i dont think i could choose one over the other. since it is 67 mustang, my favorite :mwink: , id say stick with the 289, and rebuild the 302, but not with the factory parts, since it is a standard output engine. the difference between ur 302 and a mustang 5.0, smaller cam, smaller ports in heads etc. stick with 289!! i dont think u want ur mustang making 155 hp with the 302....

 

Do up the 289.

 

Stick with the 289 is my opinion, but I just have one question...what are you going to do with the stang? Are you wanting a resto or a street car, a drag car, or a daily driver? The 289 will allow higher revs and a longer powerband, but the 302 will have a slightly lower power curve with slightly lower redline. 289 i think would make a better daily driver, resto, track car, but the 302 could be more easily built to be a drag/street racer...but that is if you are going to rebuild the motors because stock that 289 should have more ponies for your pony.

 

I like my 289 but it wont make as good of a racing engine if thats what you want.

 

Is the 302 a 5.0? I mean does it have a roller cam? If it does build the 5.0. The roller cam is well worth it. Roller cams are far superior to flat tappets. The roller cam block also has a one piece rear main seal. Sell the 289 and use the money for parts to build the 5.0.

If you rebuild the 5.0, use the stock cam 5.0 from an HO block, and use the factory bottom end, dollar for dollar it will make more power than the 289. If you get it rotating balanced it will make more than 200 Hp at least. Unless you build the 289 with a super expensive bottom end and valve train, and plan on spinning 7,500 plus RPMs, it will not spin any higher or faster than the 5.0.

 

i dont know about the 289 but i know the 302 is a roller motor. and u cant use an HO cam in an SO motor, different firing order....289 can probably make more rpms too, the 289 would be better for a racing engine

 

OO i know, use the 289 rotating assembly in the roller block. The 289 has longer rods and a shorter stroke....a better recipe for revving. Match that with the one piece seal and the roller cam, and some good heads, youll have a screamer. You can use a HO cam in a non HO block, the firing order is different, but just change the wires around and itll still work. THe engine will run with both firing orders given that it has the matching cam to go with it. 5.0 HO roller motors and 351s have a different firing order than 302s and 289s, but put a 289 cam in a 351 or 5.0, and change the firing order and itll still run.

 

I'm a classic mustang fan and have done a few 302 and 351 switch outs. 289 was built like a friggin' tank. I have a couple that I have consistently beat the crap out of and they still perform wonderfully.


I too would recommend the 289 if you want a "good, solid" engine that won't let ya down.

302s are good, but I've had much better luck with 289s

Nico

 

I spin my 5.0 to 7,500 RPM all the time and it gets there really fast. I have a 4.11 rear with a C4, and 3,200 stall. Never had any problems. I have a stock bottom end and a not very stock valve train. I doubt a similarly set up 289 with a flat tappet will spin any faster.

 

I like the 289 also, but I like Mustang66maniacs idea. Use the roller block with the 289 rotating assembly, I'd use the 289 heads also, it's easy to change the firing order, the crank throws are the same .

 

289 vs 302

Go with the 302; even if it were a older version. There is no substitute for cubic inches, even if it is only 13. The amount of RPM an ingine turns is irrelivant to its ability to make power or as a race engine. Remember that the 427 was killed not by the 429, but by the 428, which while displacement wise, was nearly identical, but the 428 was capable of putting out more horsepower at lower RPM's, making it simply a cheaper engine to build, as it didnt require all the necessary equipment to make and engine survive when turning a kazillion RPM. Note also what a 460 will do to a 429 when equipt the same. Ditto for the 289 vs 302 debate. Until the roller cam versions came out, the 302 was basically nothing more than a stroked 289. As for HP etc., I had a 69 mustang with the regular 2 bbl 302, and it put out as much hp and more torque then did the standard 4 bbl 289, of the previous years (not referring to the origional cobra 289), but inch for inch, the 302 simply has the superior capablilities.
I repeat myself; theres no substitute for cubic inches.
So unless you are doing a resto act, go with the 302.

 

Dude, its really not that big of a difference. I dont know if you noticed, but hp ratings went up over the years in mustangs. I could argue that the 289 has longer rods than the 302 which not only allows it to rev higher, but also makes more low end torque.

The 428 killed the 427? OOO, THAT must be why shelby put 428s in the AC cobras....wait a second, he put in 427s becuase they could run circles around 428s. Ford used 428s in the mustang becuase the cobra jet package was simply matching odd parts from the parts bin and made for a cheap fast engine. The 427 was used in anything that was made to go fast, AC cobras, thunderbolts,....NASCAR!

ANd gues what? The 427 had a shorter stroke than the 428.

 

You could use the 302 roller motor with the 67 intake, carb, & distributor, and use a hydraulic roller cam. The pistons may need to be cut for valve clearance however. The heads from the Crown Vic motor are great for low rpm power & gas mileage, but I'd find something else for any kind of performance use. Your 289 heads would be better. Ford recently discontinued the GT40-P iron heads, but they are still available from some of the aftermarket people & they're even better, plus they're fairly inexpensive. They do have a different header flange, but headers are available for using them in old Mustangs. The roller cam in the Crown Vic motor is also a low-rpm item, having around 180 to 185* duration at .050". The power peak on that motor is at 3200 rpm, the torque peak is at 2000. Definitely not a high-performance setup. The firing order is no problem with the carb setup, as long as the plug wires are hooked up with the firing order that is required by the cam.

 

Just a bit of info, the 428 worked the 427 because of stroke 3.98 vs 3.78. and the 460 does the same to the 429 ( although there is a big difference in inches). The 428 actually was a little smaller than the 427, I believe ( not much but the designations are deceiving), and finally, most Cobras came with the 428 engine because of cost to produce the 427. A lot of people that blew up the 428 PI engines that came in them opted to install the 427, but originally thay had 428s.

 

427 vs 428

I guess I didnt exactly make myself clear on this debate. In the late 60's most of the major Stock car guys supposedly opted to use the 428 internals in the 427 side oiler block, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Fact is a lot of vehicles that were tagged as having 427's did in fact actually have 428's, which are both from the parent FE block, Cobras included. From articles I read back in the late 60's, concerning stock car racing, particularly, the 428 guts in the side oiler was a popular combo, and the Ford gurus of that time, in engine building is where I got the info that the 428 combo was the preferred bore stroke combo.
As for the higher RPM capabilities, I guess its a matter of preferance. but then in the half dozen 302's that Ive built over the years, I used 289 rods with pistons that were cut .065 off the deck. If you remember the Boss 302, it had the same rod length as the 289. Dont get me wrong, the 289 was a great engine, as I have had a few of them, but I will stick with the 302. Ive easily spun 302's as high as I did the 289's, both with and with out the slightly longer rods. Please dont forget that somewhere around 71 or 72, the manufacturers changed from flywheel horsepower ratings to differential ratings, which gives the engine lower output numbers. The rule of thumb we used to use was to get the flywheel horsepower of a differential rated engine, add about 50 horses to the figure. This was to compensate for drivetrain losses.

 

I would like to thank those that came up with there opinions and shared hem.

i am in the process of finding out how much it would cost to get my smoky 289 engine to run as it should be running .

with true American horse power and pride

 

im only 17. but cars are my life. from my view, and understanding of the basics of some motors, the only difference i see really between the 289 vs. the 302, is about 10 hp and 10 tq. A beefed up 289, in my opinion, is a better motor. As you've already been informed, it is for the most part a more reliable motor. the small difference in the cubic inches may mean lower revs and a little more torque low-end with the 302, but if u set everything up right and spend wisely, u'll have just as great, if not even greater a motor with a beefed up 289 vs the 302.

 

Glad to hear what you have to say about the 289 i have always love the 289.
But this thread is 7 yrs old and the OP hasen't been on since then. Just letting you know.


Cole