289 or 302 ?????

jayinpa · 06-25-2001, 04:59 PM

A friend of mine has a car with a "289" that he said I can have. How can I tell if it is a 289 not a 302? What is the benefit of a 289 over a 302? Any help would be much appreciated.
JAY

smokedchevy · 06-26-2001, 02:54 AM

Do you remember the saying "There's no replacement for displacement"? A 302 will fit anywhere a 289 will and will make more power. The 289 needs a heck of a lot of RPM to make power. I'd stick with a 302 unless you're trying to have the original engine in an old stang. However it is cool when you smoke a Chevy and tell them they got ate by a 289

. I saw a jet black mustang at LACR run nines at 3000ft with an honest to god 289. Lots of nitrous and RPMs. You should have heard that thing scream.

jwboner · 06-26-2001, 03:39 AM

Look under the valve cover will be a first indicator, it will be cast in, but will tell you if the heads have been changed. In the lifter valley under the intake, if memory serves me 289 says "289", 302 says "302", 5.0 has various markings, and mexican blocks say "hecho en mexico"

------------------
65 Mustang fastback
347 DFI injected, TFS, too much to say
Just about everything custom

Mercury · 06-26-2001, 11:23 AM

It doesnt take that much more to build power out of a 289 than it does a 302. The 289 in my old Stang is pretty stout and will give alot of people around town a run for there money. Of course the car is pretty light though.

Basically the same things that work on a 302 work on a 289. Heads, manifolds, ingnition.

Now the Ford 260 windsor is difficult to build power. Mainly because of small cylinder bore that hinders valve size and cumbustion chamber design.

Power · 06-26-2001, 01:49 PM

If I remember correctly the first 302's were actually under-powered. I had a 68 with a 302 until recently and my 66 with the 289 would run circles around it. Granted, the 302 was a little rougher than the 289, but the 302 just didn't feel very strong to me. Just my 2 cents.

COBRA66 · 06-27-2001, 12:58 AM

personally in a classic car i prefer the 289, granted that there is no substitute for cubic inches. But in my opinion i find the 289 to a stronger engine, maybe it has something to do with the thicker cylinder walls. All a 302 is, is a punched out 289. They are the same block. And to add a little history to it, Shelby originally ran 289's with a 3x2 setup.

thunderbolt · 06-27-2001, 09:27 AM

A 302 is not a "punched out 289." The two engines share identical 4 inch bores. The difference is in the stroke of the crankshafts. The 289 has a stroke of 2.87 inches while the 302 has a stroke of 3.0 inches. The 302 block is nearly identical to the 289 block, having slightly longer cylinder bores, but that is it. Power wise the two will be very similar. The 302 should have slightly more torque but the 289 should rev better, but both are probably valve train limited on rev ability.
As far as advantages to a 289, imho the advantage is purely originality and nostaligic. You can have a 302 that looks from the outside to be a 289 and vice versa. If somone has rebuilt the engine, it could have 289 or 302 internals. Otherwise, look for casting numbers on the block. C9 and latter will be 302. C7 and earlier will be 289, C8 could be either.

jayinpa · 06-29-2001, 08:04 AM

Thanx for the input. I found that is a 289 and I plan on rebuilding it.

JAY

Ron1 · 06-30-2001, 02:21 AM

jwboner...how much power were you able to get out of your 347. Just finished one, and was curious on how we did.

Ron

06-25-2001, 04:59 PM	#1
jayinpa Registered Member Join Date: Jan 1999 Location: Greensburg,PA Posts: 75	289 or 302 ????? A friend of mine has a car with a "289" that he said I can have. How can I tell if it is a 289 not a 302? What is the benefit of a 289 over a 302? Any help would be much appreciated. JAY

06-26-2001, 02:54 AM	#2
smokedchevy Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: ventura,CA Posts: 438	Do you remember the saying "There's no replacement for displacement"? A 302 will fit anywhere a 289 will and will make more power. The 289 needs a heck of a lot of RPM to make power. I'd stick with a 302 unless you're trying to have the original engine in an old stang. However it is cool when you smoke a Chevy and tell them they got ate by a 289 . I saw a jet black mustang at LACR run nines at 3000ft with an honest to god 289. Lots of nitrous and RPMs. You should have heard that thing scream.

06-26-2001, 03:39 AM	#3
jwboner Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Under the hood Posts: 164	Look under the valve cover will be a first indicator, it will be cast in, but will tell you if the heads have been changed. In the lifter valley under the intake, if memory serves me 289 says "289", 302 says "302", 5.0 has various markings, and mexican blocks say "hecho en mexico" ------------------ 65 Mustang fastback 347 DFI injected, TFS, too much to say Just about everything custom

06-26-2001, 11:23 AM	#4
Mercury The Redneck James Bond Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Fayetteville NC Posts: 1,707	It doesnt take that much more to build power out of a 289 than it does a 302. The 289 in my old Stang is pretty stout and will give alot of people around town a run for there money. Of course the car is pretty light though. Basically the same things that work on a 302 work on a 289. Heads, manifolds, ingnition. Now the Ford 260 windsor is difficult to build power. Mainly because of small cylinder bore that hinders valve size and cumbustion chamber design.

06-26-2001, 01:49 PM	#5
Power Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Oregon Posts: 420	If I remember correctly the first 302's were actually under-powered. I had a 68 with a 302 until recently and my 66 with the 289 would run circles around it. Granted, the 302 was a little rougher than the 289, but the 302 just didn't feel very strong to me. Just my 2 cents.

06-27-2001, 12:58 AM	#6
COBRA66 Registered Member Join Date: Feb 1999 Location: Central Valley, Ca Posts: 58	personally in a classic car i prefer the 289, granted that there is no substitute for cubic inches. But in my opinion i find the 289 to a stronger engine, maybe it has something to do with the thicker cylinder walls. All a 302 is, is a punched out 289. They are the same block. And to add a little history to it, Shelby originally ran 289's with a 3x2 setup.

06-27-2001, 09:27 AM	#7
thunderbolt Registered Member Join Date: Oct 1998 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 380	A 302 is not a "punched out 289." The two engines share identical 4 inch bores. The difference is in the stroke of the crankshafts. The 289 has a stroke of 2.87 inches while the 302 has a stroke of 3.0 inches. The 302 block is nearly identical to the 289 block, having slightly longer cylinder bores, but that is it. Power wise the two will be very similar. The 302 should have slightly more torque but the 289 should rev better, but both are probably valve train limited on rev ability. As far as advantages to a 289, imho the advantage is purely originality and nostaligic. You can have a 302 that looks from the outside to be a 289 and vice versa. If somone has rebuilt the engine, it could have 289 or 302 internals. Otherwise, look for casting numbers on the block. C9 and latter will be 302. C7 and earlier will be 289, C8 could be either.

06-29-2001, 08:04 AM	#8
jayinpa Registered Member Join Date: Jan 1999 Location: Greensburg,PA Posts: 75	Thanx for the input. I found that is a 289 and I plan on rebuilding it. JAY

06-30-2001, 02:21 AM	#9
Ron1 Registered Member Join Date: Sep 1999 Location: Vancouver, WA USA Posts: 439	jwboner...how much power were you able to get out of your 347. Just finished one, and was curious on how we did. Ron