302 vs 289 - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Engine
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 10-17-2002, 12:48 AM
kidvid's Avatar
Have Mustang Will Travel
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: So.Cal
Age: 64
Posts: 22
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Question 302 vs 289

My machinist ruined my 68 Ford 302 block while boring it. He admited his mistake and said he would replace the block. He called today and told me he could only get a 289 block that would bore out to .40" over and that the two blocks are exactly the same.
The problem is my rebuild kit is a stroker setup for a 302. Plus my heads and new cam are 302.
I understand that the 302 has a little more cylinder at the bottom of the bore to make it more stable when they went to a 3" stroke. And that there could be a difference in the bellhousing and pushrods.
What problems would I encounter going with the 289?
Should I accept his offer or make him replace the 302?

    Advertisement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 10-17-2002, 04:11 AM
woodz428's Avatar
Troll Hunter
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Philo,Il
Posts: 2,702
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Post

I'd hold out for a 302. 289 blocks are more scarce than 302s(they haven't been made since 1968).After 1965 the bellhousing isn't a problem and the pushrod difference has to do with head variations.But the cylinder difference is why I'd hold for a 302, he botched a 302 and should replace it with the same.

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: woodz428 ]</p>
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 10-17-2002, 06:55 AM
New Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 20
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Post

The difference isn't much in the cylinder wall,but, Ford didn't extend it for no reason at all. With a stroker I would definitely hold out for the 302 block as was recommended. Later, Jay
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 10-18-2002, 10:34 AM
New Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 17
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Post

You’re right about the cylinder wall being deeper on the 302, but that isn’t the problem. When you stroke an early (don’t remember the year off hand) 289 block, a couple of the rods will contact the bottom of the cylinder wall sleeves. You or your machinist need to check this during assembly. I used an air grinder to remove about ˝ an inch of material from the walls. No big deal, but why go through the hassle ( I only did it because I waned to retain my 4 bolt main HP block.) - 302 blocks are as common as dirt. As I remember, there are 5 and 6 bolt bellhousings for the 289 – just count ‘em.
Doug
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 12-10-2005, 11:42 AM
comet boy's Avatar
When all else fails burn it
 

Last journal entry: more hiding stuff
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 190
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
He is right there are five and six bolt patterns for 289's. This is something you need to be very careful of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 12-11-2005, 01:54 AM
xntrik's Avatar
Save a horse, Ride a Cowboy.
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,131
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by toy264
You’re right about the cylinder wall being deeper on the 302, but that isn’t the problem. When you stroke an early (don’t remember the year off hand) 289 block, a couple of the rods will contact the bottom of the cylinder wall sleeves. You or your machinist need to check this during assembly. I used an air grinder to remove about ˝ an inch of material from the walls. No big deal, but why go through the hassle ( I only did it because I waned to retain my 4 bolt main HP block.) - 302 blocks are as common as dirt. As I remember, there are 5 and 6 bolt bellhousings for the 289 – just count ‘em.
Doug
1) I have set several 289 and 302 blocks side by side and measured the cylinder length.
the difference in cylinder length is irrelavent because the factory puts a chamfer on the lower end that varies as much as .070 in depth from block to block. A deeply chamfered 302 block is as short as a 289 block. Boring the cylinders reduces the chamfer. .060 over usually eliminates it completely.

2) 347 strokers are running in 289 5 and 6 bolt blocks without problems. 331 would be better (actually I prefer 331 over 347 anyway)

3) Shorter cylinders will require LESS grinding for stroker clearance.

4) There were NO assembly line 4 bolt main 289 or 302 blocks. HIPO blocks had heavier cast main caps. Even light cast 5.0 blocks take 500 hp before blowing the bottom end out.

5) 1968 (only) 289/302 blocks were identical castings.

Last edited by xntrik; 12-11-2005 at 03:02 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 12-11-2005, 05:43 PM
Max Keith's Avatar
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Fort Madison,Iowa
Age: 66
Posts: 2,391
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
289 vs 302 blocks

The only differences Im aware of in production 289 and 302 blocks is the bellhousing bolt pattern of the 66 and earlier 289. If the block hes offering is a 68, 289 block, and you arent concerned about going more than .040" over on the bore, I suppose its an ok deal, since the only difference in a 68, 289 and a 68, 302 was the displacement.
If you are planning to put a stroker crank in it, you are going to have to have the bottoms of the cylinders cut for clearance for the rods, whether its a 289 or a 302.
Hmmmmmmm, I wonder if your machinist ever heard of sleeving a cylinder and reboring it?
On boring out an SBF, Ford only recommends going .030" on any of them, so it would need to be sonic tested if you are interested in going more than .030" over on the bore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 12-11-2005, 11:42 PM
xntrik's Avatar
Save a horse, Ride a Cowboy.
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,131
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
There are gazillions of 289/302s that have been bored .060 with no problems whatsoever...

If it were a 5.0...... I think that I would not go that big.


www.readershotrods.com drag cars/ georges drag strip
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	George ray 21 Aug 2005 013.jpg
Views:	201
Size:	108.2 KB
ID:	8281   Click image for larger version

Name:	George ray 21 Aug 2005 028.jpg
Views:	188
Size:	176.1 KB
ID:	8282  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 12-13-2005, 06:40 AM
mstngjoe's Avatar
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Oregon
Age: 63
Posts: 593
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by xntrik
4) There were NO assembly line 4 bolt main 289 or 302 blocks......
The Boss 302 block was a 4-bolt main.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 12-13-2005, 09:45 AM
Rev It Loud, Drive It Proud!
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Elko,Minnesota
Posts: 90
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
4) There were NO assembly line 4 bolt main 289 or 302 blocks......

The tunnel port 302...
I would wait for the 302 block. He should replace what he destroyed.

Last edited by 351fairlane; 12-13-2005 at 09:51 AM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 12-13-2005, 10:25 AM
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lakeland FL
Age: 66
Posts: 4,110
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
kidvid,
trying to say this nicely?
I suggest you re-think your build because:
your wasting alot of HP/TQ and/or (stroker) $$$$ using 302 heads (1.78/1.45 valves) and a 302 cam on a 347 stroker (good for a rock crawler Jeep?)

agree with Max and xntrik, the skirt length is a "non issue"

Last edited by red65mustang; 12-13-2005 at 11:45 AM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 12-13-2005, 01:13 PM
xntrik's Avatar
Save a horse, Ride a Cowboy.
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,131
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstngjoe
The Boss 302 block was a 4-bolt main.

Oh ya, Ford put one of those in my 69 Galaxie station wagon.... come to think of it, it WAS a dual quad tunnel port too.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 12-13-2005, 02:07 PM
brainsboy's Avatar
brains
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: tampa
Age: 42
Posts: 988
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Yeah but your never going to find a BOSS block and if you do usually people think they have something worth more then gold.

As long as were on the subject dont forget about the 302 Mexican block, which still can be found and personally I feel they are just as strong. It's almost the same casting as the BOSS block with the thicker and stronger mains and deck. The Mexican blocks only difference is that it is a 2 bolt main.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 12-14-2005, 11:20 AM
xntrik's Avatar
Save a horse, Ride a Cowboy.
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,131
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
I have a difficult time considering the BOSS 302 (and even BOSS 429), 302 tunnel port as regular "assembly line" engines...

Yes they were installed but they can hardly be considered a regular production option.

And yes, the actual cylinder metal hanging down is slightly longer on the 302 than the 289 but in practicality it is irrelavent. There ARE quite a few 5 and 6 bolt long strokers running with no ill effects noted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 12-14-2005, 02:39 PM
mstngjoe's Avatar
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Oregon
Age: 63
Posts: 593
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by xntrik
I have a difficult time considering the BOSS 302 ......as regular "assembly line" engines...
There were over 9000 Boss 302 engines installed in Mustangs and Cougar Eliminators that went out the door in 1969 & 1970.

I don't know what number it would take for you to consider the Boss 302 an "assembly line" engine, but most Ford people think of the 4-bolt Boss block as qualifying.

I would agree that the Boss 429 and Tunnel Port are a different story though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Recent Engine posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.