289 to 331 Problems?

Discussion in 'Classic Mustang Specific Tech' started by JC6715, Jan 10, 2007.


  1. JC6715

    JC6715 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Hillsboro, Oregon
    I am now considering stoking the 289 I currently have. I've been doing research on a few forums and heard people say it's good to go and others say it's a bad idea.

    Is there anyone here that has PERSONAL experience with a 289 stroker, be it a 331 or a 347 or anywhere in between?

    I've already purchased an intake, carb (although maybe too small for a stroker, 600 cfm) and exhaust including headers for the 289, so I'd like to be able to use these parts.

    I know I'll hear, just go for a 351w or a 5.0 roller, but my reasoning for sticking with the 289 block is the duplicated parts I'd have to buy.

    Help! :hail2:

    Car Info:

    1967 289 block (still haven't tore into it to see the condition)
    Wanting a mostly street, sometimes strip torquey mill
    Not a daily driver
     
    #1
  2. ratio411

    ratio411 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,872
    Showcase:
    9
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    69
    Location:
    Pensacola FL
    Sorry I don't have experience with it, but I have heard that the 289 block is not stroker friendly. Don't know for sure. I have seen some disclaimers by manufacturers that you should use a 302 block for their kits.
    Best thing to do is talk to the manufacturer of the kit you like.

    Is this what you were concerned about, or were you just asking about strokers in general?

    Everyone I know with either, 331 or 347, absolutely loves 'em!
    Something to be said about getting the extra cubes without extra weight, crowding your engine bay, or buying a whole new engine class of parts.

    My .02
    Dave
     
    #2
  3. toolwench

    toolwench New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2007
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Los Angeles area
    I've been running my 347 stroker for about a year now in my daily driver. The swap was just like swapping any other 302 and the gain in get-up-and-go was incredible. I wish I'd done it sooner. The only thing I feel like I've sacrificed is gas mileage...but not much.
     
    #3
  4. ratio411

    ratio411 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,872
    Showcase:
    9
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    69
    Location:
    Pensacola FL
    You do know that Tubular makes headers to put a 460 in your car right?:nice:
     
    #4
  5. fasttback

    fasttback New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    471
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Northern CA
    I think I remember hearing something about 289 blocks and stroking kits...the cylinder sleeve is a little shorter than a 302(?). Something to look into at least.

    If this is the case, you will have little less support at the end of the stroke.
     
    #5
  6. rbohm

    rbohm Founding Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2002
    Messages:
    6,350
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Location:
    tucson,az
    the 289 block is virtually identical to the 302 block. about the only difference between blocks is the length of the cylinder walls, and that is rather miniscule(.13"). go for using the stroke in the block you have. you wont have a problem, unless you plan on running a 3.5" stroke in that block.
     
    #6
  7. Z06killinSBF

    Z06killinSBF Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    19
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    I read in the High Performance Small Block Fords book that the 289 has shorter piston sleeves but it is ok for "small" stroker kits'. I'm not exactly sure to what that means but I am thinking it means 331ci which is actually the better of the two (331 vs. 347).
     
    #7
  8. JC6715

    JC6715 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Hillsboro, Oregon
    Thanks for all the input guys. :nice: :nice: :nice:

    The search continues...
     
    #8
  9. S-Car-Go

    S-Car-Go Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    I'll tell ya next week. Just finishing up my 331, 289 block, solid custom cam, etc. Should be able to fire it up soon.

    No reason it wouldn't work. Plus early blocks have a higher nickel content and are stronger than roller blocks (not that I'm getting near the hp needed to split either).
     
    #9
  10. JC6715

    JC6715 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Hillsboro, Oregon
    That would actually be great if you let me know how it goes. This will be my first engine build and want to make sure I don't lunch it right away.

    Thanks a lot!! :D
     
    #10
  11. ratio411

    ratio411 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,872
    Showcase:
    9
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    69
    Location:
    Pensacola FL
    *Take your time!

    *Double check EVERYTHING!

    *Read voraciously on the subject...
     
    #11
  12. JC6715

    JC6715 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Hillsboro, Oregon

    That's for sure. My eyes are going crossed cuz I've been reading up on the topic so much.
     
    #12
  13. 65intex

    65intex New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ft. Worth, Texas
    Isnt there a 306 stroker kit available from a few different speed shops? Would the 306 route be a "safer" solution than a 331 with a 289 block?
     
    #13
  14. Jester67

    Jester67 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2004
    Messages:
    903
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    TN
    The difference between the 289 and 302 are so small when it exist that will not be a factor and as mentioned earlier the 289 blacks are a little stronger. The one thing to look for and the reason for the warnings are casting imperfections at the skirt. Other than that your 289 block will be fine.
     
    #14
  15. mustbereel

    mustbereel Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    Escondido, CA
    347

    I recently put a 347 kit into a 289 (not the engine in my avatar). Although I haven't driven the car yet the engine started and ran fine for the cam break in period. Before going with a 347 I researched the cylinder wall length. I came across some info compiled by Bob Mannel who wrote a book called "Mustang & Ford Small Block V8". He measured a bunch of 289 and early 302 blocks. He found on average the 302 block cylinder wall was 0.070" longer than the 289. However, the longest 289 was longer than the shortest 302. His conclusion was that they were both nominally 5" and that casting differences accounted for the various lengths. He also mentioned that it's possible that the later 5.0 cylinder walls are longer but had not measured any yet.

    Since this the car I put this is not my daily driver and will not be raced I decided to go with the 347 and not worry about the life expectancy of the engine.

    However, if I did not already have the 289 I would have found a 5.0 roller block to stroke.
     
    #15
  16. blkfrd

    blkfrd Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    Anaheim Hills, CA
    Measure your bore...i'll bet it's 5 1/8" long, and that happens to be the same as a '68 302 block bore. You've stumbled upon one of the Ford myths that has a lot of surrounding controversy. Ford had a press release that said the 302 block would have longer bores, but in reality it was not necessary and it did not happen. 4 years ago I measured my old '65 289 block and a '68 302 block...both were 5 1/8". Some later 302 blocks may have had slightly longer bores...more controversy.
     
    #16
  17. Z06killinSBF

    Z06killinSBF Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    19
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    Well then, what exactly makes a 289 block different from a 302?
     
    #17
  18. LMan

    LMan Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Messages:
    1,246
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Mom's basement
    Nothing significant to the user. The recip assy accounts for the displacement difference. 3" stroke vs. 2.87"
     
    #18
  19. Edbert

    Edbert Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    3,445
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    59
    Location:
    Austin TX
    The 302 is just a stroked 289 :D

    Seriously, they have the same bores and other than a casting number you'd need a mic to determine any differences in the blocks. I would not do a 347 in a 289 block, but I wouldn't do a 347 in a 302 block either, I'm just not a fan of a big stroke. Thats why my 351W is only a 357W instead of a 427W, the 383 or 408 was tempting though.
     
    #19
  20. starchiefus

    starchiefus Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    7
    Location:
    San Diego
    I was going to stroke my 289 to 331, but the expense wasn't in the budget at the time so i just installed a 302 rotating assembly-crank,rods and pistons (cannot use 289 pistons as the piston skirt is longer and will hit the 302 crank counterbalances).

    I wouldn't hesitate to stroke a 289 to 331, but if i was to do it all over again i would probably do a 327 stroker as per this article.....it uses chevy pistons -alot cheaper than probe industries-i think you could probably do the whole rotating assembly for less than $800. Crank,rods,pistons,rings and the machine work.
    Just another suggestion.
    Steve.
    http://www.rodandcustommagazine.com/techarticles/ford_small_block_stroker_engine/
     
    #20

Share This Page