Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
OK so I'm cheapening out here sort of - but the parts bill is climbing every day. Back in the day - 1965-1970 era we used to reuse head bolts all the time. I seem to remember they were not prone to stretching as later bolts are and ARP bolts were unheard of and I never had any problems doing that with street engines.

So Old timers - any luck now with reusing original Ford 289 head bolts on a new set of Edelbrock heads????

Or should I just slap myself silly for even thinking such a thing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,977 Posts
They still stretched back them but the stretch concept wasn't really out there at the time. That being said, I'd have no problem reusing them unless you are concerned that they have been torqued ump-teen times in the past (or have obvious damage.)

I wouldn't reuse the modern torque to yield stuff (though it probably has been done.)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,812 Posts
If they torque up quickly and evenly, I wouldn't hesitate to use them, however, be sure the heads of the bolts give room for a socket. In some aluminum heads, you need a smaller hex to fit a socket.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
I reused stock head bolts on 11 to 1 compression drag motors all of the time back in the day and never had a problem. Those bolts were designed to never approach their yield strength back then, so you could almost use them forever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Outstanding info from all of you thanks. It will save about 50 bucks unless the bolt heads are too big for the Edelbrock E Street heads - which are the ones I'll get if I find out the stock ones are leaking. From where I live it's a 70 to 110 mile round trip to a parts house depending on which direction I go - south or east - so I try and do a lot of pre planning and on line ordering before jumping into the project. Couple more parts should be here Monday and the weather has dried up and warmed up so next week should get 'er going!!

LBM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
Bad news. If I remember correctly the Edelbrock heads are drilled for 1/2" bolts. The Ford bolts are 7/16". You need special Edelbrock bolts and washers.

Correction:You need the Edelbrock 9680 bushing kit. it will work with stock Ford head bolts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Yea I saw that kit and wondered if the stock bolts would work with them, also need a set of hardened push rods, Edelbrock head & exhaust gaskets - made to fit their heads and probably something else - probably another $200 over the price of the heads. Then there is a little bit of a question on smaller then 302 bore size on the 289 block and 60cc combustion chamber vs 58cc stock 289 and a little compression loss. But I think the Aluminum head chambers are a better design for burn so over all are probably better then stock heads. Always something - but now would be the time to do it and be done with it and the COOL Factor is way more :)

Bad news. If I remember correctly the Edelbrock heads are drilled for 1/2" bolts. The Ford bolts are 7/16". You need special Edelbrock bolts and washers.

Correction:You need the Edelbrock 9680 bushing kit. it will work with stock Ford head bolts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
OK Then the I guess it's just the difference in combustion chamber size 58 or 59 cc? on the 289 and 60 cc on the Edelbrock???? Loosing a little compression?? I looked over a 289/302 head comparison and using the 302 on the 289 and I seem to remember it saying the 302 had a larger chamber and it caused a drop in compression by about 1 point????????????????

I have a possibility of using a set of 302 heads on the 289 if it will be a better choice - having to do a valve job on either set - which ever is used. I was leaning towards the Aluminum heads because I thought the 302's wouldn't work very good. Might be wrong here????????


289 and 302 have the same 4" bore, 289 has 2.87 stroke while the 302 has a 3" stroke.:smile2:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,977 Posts
The 289 combustion chamber is typically mentioned as being smaller than 58cc's. IIRC, its more like 54.5cc's (always give or take a couple of CC's because of mass production.)

The 302's used various sized chambers from the early 58cc's and 63cc's up to around 69cc's beginning in 1977. Obviously you do not want to use a 77' and up head on a 289 for performance reasons (probably a full compression ratio point drop.)

The smallest CC head for a 302 would be the 68 4bbl head which were supposed to be in the 54cc range-not very common to find them anymore.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
Also, some of the 70's era 302 heads had big lumps in the exhaust ports for the EGR system. The lumps were in the casting whether EGR was used or not. You want to stay away from these heads as the exhaust ports were very restrictive. Don't remember what years or casting numbers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,414 Posts
Also, some of the 70's era 302 heads had big lumps in the exhaust ports for the EGR system. The lumps were in the casting whether EGR was used or not. You want to stay away from these heads as the exhaust ports were very restrictive. Don't remember what years or casting numbers.
You have to go back to 1965 to find heads with zero EGR lumps in the exhaust port. Most heads had a lump in the top corner... and a big dip leading up to it. Some heads had a HUGE lump right in the middle, but an otherwise 'normal' shaped port. For these, you could just grind the entire thing out, and be good to go.

I've spent FAR too many hours grinding on stock heads. Only a fool would do it nowadays, with all the aftermarket stuff available! lol ...unless it's a rules thing. :)

There's nothing wrong with a 60cc head. 4bbl 289's with their 54.5cc heads had 10:1 compression with a flat top, and 9.3 with a dish. A set of 289 heads on a flat top 302 had trouble not pinging with 93 octane and a street cam.

Good Luck!
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top