[Lab Rat]

Hey everyone - been a while since my last post, and sorry - still no pics of the project car up yet. Will post them as soon as I get the film developed (no digital camera - have to scan images).

Anyway - I got the engine out a few weeks ago (standard 289) and did the tear-down this weekend. I just started looking around for rebuild parts/kits. My target is to rebuild the engine to make about 300-325 hp, and I'm trying to get info on rebuilding the internals and lower end to support that (which doesn't seem too aggressive to me). My question is - are there "performance" rebuild kits out there that would support a mild performace rebuild such as what I'm after, or should I just forget about it and assemble all the parts individually. Thanks for help/advice!

Lab Rat

 

[Grunt Doc]

I'm sure kits are available (eg. Edlebrock, Holley, etc) out there. Seems to me it'd be a lot easier with a kit.

 

[Royce Peterson]

Since 289 and 302 blocks are the same I suggest using 302 crankshaft and pistons. There's no replacement for displacement.

To achieve 1 + HP per cubic inch will need some serious work. An Edelbrock Performer RPM kit will get you there. Idle will be rough, if you have an automatic a high stall converter and a cooler will be mandatory. You will also need a good set of headers and 2 1/4 minimum exhaust tubing all the way back. Start thinking about a serious radiator and high performance water pump to protect your investment.

Carburetor needs to be a Holley, a 750 vacuum secondary works well for a small cubic inch high RPM application like this will be to achieve your desired HP level. The Edelbrock 750 would generate the same numbers on a dyno but bog badly on acceleration due to the crude secondary actuating design.

 

[modifiedmark]

I also say that a 325 hp 289 is not a "mild" rebuild. Take Royces advice to go at least with a 302 crank or better yet a 331 or 347 stroker kit if your serious about the 325 hp mark. The bigger CID would be much more streetable.

As for kits there out there but I can't recomend one as I have not personally done one of these, but a complete rotating ass kit would probably be best as everything is matched, balanced etc and would be a basically bolt together after a regular block machine and a little clearancing.

Also a set of aftermarket heads are about mandatory. mm

 

[Royce Peterson]

Mark makes a good point. The stroker kit would give more displacement, allowing more torque at a lower RPM. That means easier horsepower that can be more fun to drive.

 

[Art]

My question is - are there "performance" rebuild kits out there that would support a mild performace rebuild such as what I'm after, or should I just forget about it and assemble all the parts individually.

Since you mentioned no budget here goes!
Heads

Camshaft

Lifters

Intake Manifold

Carburetor

Rotating Assembly

This assembly would give an honest, no B.S. 315-325 RWHP (IMHO) and still have enough vacuum for power brakes and A.C.

 

[Lab Rat]

Since 289 and 302 blocks are the same I suggest using 302 crankshaft and pistons. There's no replacement for displacement.

I think I'll have to dispute you on that - the 289 and 302 blocks are different in one respect: the length of the cylinder bore. The 302 has a bore that is exactly .13 inches longer to accomodate the .13 inch increase in stroke length of the 302. As such, I've read in a number of places that the 289 is not ammenable to stroker applications such as 331 or 347. At the same time, I've also read mixed opinions on whether a 289 can be turned into a 302. Too Tall Pat Ganahl seems to think that this also is a bad idea. But thanks for the advice.

Lab Rat

 

[Cougrrcj]

289/302 Bore length

I believe Royce (the resident guru) is correct on this one. The bore length is actually the same for these two engines. They have the same deck height (crank centerline to block deck), etc. What you cannot do is try to use pistons from one to the other. I believe the factory 289 piston has a longer skirt and hits the couterweights of the 302 crank, but the aftermarket pistons corrected this.

 

[Lab Rat]

Re: 289/302 Bore length

I believe Royce (the resident guru) is correct on this one. The bore length is actually the same for these two engines.

Royce, are you sure? :1poke: I hate to dispute anyone known as "the resident guru" but I'm about 99% certain that I read in one of Pat Ganahl's books that the 302 has a longer cylinder than the 289......

Lab Rat

 

[Cougrrcj]

Longer stroke in the same block.

 

[Art]

I think I'll have to dispute you on that - the 289 and 302 blocks are different in one respect: the length of the cylinder bore. The 302 has a bore that is exactly .13 inches longer to accomodate the .13 inch increase in stroke length of the 302.
Lab Rat

Sorry to dispute your argument, I believe you to be incorrect.

I had heard for years that 302 blocks had longer cylinders than a 289 so I measured. Here are my results;

289 cylinder length=5.130"
302 cylinder length=5.130"

(Variance of 1/32")

These measurements were taken from a 1966 289 block and a 1970 302 block.

Any other arguments? Please quantify in inches.

 

[Royce Peterson]

I doubt if you could find stock pistons for either a '68 289 or 302 these days so the use of those parts is a moot point.

Ford did lower the cylinder wall 1/4" on the 68 and later 289 blocks which were identical to the 302. 1968 289's actually have 302 cast in the valley between the lifter bores, the part number is the same for both displacements.

Plenty of folks have used the earlier blocks to make 302's with no apparent ill effects. Pat Ganahl's great book on the subject I believe is referencing use of stock Ford parts.

Guru? Noooooo.........

Nuts about Cougars? Yes!!!!!!!

 

[Lab Rat]

So to make a long story short - or maybe to change the question - will a '67 289/302 block be amenable to a stroker application? Originally I was considering a 331 stroker rebuild (I like the 331 over the 347 since it has a similar rod ratio to the stock 302), but gave up the concept under the belief that the '67 289 block I have would not support it. What's your feeling on that?

Lab Rat

 

[modifiedmark]

I belive this all is a waste of breath with the fact that 302 blocks seem to grow on trees! Just go get one if your worried about the 289 block. Get a later model core if you want with the roller cam setup and then match it with the stroker crank of your choice along with a good aftermarket hyd roller cam. mm

 

[Art]

So to make a long story short - or maybe to change the question - will a '67 289/302 block be amenable to a stroker application?

Lab Rat

I really don't think the cylinder length would be an issue with a 331.

There are issues with the rear main sealing with a stroker crank in a 2 pc. rear main seal block.

Stock 289/302 crankshafts have a "knurled" area where the 2 piece rear main seal rides. Don't ask why, I don't know.... Stroker cranks don't have this knurled area, they are designed to be compatable with the 1980 up one piece rear main seal blocks. If you install a "non-knurled" stroker crank in a 2 piece rear main seal block, you will have a rear main leak.
Some engine builders knurl the stroker crankshafts to be compatable with the early blocks, and some machine early blocks to take the (superior, IMO) one piece rear main seal.

If I were starting a stroker build-up, I would scrounge a 1980 up block for the advantage of having the superior one-piece rear main seal. Summit has new 5.0 blocks for almost give-away prices!
Downside of a 5.0 block is not having a clutch pivot boss cast into the block.

Read this thread!

 

[c0ugar69]

The Edelbrock 750 would generate the same numbers on a dyno but bog badly on acceleration due to the crude secondary actuating design.

Not to get off the subject but is that the case with all of eldelbrock's carbs or just the 750. ~ Josh

 

[Royce Peterson]

They are all the same design, originally designed by Carter as the AFB in the mid - 1960's.

 

[c0ugar69]

I don't mean to undermind you Royce and I don’t doubt your knowledge. But is anyone running an edlebrock carb and experiencing this problem.

 

[kirkm76]

I think I'll have to dispute you on that - the 289 and 302 blocks are different in one respect: the length of the cylinder bore. The 302 has a bore that is exactly .13 inches longer to accomodate the .13 inch increase in stroke length of the 302. As such, I've read in a number of places that the 289 is not ammenable to stroker applications such as 331 or 347. At the same time, I've also read mixed opinions on whether a 289 can be turned into a 302. Too Tall Pat Ganahl seems to think that this also is a bad idea. But thanks for the advice.

Lab Rat

My engine is a 1968 289 block with a 302 crank and I have no problems.

 

[Royce Peterson]

I sure don't know everything but if you want to see which carburetor works best go to a race. Any race. Nascar - every car uses a Holley. Dirt track - certain classes are restricted to 600 CFM, some use 750 CFM etc. Not a Edelbrock or Carter in sight.

I have bought an Edelbrock 750 brand new and had to use it because the Pep Boys was out of Holleys and I had to go to work the next day. The car ran OK but not as good as with the original Holley 600. As soon as I could get the parts to fix the Holley it went back on and all was well again. It was the original carb on one of my 390GT XR7-G's.

There's nothing terribly wrong with an Edelbrock / Carter carb except for the fat bog every time the secondaries open. Some people purposefully tune their Holley to do this so they can tell when the secondaries open. The fact that the car is slower at the drag strip and gets worse mileage doesn't seem to matter.