|
Author
|
Topic: has anyone made one?
|
sic67coug
Gearhead Posts: 170
From: clearlake california
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 01-12-2003 03:52 PM
   
has anyone stroked out a 289 to 347? or are all the 347s 302's? just curious as to the outcome
IP: Logged |
SteveLaRiviere
Administrator Posts: 33371
From: Saco, Maine
Registered: May 99
|
posted 03-03-2003 06:28 PM
Sorry we missed this one.Both 302 and 289 use the same 4.00" bore block, so you can use either although the 302 has longer cylinder bores which offer better piston stability at the bottom of the stroke. ------------------
'70 Mustang Mach 1 - '72 Mustang Sprint - '94 F-150 Please remember our sponsors,
Mustangs Plus, NPD, Osborn Reproductions, MyFordPerformance.com, and FordRamAir.com
IP: Logged |
steve'66
Gearhead Posts: 6522
From: Sonoma,CA,USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 03-03-2003 07:35 PM
I asked my engine builder this question, and he said he prefers to use 302 blocks. FWIWSteveW
IP: Logged |
65_289
Gearhead Posts: 761
From:
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 03-03-2003 07:57 PM
In an old issue of MM&FF, they said that due to the shorter bores, the 289 should not be used for a 347. I bet a 331 would be ok, though.
IP: Logged |
sic67coug
Gearhead Posts: 170
From: clearlake california
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 03-03-2003 08:48 PM
i asked another forum about this same thing and was told that the cylinder length was a myth and that they are the same length in the 302 as in the 289 i wouldnt know this will be my first engine to build and im gettin as much info as possible probly gonna need some more help on this in the future need to find someone to help my build it or at least walk me through it
IP: Logged |
bifs66
Gearhead Posts: 165
From: Maryland
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted 03-03-2003 09:12 PM
Without actually measuring the cylinder lengths yourself, its anybody's guess if its a myth or fact (289 vs 302). However, I know that in the 60s Pete Robinson stroked a 289 to 352 and ran it in a blown dragster, even defeating Garlits' blown Chrysler at a major event. IIRC, they typically used Y-block cranks back then to stroke 289s.------------------
Bernie Frank
66 Fastback restomod project
85 GT (preserved)
82 GT (original)
IP: Logged |
steve'66
Gearhead Posts: 6522
From: Sonoma,CA,USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 03-03-2003 09:46 PM
But,It would be nice to keep your original 289, and get a 302 or even a roller 5.0 block for the "hot rod" motor wouldn't it?  SteveW
IP: Logged |
sic67coug
Gearhead Posts: 170
From: clearlake california
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 03-04-2003 12:01 AM
well yeah but its not my original engine i bought it from a guy said it came out of a 65 mustang and since it was only 40 bux i said illll take it but i do have to get heads and intake so my options are pretty open i just hope the things not cracked
IP: Logged |
Ryan Wilke
Gearhead Posts: 1501
From: Stanton, Michigan 49707
Registered: Oct 2000
|
posted 03-04-2003 08:35 AM
quote:
Originally posted by sic67coug:
.....but its not my original engine i bought it from a guy said it came out of a 65 mustang and since it was only 40 bux........
You may want to consider rolling it over and checking the casting #. If it's a C5----, you probably could sell it for more than it would cost to buy a roller 302 block; then you'd have a better block and $$$ in your pocket to spend on the 302....... just a thought. Ryan 
IP: Logged |
JCQuinn@work
Gearhead Posts: 422
From: Lakewood, CO, USA
Registered: Jun 2001
|
posted 03-04-2003 10:58 AM
If you look at the crankcase portion of the blocks you will see that the 302 block has the bore extended with a ridge around the bottom of the cylinders and the 289 block does not have this ridge. I have not measured the bores but Ford put the extension on the castings when they went to the 3" stroke to provide piston stability.The guys telling you this is a myth probably have never seen the inside of a 289 block. John
IP: Logged |
Mustangsandmore Forums
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
