IP: Logged |
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 26811
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 11-21-2002 08:23 PM
To chime in with Mike here, actually the only 85 302 blocks that were rollers were the HO's and those are far and few between. All other 85 and earlier 302's were flat tappet hydraulic.
FoMoCo offered a HD 302 rod in the Muscle Parts suppliment and the OHP cataloges. It was never installed in a RPO factory engine. It's origin was the Tunnle Port 302 that was still born. It was a nice beefy rod with 3/8 bolts that was very similar to a 289 HP/Boss 302 rod. I still see them at a few swap meets and in classified adds. They go for around $200 or so per set new in the box. Vermersh used to have literally thousands of them for sale. ------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
MCA member# 53321
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"
Quote #3: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch!"
IP: Logged |
WARDF
Journeyman Posts: 44
From: Cecilia, Ky. USA
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 11-23-2002 04:29 PM
Thank you everybody. After all the consideration of these posts, most of all Alex's comments on boring, I will be using the 289 block. I'm building a long rod 302 and I want all the strength I can get.
IP: Logged |
smblk t-bolt
Journeyman Posts: 93
From: port alberni BC Canada
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 11-25-2002 02:10 AM
one other thing to consider... didnt the 302 blocks cylinder bores get lengthened to accomadate the longer stroke to give the piston more stability? I thought I've read something about it being okay to use 289 crank,rod, and pistons in a 302 block but not the other way around... you can physically do it but it wasnt recomended.maybe this only applies to older 302's?64 fairlane
lots of fiberglass
even more bondo
IP: Logged |
Mustangsandmore Forums
