Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hello there,

I have bought a 289 5-bolt engine and would like to build a 289 longrod-engine.
Has anybody ever build a 289 with 5.7" chevy-rods and Pistons from a 347 stroker-engine. (high is 1,061&quot

I thin, with the right heads, this must be a fine, economy and strong engine.
What do you think about?

regards

Hans
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,233 Posts
Sounds like fun, but unless I had all the parts "laying around" I would probably build 347 instead. Unless of course you are building a motor for some specific class racing or something? The rod ratio is pretty good on a stock 289 and I don't belive you will see any real gain? and the 5 bolt pattern is going to limit you on transmission selection.

_________________
1991 LX Mustang 347 C4 combo Mid 11's with the AC on.
1984 Mustang GT 460, Powerglide "Still putting it together" hoping for 9's !!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dfree383 on 3/9/06 2:13am ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dfree383 on 3/9/06 2:13am ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,251 Posts
I'm sure it could be done, but why. You'll need to narrow the rods (chevy rods are wider than Ford) and turn down and offset grind the crank, which will weaken the crank some. After spending all that time and money, you'll not notice any difference in performance from the mod. If anything, a perf. increase would come from the light weight piston.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,499 Posts
You might want to consider a long rod 302 instead to make things easier. If your hooked on that block, get a 302 crank, 5.4 stroker rods and KB-silvolite makes a forged and maybe a hyper piston for a long rod 302.

Don't know of anyone who has built a long rod 289.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,892 Posts
On 2006-03-08 13:36, ckelly wrote:
After spending all that time and money, you'll not notice any difference in performance from the mod. If anything, a perf. increase would come from the light weight piston.
I agree with this based on all I've researched and heard. The theory of the better rod ratio and dwell sounds a lot more important than it ends up being in engines of our caliber. Extreme power levels and or rpm might see a worth while gain. Just don't think any of us will be building any Indy car motors to throw in our rides.

A Sunbeam tiger and a 331 stroker. Now that sounds like one fun machine!!!


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: 289nate on 3/9/06 5:39am ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,692 Posts
Chances are you're limited by location as far as performance parts are concerned and you need the 5 bolt block to use in place of the 260.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
The engine would be for a second tiger. I would never give away my 331.
This would be a absolut original tiger with a Ford 4-speed toploader close ratio as original. I could use the original bellhousing of the 260er.
I would go with the original 289 and no stroker as the car must be legal, and in germany it is not legal to change the cui.
So for this I would like to create the best 289er as possible.
But as you write, the chevy rods must be machined, this is not the way I like to go. I could have lived with the 2.1" on the crank, but I do not like to spend much money to get the rods matched to the crank.
So I will look to get the right piston to match them to 5.4" rods.
Thank you for your answers, you helped me to spend some money.


regards
Hans
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So who's going to know there's a 302 crank in there? Do they check displacement at a yearly inspection-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, of course not!!
It it only........I like to do this. Everybody can create a Stroker. I would like to know how to build a really fine 289.

Hans
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,233 Posts
They are pretty good stock as far a a 289" motor is concerned. Here is a little fact, the Transam and SCCA Cars in the 60's usually had 327 and 350" 289 & 302 Motors. At least the factory backed ones !! But who was counting the chevys where 350-377 cid !!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
actually the scca transam racers had very stricked limits on engines the fords and mercurys ran 289's and the chevys ran 283s they ran these from its beginning until 1969 the fords motor put out 425 horsepower at 9,000 rpms with big compresion a big solid lift cam 2 holly 600s on a dual quad and a dual point distributer. they had very strict rules and regulations and then in 1969 the scca allowed the engines to have no more then 305 cubes so both ford and chevy both stroked there motors to 302s the ford 302 used a 289 block put in a 3.00 inch stroke crankshaft and used the 289 rods they also slapped a set of 351 cleveland heads on them these 302s were built in the cleveland plant however due to the head designs back then ford kept having engine problems so they lost the 1969 and I believe the 1970 races but in 1971 they fixed the problem and started winning again but as for stroking a 289 the 302 crank will fit and if you use the 302 rods and pistons no work is required mine is going together just fine no clearence problems at all my 289 block is a 65 model block and I am using a 351 cam I am trying to build and early model HO motor. but I do know a lot about fords and the transam races I wrote a paper on it in high school
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
oh and you can use the 289 rods with the 302 crank but it will require special pistons I know because I tried it the pistons came an 1/8 of an inch out of the top of the deck with regular 302 pistons and the same with 289 pistons but the skirts on the 289 pistons wont clear the 302 crank I have been told a set of chevy 350 pistons , same bore, will work and will give a .0000 deck height and good clearence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
There are also aftermarket rods available that are 5.315 " long which leaves a piston height of 1.456 ", which gives more possibilities of finding the right piston and still have a longer rod. Personally, I'd focus more on getting a zero deck height for the best quench, the right cam and doing whatever headwork is allowed (porting, oversize valves, etc.), electronic ignition, and so on. Cam it and gear it to rev!!
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top