If the head bolts do not go into a water jacket then you can use 30 weight motor oil. When they go into a water jacket then use permatex aviation 3H non hardening sealer. I've used it lots and it works great.

 

Liguid teflon works aswell. This is used at the dealership often.

 

The head bolt holes on 289's do not go into the water jacket, so you don't need any sealer. Torque the bolts to spec with 30W motor oil.

Later 5.0's were the only small blocks that had head bolts running into the wate jackets.

Good Luck!

 

I am pretty sure the shorter (lower) head bolts on the 289 do go into the water jacket.
From a tech article I used when I was rebuilding the top end:

"The shorter head bolts situated at the lower side of the bores enter coolant passageways, so use some sealant, like Permatex Teflon Thread Sealer, to prevent leaks on all of the shorter bolts."

http://www.mustangandfords.com/howto/5152/

My Chapmans also says that the lower bolts go into the water jacket, and the tech information that came with my Windsor Jr. Heads say the same thing


_________________
Scott
1967 Galaxie 500

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: psivory on 6/15/05 8:25pm ]</font>

 

None of the bolts on the 289 block in the Mustang go into the water jacket. I used no sealer, thread lock or anything on the block threads of the ARP studs.

 

On 2005-06-15 00:34, Lupins wrote:
Liguid teflon works aswell. This is used at the dealership often.

For anyone curious, Loctite recommend the 567 Master pipe sealant with teflon in it for bolts going into water jackets.
(the white paste)

 

On 2005-06-15 08:46, ckelly wrote:
None of the bolts on the 289 block in the Mustang go into the water jacket. I used no sealer, thread lock or anything on the block threads of the ARP studs.

Hmmm..... I am sure you all know better than I do as I am no expert on this. I used sealant on the lower bolts on my 289, due to the instructions on the heads I used, suppose it won't hurt anything even if I didn't need it.

 

No, won't hurt anything. I checked every threaded hole with a small screwdriver and a flashlight - no penetrations into the water jacket. As suggested, the later engine may be different. The block used for the Mustang's 302 is a 1965 289 casting.

 

On 2005-06-15 09:26, psivory wrote:

On 2005-06-15 08:46, ckelly wrote:
None of the bolts on the 289 block in the Mustang go into the water jacket. I used no sealer, thread lock or anything on the block threads of the ARP studs.

Hmmm..... I am sure you all know better than I do as I am no expert on this. I used sealant on the lower bolts on my 289, due to the instructions on the heads I used, suppose it won't hurt anything even if I didn't need it.

That'd be a big 10-4.

FYI.. The 5.0 blocks do need the sealant(but the 5.8 does not), not sure when Ford actually changed(cheapened) the castings so the lower bolts enter the water jacket.

_________________
1988 Turbo Coupe...5.0 Conversion... AOD... 3.73s

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: TurboCoupe50 on 6/15/05 10:22pm ]</font>

 

the lower row of bolts do go into the coolant passages on my 67 block 289, and on my old 66 289 also. the upper bolts though did not.

 

the lower row of bolts do go into the coolant passages on my 67 block 289, and on my old 66 289 also. the upper bolts though did not.

FYI

Know this is an old thread but thought that I would add some info. My C5AE 6015E 289 block with a build date of December 1966. All block head bolts are blind. Do not go into the water jacket.

 

On 2005-06-15 13:49, rbohm wrote:

the lower row of bolts do go into the coolant passages on my 67 block 289, and on my old 66 289 also. the upper bolts though did not.

No they do not. The only ones that had head bolts that screwed into water were 5.0 blocks. You are mistaken.

 

I'm not sure if the lower bolts go into water jackets or not, but I've never used anything on the headbolts but 30w oil, and I've never had a leak.
I've got a spare early 289 block I have stored away I can check just for the hell of it.

 

Trick flow recommended the 3H aviation non hardening on any bolts entering the water jacket. My son's 94 HO needed it however my 69 302 as far as i recall did not .

 

Thanks guys.I just put some light oil on the threads and torqued them down.I've never had any troubles before but the book got me thinking...Rcode whats with the rolly eyes all the time?

 

On 2005-06-15 14:36, n2omike wrote:

On 2005-06-15 13:49, rbohm wrote:

the lower row of bolts do go into the coolant passages on my 67 block 289, and on my old 66 289 also. the upper bolts though did not.

No they do not. The only ones that had head bolts that screwed into water were 5.0 blocks. You are mistaken.

I'm going to call you on that and tell you that 351w blocks lower head bolts DO pass through water jackets.
No only that but I bought new ARP head bolts for my 351w and the instructions said to use sealer on the lower bolts and 10w-30 on the uppers.

 

ARP makes a good sealant, but good ol fashioned pipe dope with teflon works well - the ARP stuff was almost identical. I remember the world heads (at least my Roush 200's) recommended sealer for the rocker arm studs because a couple went through to the intake runners.

 

I'm going to call you on that and tell you that 351w blocks lower head bolts DO pass through water jackets.
No only that but I bought new ARP head bolts for my 351w and the instructions said to use sealer on the lower bolts and 10w-30 on the uppers.

This is a generality that certainly does not apply to all blocks.

I have both a 70' and an 89' 351w block and neither goes to the water jacket. I had the impression that the 89' block would strike water but my observation (and that of my machinist who pressure tested the block) showed they were blind. Both are put together with oil.

Of course my 89' (E9AE) 351w is a service replacement block (factory new machined block with cam bearings and plugs installed) and maybe it is different than production blocks???? It has one other apparently odd feature in that it had the clutch pivot boss cast on it whereas I was led to believe that it shouldn't. This worked in my favor though since I run a toploader.

_________________
Dennis

65' Stang--393 stroker, Toploader 4 spd, 9" 3:50 rear.

Victor Jr. knockoff heads, 282S cam, Stealth intake, Bigs Stage 5 750DP, Accufab headers, Scattershield, Caltracs.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dennis111 on 6/16/05 5:23pm ]</font>

 

I just pulled a 289 out of a 68 Torino, & the block is in the back of my pu. No bolt holes are in to the water jacket.

 

I wonder why the Chiltons, the installation notes on the World Products heads I put in, and assorted other tech articles I read during the rebuild, say that the lower bolts need sealant cause they enter the water jacket?

 

Probably to cover all the bases. With some of the blocks being blind tapped and others not, if you seal them all you're insured against leaks.

 

Makes sense to me. Better safe than sorry!

 

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: psivory on 6/18/05 7:52am ]</font>

 

I don't care what engine it is, whether or not they go into water or not...I still use 3M weatherstrip glue (monkey snot). Never had a leak. Also works on rocker studs.

 

Well, are 351 holes blind too? Because if they are, those heads fit 351's as well, so they're probably just covering all their bases.

 

OK, I know this is an old thread, but I just ran accross it. I too was a little confused when installing the heads yesterday as to which, if any, of the head bolts went into water jackets. So I put sealer on every bolt. Does anyone see any problem with doing this? (other than a waste of time and material!)