 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / April 2004289 vs 302 cylinder length
Ok, I know that a 289 and a 302 have the same bore and dech height. What about the cylinder length? I have a 289 and the measurements are as follows: Deck height 8.2 inches Block surface to bottom of cylinder wall near crank 5.1 inches are these the same in the 302? I will need to bore out my 1965 289 since the wear is at 4.008 after 160,000 miles and I was thinking about puting a stroker crank in it. Thanks in advance. I've heard there are problems with the bottom of the cylinder skirts and using a stroker crank. Not enough room and something bottoms out. I asked my engine builder and he said that he's never had any problems with strokers in the early blocks as long as your not trying to put the 347 crank into the C6 289 block. Works fine in the C8 289 though.  SignatureScott W. '66 Mustang HCS '68 Ranchero 500 '68 Fury III > Ok, I know that a 289 and a 302 have the same bore and dech height. > What about the cylinder length? I have a 289 and the measurements are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 160,000 miles and I was thinking about puting a stroker crank in it. > Thanks in advance. I'll be pulling a C code 289 out of a buddies '68 Cougar. Car won't be here till next weekend so I can't say when that will be though. It has the C8 289 AKA "302" block in it. It has a bottom knock so we may pull it apart and have look see. I'll measure it if we do strip her down. StuK > I've heard there are problems with the bottom of the cylinder skirts and > using a stroker crank. Not enough room and something bottoms out. I asked my [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > 160,000 miles and I was thinking about puting a stroker crank in it. > > Thanks in advance. OK, This info is from Coast High Performance. The block height is the same(8.2) and the bore is the same(4.0) but the cylinder length is 1/10 of an inch shorter in the 289 VS the 302. As far as putting a 347 kit in a true 289 it is not a problem. They went on to say that the length makes no signifigant difference but that the common 289 blocks are stronger than most common modern 302's. The one drawback is that to get a roller cam into one of the 289 blocks it takes a retrofit roller kit and a higher priced retrofit cam. These are not a must but they will allow the best power output for the motor. >Ok, I know that a 289 and a 302 have the same bore and dech height. >What about the cylinder length? I have a 289 and the measurements are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >160,000 miles and I was thinking about puting a stroker crank in it. >Thanks in advance. PS: http://www.coasthigh.com/ >OK, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >>160,000 miles and I was thinking about puting a stroker crank in it. >>Thanks in advance. Thanks for the research. SignatureScott W. '66 Mustang HCS '68 Ranchero 500 '68 Fury III > OK, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > retrofit roller kit and a higher priced retrofit cam. These are not a > must but they will allow the best power output for the motor. > Thanks for the research. the 68 3092 block is 5.187" from deck to bottom of bore. the stroke difference is only .13" Chip I have two C5 289's (1965) on the stands and that is true. The length of the cylinder on the 289 is 5.100, yours at 5.187 plus the 0.013 makes the 1/10th of an inch. Mystery solved! Now just the work to get the engine done and into my 1965 fastback GT. 400 plus horse in that ought to be a hoot!!! >> Thanks for the research. > > the 68 3092 block is 5.187" from deck to bottom of bore. > the stroke difference is only .13" > Chip > OK, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > retrofit roller kit and a higher priced retrofit cam. These are not a > must but they will allow the best power output for the motor. I posted about this a few months back. An article on strokers mentioned the 289's having shorter cylinders than the 302's. It mentioned that a 3.25" crank would probably be a better bet in a 289 than a 3.40". Think about it. Ford considered the .13" increase enough to retool the molds for longer cylinders, and look how much longer the 347 arm is. Of course, the stroker pistons are shorter, but the longer rods are going to push them against the walls more. In a high-horsepower engine, cylinder wall integrity is of primary concern. CobraJet > >Ok, I know that a 289 and a 302 have the same bore and dech height. > >What about the cylinder length? I have a 289 and the measurements are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >160,000 miles and I was thinking about puting a stroker crank in it. > >Thanks in advance. >> OK, >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >going to push them against the walls more. In a high-horsepower engine, >cylinder wall integrity is of primary concern. Agreed, If the goal is to get 140,000 miles out of a motor stick with the best stock configuration you can. In my case I will be building it for a restoration 1965 that will get around 300 miles a year... but when I do stomp the pedal on the right... WHOOOAAAAA NEEEELLLIIIEEEE 430 crankshaft horespower and a 2,600LB car > CobraJet > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >160,000 miles and I was thinking about puting a stroker crank in it. >> >Thanks in advance. > >> OK, > >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > when I do stomp the pedal on the right... > WHOOOAAAAA NEEEELLLIIIEEEE 430 crankshaft horespower and a 2,600LB I'm sorry, I just tuned back in last night and I missed your engine's parts list. CobraJet > car > > CobraJet [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >> >160,000 miles and I was thinking about puting a stroker crank in it. > >> >Thanks in advance. Here is the recipie I have chosen.... 65 block 289 .030 over bore Crane cams custom retro fit roller grind recomended by the tech line http://www.cranecams.com/?show=technicalHelp retrofit roller lifter kit comp cams magnum SS roller rockers http://www.powerandperformancenews.com/store/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code =CC&Category_Code=htRCKR CHP 347 stroker kit http://www.coasthigh.com/ Power heads ported 289 heads http://www.powerheads.com/ 1 5/8 inch tri-Y headers 2 1/4 dual exhaust out through modified stock 65 GT tips My goal is to have a near concouse resto looking small block 289 engine with the punch of a gorrilla All of this was put through the dynosim program and the results should be near this http://www.proracingsim.com/dynosimmainpage.htm Any suggestions???? >> >> OK, >> >> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >> >> >160,000 miles and I was thinking about puting a stroker crank in it. >> >> >Thanks in advance. > Here is the recipie I have chosen.... > > 65 block 289 .030 over bore > Crane cams custom retro fit roller grind recomended by the tech line > http://www.cranecams.com/?show=technicalHelp > retrofit roller lifter kit I don't see cam specs. What compression? Trans? > comp cams magnum SS roller rockers > > http://www.powerandperformancenews.com/store/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Co > de=CC&Category_Code=htRCKR > CHP 347 stroker kit http://www.coasthigh.com/ > Power heads ported 289 heads http://www.powerheads.com/ You'd be lucky to move enough air in ported early castings to support 430 hp. > 1 5/8 inch tri-Y headers > 2 1/4 dual exhaust out through modified stock 65 GT tips Exhaust is too small. Full length big tubes and 2 1/2" pipes, no tips. > My goal is to have a near concouse resto looking small block 289 > engine with the punch of a gorrilla It's a good idea, but don't put too much stock in dyno programs. Consider that a 400-horse engine will also need subframe connectors and engine compartment bracing to keep from twisting and cracking your Mustang. My 69 has a broken shock tower from running a 300-horse 302 with an automatic. Suspension needs to addressed in a big way. > All of this was put through the dynosim program and the results should > be near this http://www.proracingsim.com/dynosimmainpage.htm > > Any suggestions???? Your car was not built to withstand this much power without non-stock modifications. Look at the whole picture. CobraJet > >> >> OK, > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > >> >> >160,000 miles and I was thinking about puting a stroker crank in it. > >> >> >Thanks in advance. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.