|
Author
|
Topic: Can I stroke my 289 ???
|
bigred65
Journeyman Posts: 13
From: hanover, md
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 03-25-2005 02:55 PM
   
I have a 64 Cyclone with the original 289. I want to stroke the 289, but I'm getting mixed opinions on weather that's a good idea or not. Please let me know if you've had any experiences. Also, I want to end up with a ratical/rough idle. I'm getting lots of differnt opinions concerning the camshaft. The car's being restored for show and weekend cruizing, very rare racing if any. Any ideas ???
IP: Logged |
capri man
Gearhead Posts: 6417
From: doerun, ga.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 03-25-2005 03:21 PM
first, welcome to m&m. personally i would not go to the expense of stroking the 289 for the purpose that you are gonna use it for. a holley 600 cfm carb, some nice exhaust and a high duration camshaft should get you the sound you want and some extra power at the same time. good luck------------------
mike r
racing is real
everything else is just a game.
81 capri-302-7.25 @93mph 1/8
1.54 60 ft.
http://community.prestage.com/Member+Pages/789.aspx
M&M member #839
IP: Logged |
N266fords
Gearhead Posts: 1404
From: Spokane ,WA USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 03-25-2005 04:06 PM
I am no expert but for what you want get flat top pistons check for valve clearance and get a solid lifter camshaft somewhere in the 292 range or 500 to 520 lift@50thousnads
Bruce check with alex. for best results.
Stroking a motor is a way to increase hp and cubic displacement with the same block great for drag racing not for a show car. you will never reap the benifits from it..
Bruce
IP: Logged |
bigred65
Journeyman Posts: 13
From: hanover, md
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 03-25-2005 05:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by N266fords:
I am no expert but for what you want get flat top pistons check for valve clearance and get a solid lifter camshaft somewhere in the 292 range or 500 to 520 lift@50thousnads
Bruce check with alex. for best results.
Stroking a motor is a way to increase hp and cubic displacement with the same block great for drag racing not for a show car. you will never reap the benifits from it..
Bruce
IP: Logged |
bigred65
Journeyman Posts: 13
From: hanover, md
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 03-25-2005 05:48 PM
Thanks for your reply. How often & why do the valves need to be re-adjusted with a solid cam ?
IP: Logged |
ntman
Journeyman Posts: 50
From: Mulkeytown, IL
Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted 03-25-2005 06:16 PM
The old thing about adjusting valves on solid cams is pretty much folk lore now days. I don't drive mine on the street but I am sure there are many on this board that do and will probably tell you that twice a year will probably be fine. As far as getting a radical idle without sacrificing drivability, just go for a mild performance cam and have it ground with a tight Lobe Seperation of 108 or so and it will sound great.
IP: Logged |
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 25883
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 03-25-2005 08:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bigred65:
I have a 64 Cyclone with the original 289. I want to stroke the 289, but I'm getting mixed opinions on weather that's a good idea or not. Please let me know if you've had any experiences. Also, I want to end up with a ratical/rough idle. I'm getting lots of differnt opinions concerning the camshaft. The car's being restored for show and weekend cruizing, very rare racing if any. Any ideas ???
You can stroke the sh*t out of that sumbitch.
------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA & SS/MA National Record Holder '00,'01,'02,'03,'04 &'05
First SS/MA in the TENS!
IHRA division 5 Superstock Champion
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28 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!"
www.moneymakerracing.com
IP: Logged |
whiteknight289
Gearhead Posts: 1348
From: Wheaton, IL, USA
Registered: Mar 2004
|
posted 03-25-2005 09:27 PM
Since a 302 grew out of a 289, couldn't you stroke it to 347 like they do with the 5.0 (302)? I think you have to notch the bottom of the cylinder bore though. Not sure.
Scott
IP: Logged |
2bav8
Gearhead Posts: 217
From: Mesa, AZ
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-26-2005 12:54 AM
You must certainly can stroke that 289 block to a 347.However, looking at your objective of a radical idle the 289 with a large cam is going to a more radical idle than a 347 with the same size cam. Plus it doesn't seem like performance is your ultimate goal but car shows instead. If that's the case I'd rather build up the 289 and save the extra cash for extra chrome parts.
IP: Logged |
74merc
Gearhead Posts: 1006
From: Demopolis AL
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-26-2005 01:28 AM
Personally I'd keep it as a 289, but if you just have to stroke it, I'll be more than happy to take the 289 crank and rods off your hands.
IP: Logged |
bigred65
Journeyman Posts: 13
From: hanover, md
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 03-26-2005 06:33 AM
I've been told that the cylinder bore length is slightly shorter on the 289 than the 302, which can cause the piston to become unstable at the bottom of the stroke, and could lead to premature wear or even possibly a shattered piston. From the responses I've been getting, I'm seriously beginning to rule out the stroker idea. I'm using the 60cc RPM Performer heads and MSD ignition. The c4 trans has a reverse manual valve body installed. With the right torque converter and a nice choppy solid cam, I think I might be satisfied. Any suggestions on a solid lift cam for a 289 that would produce that choppy rough idle with good low to mid range power ???
IP: Logged |
RONNIE
Gearhead Posts: 115
From: MD
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 03-26-2005 07:58 AM
quote:
Originally posted by bigred65:
Thanks for your reply. How often & why do the valves need to be re-adjusted with a solid cam ?
I go though my vavles on every oil change, 540 lift 230/240 @ 50.
------------------
http://groups.msn.com/ronniesracingphotos/ronniesfrontpage.msnw
IP: Logged |
Mpcoluv
Gearhead Posts: 1278
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 03-26-2005 08:07 AM
Why not start out with a 351w?
Before any stroking starts, you are larger tahn a 347...Can easily go over 400 inches for about the same money as the 289 stroker.
IP: Logged |
ntman
Journeyman Posts: 50
From: Mulkeytown, IL
Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted 03-26-2005 09:15 AM
Don't stroke it, for what you are wanting to do with it it's a waste of money. Go with the RPM Air Gap intake and a solid cam with about 228 @ .050 with 108 lobe centers. It will sound radical but still be drivable. You don't want much bigger cam than that. If you go with a big cam, then you need better heads, more compression, better ignition...etc, etc.....Stick with what you have and don't stroke it.
IP: Logged |
pendragon
Journeyman Posts: 7
From: Baytown Tx
Registered: Sep 2004
|
posted 03-26-2005 09:31 AM
Comp Cams 282S sounds pretty rowdy in a 289.
IP: Logged |
Tom G
Gearhead Posts: 587
From: Bethlehem, Pa USA
Registered: Nov 2001
|
posted 03-26-2005 11:27 AM
292 cam will sound pretty healthy but you may sacrifice vacuum at idle if you have power brakes they won't work very well with this much cam also unless you want a slug off the line ie: idle! you will need a converter and or alot of gear. just my .02 cents------------------
67 Mustang F/B 302 GT-40X FMS engine RPM Air Gap 650 BG CLAW Edelbrock 100 shot N2O Crane 1.7 rollers ceramic coated headers T5, cable clutch Flows X Pipe 3.89 9". Clearwater Aqua GT Clone Vintage40 series 16X8 225 front 255/50 rear drag radials 13.25 @ 103mph 88 GT 5 spd new project 77k original miles Red and Silver
IP: Logged |
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 25883
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 03-26-2005 11:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by bigred65:
[B]I've been told that the cylinder bore length is slightly shorter on the 289 than the 302, which can cause the piston to become unstable at the bottom of the stroke, and could lead to premature wear or even possibly a shattered piston. From the responses I've been getting, I'm seriously beginning to rule out the stroker idea.
B]
 ------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA & SS/MA National Record Holder '00,'01,'02,'03,'04 &'05
First SS/MA in the TENS!
IHRA division 5 Superstock Champion
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28 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!"
www.moneymakerracing.com
IP: Logged |
n2oMike
Gearhead Posts: 2419
From: Spencer, WV
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 03-26-2005 12:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bigred65:
I've been told that the cylinder bore length is slightly shorter on the 289 than the 302, which can cause the piston to become unstable at the bottom of the stroke, and could lead to premature wear or even possibly a shattered piston. From the responses I've been getting, I'm seriously beginning to rule out the stroker idea. I'm using the 60cc RPM Performer heads and MSD ignition. The c4 trans has a reverse manual valve body installed. With the right torque converter and a nice choppy solid cam, I think I might be satisfied. Any suggestions on a solid lift cam for a 289 that would produce that choppy rough idle with good low to mid range power ???
I've measured several, and can't find any significant difference in bore length. All the 289 and 302 blocks I measured were around 5-1/8"... and were all within 1/16" of each othere. No sweat. I know of a guy who stroked one out to around 363ci. You shouldn't have a problem. BUT, if you really want to do it right, go with the 351W. That's how FORD did it RIGHT many moons ago. As for the cam you need... it's the Comp 270S. Alex even sells those. Good power and idle... without being 'too much'. 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 |
63Kcode
Journeyman Posts: 92
From: Anna Tx
Registered: Dec 2004
|
posted 03-26-2005 01:03 PM
Wouldn't it be more fun to get someone else to stroke it for you. Just a thought
IP: Logged |
Bloose
Gearhead Posts: 621
From: Milwaukee, WI
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 03-26-2005 03:16 PM
A 289 can make plenty of power and sound great. I ran a 12.65 in my '68 Fairlane last year with a 289, AFR 185 heads, RPM intake, etc. You won't make much torque which is a good reason to put a 3000rpm stall in it and a big solid cam. That's how mine is set up and it's perfectly streetable and the high stall makes up for the lack of bottom end. To me the 289 has a lot going for it in terms of revability.The only thing to you may want to consider if you stay at 289cid is domed pistons. With the short stroke of the 289 it is hard to make compression. I run the KB116's and am very happy with them. Just make sure you gap the rings right! I have 58cc chambers and my compression is at 10.1:1. You will need to make as much compression as possible (at least 10:1) if you want to run a big cam. Here is the cam I am running, 381378 http://www.iskycams.com/onlinecatalog.html But I run 1.7 rockers so my specs are closer to 381505. I am very happy with the sound and performance with this cam. HTH,
B-loose
IP: Logged |
bigred65
Journeyman Posts: 13
From: hanover, md
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 03-26-2005 05:52 PM
I've had others say that I must stay below 10:1 if I plan on running pumped fuel, which I do. Also, I was told the KB116's are flattops. But they are the pistons I've planning to use. Thanks for your input.
IP: Logged |
bigred65
Journeyman Posts: 13
From: hanover, md
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 03-26-2005 06:21 PM
Alex, my brother Ronnie tells me you're the man with all the right answers. I know you say the 289 can be stroked, but from what I'm reading in this forum, I think I might be wasting my hard earned money. With the RPM 60cc heads and the MSD ignition, what cam/piston/compression combination would you recommend in order to obtain the choppy rough idle with good low to mid range power ???
IP: Logged |
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 25883
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 03-26-2005 08:53 PM
347 stroker kits are cheap and available with several compression ratios.
On a mostly street car, I would want big cubes and a mild cam. Like a 270S or H for girlymen.
The only thing better than cubic inches, is more cubic inches. 
If I can afford to keep my McLaren this year, I will do a 347 for it and I will retain the stock HO cam using 1.7 rockers.------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA & SS/MA National Record Holder '00,'01,'02,'03,'04 &'05
First SS/MA in the TENS!
IHRA division 5 Superstock Champion
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28 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!"
www.moneymakerracing.com
IP: Logged |
ntman
Journeyman Posts: 50
From: Mulkeytown, IL
Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted 03-26-2005 09:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bigred65:
I've had others say that I must stay below 10:1 if I plan on running pumped fuel, which I do. Also, I was told the KB116's are flattops. But they are the pistons I've planning to use. Thanks for your input.
KB116 pistons are .200 dome pistons, (not flat tops) and with the right setup will run fine with pump gas. I run them with 54cc C6OE heads that have been shaved .030 and run 92 octane with no problems. I am running somewhere between 11.5 and 12:1
IP: Logged |
Bloose
Gearhead Posts: 621
From: Milwaukee, WI
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 03-26-2005 11:37 PM
10 to 10.5:1 with aluminum heads should be no problem using premium. With a big cam you need more compression because you blead off cylinder pressure at low RPM. Alex is right about CID but I think you can go either way succesfully. For about $800 you can get a cast crank, forged I beam rods and Hyper pistons. Not really too much more than cutting the crank, reconning the rods and buying new pistons. You could even consider a 331 for less problems with oil usage, though I'm not sure if that's too much of a problem anymore. B
IP: Logged |
bigred65
Journeyman Posts: 13
From: hanover, md
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 03-27-2005 08:32 AM
[What did you mean when you mentioned "less problem with oil usage" ??? Will I have an oil usage situation if I stroke the 289 ???
IP: Logged |
ntman
Journeyman Posts: 50
From: Mulkeytown, IL
Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted 03-27-2005 09:52 AM
What he was talking about is that the older 347 stroker pistons had a problem with the bottom ring land being very close if not going throught the piston pin hole. From what I understand, it allowed a bit of oil to get past the rings. I don't think it is a problem anymore with current designs.
IP: Logged |
2bav8
Gearhead Posts: 217
From: Mesa, AZ
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-27-2005 10:56 AM
New piston designs like my SRP pistons use a 3rd oil ring to support the oil ring on the bottom where the wrist pin is. Before, without the lower 3rd ring the oil ring could flutter a little cause oil control problems.
IP: Logged |
bigred65
Journeyman Posts: 13
From: hanover, md
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 03-28-2005 01:42 PM
What is the difference in the 270S & 270H besides one being solid and the other being hydraulic. From what I see on the spec sheets, they're exactly the same with exception of the 270S requiring valve adjustment. Will they both perform the same, or is there an advantage to using the solid version ???
IP: Logged |
N266fords
Gearhead Posts: 1404
From: Spokane ,WA USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 03-28-2005 03:18 PM
solid lift should give you more lift at idle because hyd. lifters have to pump up and they have a cussion effect..you will get a more radical idle from solid and a better performance..
Remember i am no expert:
Bruce
IP: Logged |
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 25883
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 03-28-2005 04:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bigred65:
What is the difference in the 270S & 270H besides one being solid and the other being hydraulic. From what I see on the spec sheets, they're exactly the same with exception of the 270S requiring valve adjustment. Will they both perform the same, or is there an advantage to using the solid version ???
270S is for manly men and 270H is for girly men.
That is the most significant difference. ------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA & SS/MA National Record Holder '00,'01,'02,'03,'04 &'05
First SS/MA in the TENS!
IHRA division 5 Superstock Champion
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28 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!"
www.moneymakerracing.com
IP: Logged |
bigred65
Journeyman Posts: 13
From: hanover, md
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 03-28-2005 06:06 PM
I hear what you're saying, but I'm not sure why you look at it that way, other than the fact that the "S" cam would require occassional mechanical attention. Based on what you've said, I'll use the solid cam (270s). Thanks...
IP: Logged |
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 25883
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 03-28-2005 06:08 PM
------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA & SS/MA National Record Holder '00,'01,'02,'03,'04 &'05
First SS/MA in the TENS!
IHRA division 5 Superstock Champion
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28 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!"
www.moneymakerracing.com
IP: Logged |
DidgeyTrucker
Gearhead Posts: 1190
From: Greenbrier, TN USA
Registered: Oct 99
|
posted 03-28-2005 11:38 PM
I'd stroke it to a 302 and leave it at that.Did you know that in the mid 60's guys were stroking 289's with 312 Y-block cranks? There were some odd rods made with the caps mounted at an angle rather than straight across. Tracy
IP: Logged |
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 25883
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 03-29-2005 01:08 AM
quote:
Originally posted by DidgeyTrucker:
I'd stroke it to a 302 and leave it at that.Did you know that in the mid 60's guys were stroking 289's with 312 Y-block cranks? There were some odd rods made with the caps mounted at an angle rather than straight across. Tracy
Yup.
327 SBF's anyone? ------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA & SS/MA National Record Holder '00,'01,'02,'03,'04 &'05
First SS/MA in the TENS!
IHRA division 5 Superstock Champion
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28 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!"
www.moneymakerracing.com
IP: Logged |
bigred65
Journeyman Posts: 13
From: hanover, md
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 03-29-2005 08:47 AM
Well, my 289 bore legnth measures 5", or maybe even a hair less. I had a machinist tell me if it measured under 5 1/8", DO NOT stroke it. I'd hate to put a 347 stroker together and have it come apart. Though I really think it would be a neet motor to build. I just don't have that kind of funds to throw away.
IP: Logged |
bigred65
Journeyman Posts: 13
From: hanover, md
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 03-29-2005 01:50 PM
Alex, I hate keep beating a dead horse, but I'm still not sold on the 270s or h. What's wrong with something like the 282s ? Looks like the same cam that was in the 271 Hipo.
IP: Logged |
74merc
Gearhead Posts: 1006
From: Demopolis AL
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-29-2005 05:59 PM
Isn't the 270S a bit weaker on the low end than the 270H?
IP: Logged |
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 25883
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 03-29-2005 07:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by 74merc:
Isn't the 270S a bit weaker on the low end than the 270H?
No. ------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA & SS/MA National Record Holder '00,'01,'02,'03,'04 &'05
First SS/MA in the TENS!
IHRA division 5 Superstock Champion
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28 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!"
www.moneymakerracing.com
IP: Logged |
n2oMike
Gearhead Posts: 2419
From: Spencer, WV
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 03-29-2005 08:30 PM
You want 366ci out of your 289? Here's what you have to look forward to in balancing the crank... unless you use VERY lightweight rods and pistons!http://www.bacomatic.org/~dw/sixto/sixto-0.htm And the rest of Dave Williams very cool site. http://www.bacomatic.org/~dw/index.htm 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: 25883
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 03-30-2005 10:34 AM
289 Hipo was .477 lift.If you are just looking for a rough idle you can always just leave a plug wire off and save yourself a lot of trouble and money.
------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA & SS/MA National Record Holder '00,'01,'02,'03,'04 &'05
First SS/MA in the TENS!
IHRA division 5 Superstock Champion
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28 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!"
www.moneymakerracing.com
IP: Logged |
bigred65
Journeyman Posts: 13
From: hanover, md
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 03-30-2005 11:04 AM
You crack me up.
IP: Logged |
Bloose
Gearhead Posts: 621
From: Milwaukee, WI
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 03-30-2005 08:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bigred65:
Well, my 289 bore legnth measures 5", or maybe even a hair less. I had a machinist tell me if it measured under 5 1/8", DO NOT stroke it. I'd hate to put a 347 stroker together and have it come apart. Though I really think it would be a neet motor to build. I just don't have that kind of funds to throw away.
Why not just do a 331? 3.25" stroke instead of 3.5". That should make up for that 1/8" the guy is talking about. If your that worried about it get a 302 roller block core. BTW, I would listen to Alex over your local shop any day. Most of these guys are Chevy boobs any way and don't know jack about Fords. Also, they are usually set in their ways. If they did one stroker 289 9 years ago that had problems they are now experts on why you should never do a 289 stroker! For the most part I wish most of these guys would just stick to machining parts. If we all listened to the guys at the machine shop we would all be driving cars w/SBC with a 3/4 race cam. B-loose
IP: Logged |
blackford
Journeyman Posts: 33
From: Corona, Ca
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 03-31-2005 02:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bigred65:
Well, my 289 bore length measures 5", or maybe even a hair less. I had a machinist tell me if it measured under 5 1/8", DO NOT stroke it. I'd hate to put a 347 stroker together and have it come apart. Though I really think it would be a neet motor to build. I just don't have that kind of funds to throw away.
Well that's the first 289 i've heard that was noticably less than 5 1/8. I measured a '65 289 block and a '68 302 block and they both had 5 1/8 bore depth. Here's something for you to consider. I built a 331 using 289 length rods (5.155"..to alleviate the then issue with oil rings intersecting wrist pins). Most 331's use 5.4 rod or 5.315 rod. Now I have a 5.155 rod so it's pulling the piston, a KB322, at least .160 lower at BDC than other 331's. I was concerned about this so I sought the opinion of an expert. I showed him how low the piston went in the bore (It really wasn't that low but just to be sure...) and he said I was OK. If your bore is 5" deep, you could be fine for at least a 5.315 rod 331 or even a 5.4 rod 347. To make the situation better, using a KB hyper piston will improve rocking since the piston to bore clearance is tight....0015 to .002. Hypers, used correctly, are excellent pistons.
------------------
Tracy Blackford
'65 "Black" ford FB, 331 with H beam 289 rods, KB322s, fully prepped 351w heads, 282S cam, C-4 auto, 3.50 9" posi. Many Suspension and handling mods. 4.5 year restomod project completed in May '04. 313 RWHP @ 6300.
[This message has been edited by blackford (edited 03-31-2005).]
IP: Logged |
n2oMike
Gearhead Posts: 2419
From: Spencer, WV
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 03-31-2005 09:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by blackford:
Here's something for you to consider. I built a 331 using 289 length rods (5.155"..to alleviate the then issue with oil rings intersecting wrist pins). Most 331's use 5.4 rod or 5.315 rod. Now I have a 5.155 rod so it's pulling the piston, a KB322, at least .160 lower at BDC than other 331's.
The shorter rod won't be pulling the piston any lower in the cylinder. To compensate for the shorter rod, the pin hole is simply drilled lower in the piston. But I might see what you are saying... The lower pin placement and the slightly shorter rod (and resulting angle) would add a little more side stress lower in the bore. Nothin' to worry about, though. You might want to remeasure the bore length. It's probably a tad over 5". 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: 25883
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 03-31-2005 09:35 PM
Maybe somebody snuck a 289 Studebaker block under those FoMoCo heads. ------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA & SS/MA National Record Holder '00,'01,'02,'03,'04 &'05
First SS/MA in the TENS!
IHRA division 5 Superstock Champion
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28 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!"
www.moneymakerracing.com
IP: Logged |
blackford
Journeyman Posts: 33
From: Corona, Ca
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 04-01-2005 01:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by n2oMike:
The shorter rod won't be pulling the piston any lower in the cylinder.To compensate for the shorter rod, the pin hole is simply drilled lower in the piston.
In general, for a given piston, the shorter rod will pull it down lower in the bore than a longer rod, but I agree with what you said and I didn't consider that when I wrote my reply. The KB322 piston I used has a 1.410 compression height as compared to typical 331 pistons which had compression height somewhere in the 1.2 range. The KB322 i'm using was designed for a 383 windsor stroker. I suppose that in order to compare apples to apples we could look at things in terms of where the wrist pin is in the bore at BDC. In my case, that would be 3.25 + 1.410 or 4.66 down in the bore. Thats about 1/2" from the bottom of the bore (assuming 5 1/8" bore length). So if he stroked to a 331 with 5.315 rods, the wrist pin would be 3.25 + 1.26 or 4.51 down if my math is correct. A 347 with 5.315 rods would be 3.4 + 1.19 or 3.59 down. Looks like my 331 gets the wrist pin further down than other SBF strokers with a higher rod angle and yet I have absolutely no issues revving the thing to 6600. Kinda interesting looking at it this way while writing it...never considered it this way till now. Probably what saves me is that there is more piston above the wrist pin than other traditional SBF strokers. This would definitely help to distribute side loading and reduce rocking at BDC. This analysis could go on for far too long for a Friday. ------------------
Tracy Blackford
'65 "Black" ford FB, 331 with H beam 289 rods, KB322s, fully prepped 351w heads, 282S cam, C-4 auto, 3.50 9" posi. Many Suspension and handling mods. 4.5 year restomod project completed in May '04. 313 RWHP @ 6300.
IP: Logged |
n2oMike
Gearhead Posts: 2419
From: Spencer, WV
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 04-01-2005 02:46 PM
People go on and on about piston side loads when using shorter rods, but longer rods require a much shorter piston. The shorter rod gets a longer piston to more evenly distribute the load. Pressure = Force/Surface Area Those short pistons distribute the force to only a small area of the bore. This puts more pressure on both the bore and the piston surface.... causing wear and damage. The shorter pistons also rock more in the bore, allowing the rings to leak. Moderation is usually the best choice. Just a little something to think about... ------------------
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 |
Mustangsandmore Forums
