[gdansen]

Looking to rebuild (if able stroker 331) my 289. Is this possible... I've heard negative feedback from "couch mechanics". Cost is issue and would like feedback and kit recommedations.

 

[mstngjoe]

"Negative feedback" relative to what?

Recommend Brian at www.adperformance.com for kits, pricing, customer service.

 

[FEandGoingBroke]

That's why they're still COUCH mechanics...

Build it and they will come around!

 

[gdansen]

I was told that the rear main bearing requires machining on older blocks?? Newer blocks were better candidates.

 

[retroFiveOH]

On 2006-04-24 11:02, gdansen wrote:
I was told that the rear main bearing requires machining on older blocks?? Newer blocks were better candidates.

BS!

 

[ChicoB]

Some folks say a later block is more desireable mostly becasue of them being roller cam blocks......

 

[CaptVirgilHilts]

The '68 "289" is a 302 block with 289 recip gear and I understand they are fine for stroking due to the extra clearance designed for the 302 stroke. Stu

 

[retroFiveOH]

On 2006-04-26 18:38, CaptVirgilHilts wrote:
The '68 "289" is a 302 block with 289 recip gear and I understand they are fine for stroking due to the extra clearance designed for the 302 stroke. Stu

100% Internet Myth....compare a few blocks. 289/302/5.0 blocks all have the same cyl wall length, give or take a little production slop.

 

[ckelly]

Nothing wrong with putting a 3.25 arm crank in a 289 block. Go for it, but if cost is a consideration you might just do a straight rebuild. A decent rotating assy is going to be $1000+. I said decent, not the cheapest eBay thing you can find. Like in one of the sigs above, check with Brian at AD.

 

[CaptVirgilHilts]

On 2006-04-26 19:37, retroFiveOH wrote:

On 2006-04-26 18:38, CaptVirgilHilts wrote:
The '68 "289" is a 302 block with 289 recip gear and I understand they are fine for stroking due to the extra clearance designed for the 302 stroke. Stu

100% Internet Myth....compare a few blocks. 289/302/5.0 blocks all have the same cyl wall length, give or take a little production slop.

Thanks for clearing that up. I wonder why Ford recast the block in 68? Other than putting 302 in the valley what changes were made? Inquiring minds want to know

!?

Stu