289 vs 302 cylinder length

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.

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

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.

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 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

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

I'm sorry, I just tuned back in last night and I missed your engine's parts list.

CobraJet

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 roller lifter kitcomp cams magnum SS roller rockers 347 stroker kit heads ported 289 heads 5/8 inch tri-Y headers2 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

>

I don't see cam specs. What compression? Trans?

You'd be lucky to move enough air in ported early castings to support 430 hp.

Exhaust is too small. Full length big tubes and 2 1/2" pipes, no tips.

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.

Your car was not built to withstand this much power without non-stock modifications. Look at the whole picture.

CobraJet