SBF difference? - 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 05-04-2009, 04:50 PM
kleen56's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Santa Clarita CA
Posts: 802
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
SBF difference?

I am currently running a 65 289 in my truck. My neighbor has a 5.0 engine from his 91 Mustang he wants to sell me for $300. Block and heads only. The block is stock and in great shape, heads are original. The engine ran hard in his Mustang as well. He pulled it to build a stroker 347 engine which he thought would be much faster than his 5.0. I guess it is, but I can't tell? My 289 runs well and is dependable but by no means a performance engine. What would be the advantage of buying his engine over keeping mine. Is the 5.0 a better engine performance wise and horsepower wise? I'm planning on buying some aluminum heads (pro comps) in addition. All the parts on my 289 will fit onto the 5.0 and the install is straightforward I believe. My question is, should I go with the 5.0?

    Advertisement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2009, 05:04 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Central UT
Posts: 64
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Two words. Hydraulic Roller Cam.

Ok, three words. The 91 will be running a hydraulic roller cam which will do 2 things for you

1. You don't have to worry about cam lobe/lifter failure w/ the newer oils like you would with the flat tappet cam in the 289.

2. You can run a cam w/ a more aggressive profile (faster opening and closing) and gain more power without losing streetability.

If it were me, I'd go w/ the 302 just for that alone.

Matt
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2009, 07:32 PM
kleen56's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Santa Clarita CA
Posts: 802
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Thanks Matt. I guess my problem is "why pull an engine that is running and in good condition?" Any other suggestions? or this a no brainer?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2009, 08:04 PM
powerrodsmike's Avatar
Hotrodders.com Moderator
 
Last wiki edit: Make a fiberglass fan shroud
Last journal entry: Next.. ..Bagging the king B (barge)
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: gilroy, california
Age: 53
Posts: 4,108
Wiki Edits: 161

Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
It's all not a bolt on. You may run into some problems depending on which timing cover you have, some early front covers have differences in the water openings from block to cover and will leak..water pump inlet on a 65 is on a different side as well. If you want to use the 5.0 front cover, along with your front sump pan and oil pump, get ready to figure out how to put a dipstick in it, as the dipsticks in the 5.0 are in the side of the block. (dual sump pan needs the dipstick in the rear)
I'd be inclined to find and run the dual sump pan and proper front cover.

Also your accessory drives may wind up being a pain, you must run the 91 balancer, there is a significant difference in the balance weights from 65 to 91. The 91 balancer is set up for serpentine belts, and you will need to adapt a pulley to make it run v belts. I am not sure but IIRC Street & Performance and Ford motorsport has some stuff that will help with that. I saw a conversion balancer in one of the mustang catalogs, with the correct weight for the 81 and up motor and the bolt pattern for the v belt pulley. They usually have dual timing marks, one for the left side pointer and one for the right side...so pay attention to TDC on the balancer when you mock up the motor..



Do not forget to get the proper flexplate /flywheel, as the imbalance factor is different from 81and up....

If you do run the 5.0 front cover, you need to use an electric fuel pump, or find a front cover from an 84 and earlier that will fit the block, those had carbs.

Pay attention to the water pump as well, the later one is reverse rotation

There are differences in intake gaskets as well, but if you are buying heads, you should be able to figure out which ones you'll need.

Swapping parts on some Fords is more fun than a busload of fat chicks.

It can be done, but it will take some work. Do a search for "5.0 in early mustang" and there should be alot better info than what I just gave you.

I have an 84 5.0 in my rack that came out of a 67 mustang, when I get ambitious I'll climb up there and look at what's on it.

Later, mikey
__________________
my signature lines...not really directed at anyone in particular..

BE different....ACT normal.

No one is completely useless..They can always be used as a bad example

Last edited by powerrodsmike; 05-04-2009 at 08:14 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2009, 08:14 PM
eric302's Avatar
Why be normal?
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Waukesha WI
Age: 59
Posts: 122
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Too many hassles trying to swap the 289 for the 91 302. If you're trying to win a race it's one thing but if everythings ok, why fix it. I'd stay with the 289.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2009, 09:10 PM
cobalt327's Avatar
WFO
 
Last wiki edit: Intake manifold
Last journal entry: 1980 Malibu Wagon
Last photo:
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Atlanta
Age: 59
Posts: 5,037
Wiki Edits: 1616

Thanks: 128
Thanked 597 Times in 546 Posts
The '91 302 had forged pistons from the OM. They're a popular engine when a roller forged piston engine is wanted- like for nitrous or super- or turbocharging.

You might go ahead and pick up the engine and just put it away for when you DO need it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2009, 09:25 PM
kleen56's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Santa Clarita CA
Posts: 802
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Mikey, that's what I was looking for! Thanks buddy. I know the block I have is a 65 because it states it on the engine gully on the casting and I know it's a 289. The timing cover and water pump appear to be from a 67 or later because the water pump outlet is on the drivers side, where the 65 and 66 were on the passenger side. I'm running a mechanical fuel pump on the timing cover which I know the 5.0 doesn't have (electric pump) and the dipstick goes into the timing cover on my engine versus the 5.0 to the rear of the engine. I was figuring I could use my oil pan and the entire front (timing cover, pump etc.) I thought the pickup tube could be replaced to work with my oil pan (front sump). I didn't think about the balancer which is a 28 oz. on mine or the flywheel. I assumed they would work. 289/ 302 are the same? I also didn't consider the serpentine belts or it the reverse flow on the water pump would make a difference after changin the complete front portion of the engine with mine. I'm running a V belt on mine which runs the crank, water pump and alternator (one belt). The 5.0 blocks looks identical to the 289 and I guess that's why I thought it would be a easy swap. Maybe, I'll just go with a early 351W motor if I can find one. I guess that would also have to be a prior 1988 or so engine as well? Or just keep my 289 and throw some aftermarket heads on it. Thanks for the great info guys.

Last edited by kleen56; 05-04-2009 at 09:34 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2009, 11:51 AM
Canzus's Avatar
a red wool sock on his dinger
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 236
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
The 289 and 5.0L blocks are not the same. The 5.0 is a lot weaker in the mains...

See this...

http://sbftech.com/index.php/topic,15644.0.html

Just over halfway down the page you can see how little material is actually used...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2009, 02:00 PM
JeffB's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Phoenix,AZ
Age: 68
Posts: 1,668
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 2
Thanked 80 Times in 73 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canzus
The 289 and 5.0L blocks are not the same. The 5.0 is a lot weaker in the mains...

See this...

http://sbftech.com/index.php/topic,15644.0.html

Just over halfway down the page you can see how little material is actually used...
Seems to me they just did a build recently on Horsepower TV where they used a girdle that goes in the lifter valley that prevents the cause of the block cracking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2009, 03:32 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Central UT
Posts: 64
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canzus
The 289 and 5.0L blocks are not the same. The 5.0 is a lot weaker in the mains...

See this...

http://sbftech.com/index.php/topic,15644.0.html

Just over halfway down the page you can see how little material is actually used...

Yes, they are weaker, but that guy was running 18psi of boost AND a 100hp shot of nitrous. That's with a cast crank and cast main caps. I think the split block may have been a result of the mains/crank giving up instead of the cause. I think the same block/caps/crank would live for a very long time in a more reasonable setup.

That being said, if it were me, I'd swap to the 5.0. Not that the 289 is bad by any stretch, but I think the odds of having a cam failure from the 289 flat tappet is much higher than having crack issues with the newer block.

But either way, it'll be a good setup.

Matt
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2009, 05:53 PM
onebadmerc's Avatar
I need a bucket of arc sparks
 
Last wiki edit: How to identify SB Ford heads without pulling them
Last journal entry: trunk floor
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Florence Colorado
Age: 43
Posts: 901
Wiki Edits: 1

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
If you have a 65 289 then it will be a five bolt bellhousing block and the 5.0 will be a six bolt block. If you want to change your tranny and only gain 13 ci then go with the 5.0. If it was me I wouldn't waste my time pulling a good running 289 to install that 5.0.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2009, 06:54 PM
powerrodsmike's Avatar
Hotrodders.com Moderator
 
Last wiki edit: Make a fiberglass fan shroud
Last journal entry: Next.. ..Bagging the king B (barge)
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: gilroy, california
Age: 53
Posts: 4,108
Wiki Edits: 161

Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
None of the 65 289 motors had 5 bolt bellhousings. There might have been some carryovers of C4 blocks into 65 cars, but if it has a C5 prefix it's a 6 bolt.

Check the casting numbers.

http://raceabilene.com/kelly/hotrod/engine2.html

Later, mikey.
__________________
my signature lines...not really directed at anyone in particular..

BE different....ACT normal.

No one is completely useless..They can always be used as a bad example
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2009, 09:41 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Orlando
Posts: 344
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
This is not a difficult wsitch at all and I have done it a few times already with relative EAZE. The balancer and flexplate are a given. The only thing you will need to make sure is you use a flexpalte that allows you to go from late to early trans. The rest as far as I'm concerned is basically the same. You will need a front sump oil pan. The early timing covers will fit the 5.0 motor. I have never encountered a problem there. An early water pump will bolt right up.

Don't let people fool you, this is relatively an easy swap that's done almost daily. You can also run V-belt system with the roller.. Some things about this swap are just simply implied by design.. meaning you would not expect to be able to use the reverse rotation water pump. Your 289 pump will work and work well.

Front sump pan (which you can use from your 289)
Balancer (which should come with the motor)
Flexplate $100 that allows you to go late to early

Hook everything up, pick up extra cubes and a motor that will run circles around the 289.

NOW, from a nostalgia standpoint.. I wrecked my brain about this.. mainly because the 289 is a dying breed. if you've got a good block (not bored past limits), I would probably put some heavy consideration into it. I debated this for months, but opted to go with the roller and glad I did. This things is a dream to drive and my gas needle hardly ever moves. I'm running a edelbrock performer with a holley carb. Got good throttle response, good torque, great gas mileage in these lighter cars. I kept my 289 and will never part with it, but rollers are the way to go. Makes the driving experience so much better. How many miles are on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2009, 09:55 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Orlando
Posts: 344
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Another thought.. going to a 351w in these little stangs would be a complete nightmare IMO. This is why your buddy opted to build a 347.

351 in early mustang:
Too heavy
No room for working around
Makes the car nose heavy
Just a natural PITA

I know guys that done it and they are not wild about it.. other than saying they have a 351.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2009, 10:17 PM
kleen56's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Santa Clarita CA
Posts: 802
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
I'm sure I have a 65 289 Block and heads going by the C5 engine coding. The 66 289's came with the smog port heads (CA edition) those are on my 66 Mustang (not one of Fords better ideas!) and was the first year for smog pumps. The 289 is a 6 bolt and actually has a 68 C4 Transmission butted up to the block. I believe the 260's and the early 289 like 63 to 64 did have a 5 bolt block but that was changed in 65. I got a lot info on this switch and some great info. Thanks everyone. The 289 block was rebuilt before and I have no clue who did it or if it was crate type purchase, etc. The previous owner didn't even know that info. I've had the heads off and the engine is very clean and no ridges or wear visible on the cylinders. I haven't checked if it was ever bored over, I'm assuming it was if it was rebuilt. I recently had the heads done, basic 3 angle valve job and had screw in studs machined in instead of the pressed in studs which came with the heads. When I replaced the cam in the 289, it actually starting pulling the studs out of the heads. And I'm running a mild cam with a 480 lift - 273 duration. The heads have less than 5,000 miles on them since they were done. It's by no means a dog and holds it own for a 289, but is no where near the performance of the 5.0 when it was running in the 91 Stang. I'm guessing I may be better off at this point in going with some aftermarket heads, with perhaps 1.6 roller rockers instead. I can always switch the heads to the 5.0. if I decide to go that way. I thought this would be an easy one day-er pull the engine and drop the other in, instant 100 horsepower project. I'm glad I asked before possibly getting in over my head on this one. I think the price, and knowing how fast the 5.0 was got me excited. Heck, I'm still excited, just not sure if it's worth going this route. I think if I'm going to go through all this trouble, I'll make it worth my while and stuff a 351W in the engine compartment. I've got the room. For now, the 289 runs!
Still thinkin?
Ed
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:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Difference in rotors on gen 3 Camaros Cole32 Suspension - Brakes - Steering 5 01-30-2006 11:49 PM
Lincoln Welders - Is there a difference robin58 Garage - Tools 6 01-25-2006 07:21 PM
Whats the difference 5dogsisenuff Body - Exterior 9 09-18-2005 08:57 AM
color difference in 2 k primer Rosewood Body - Exterior 4 05-28-2005 08:36 PM
what's the difference??? ap0001 Hotrodding Basics 5 01-14-2005 08:47 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:58 AM.


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.