289 to 331 Problems?

JC6715

JC6715

Member
Oct 24, 2005
284
0
16
Hillsboro, Oregon
#1
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
 

  • Sponsors (?)


#2
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
 
#3
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.
 
#5
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.
 
#6
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.
 
#7
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).
 
#9
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).
 
#10
S-Car-Go said:
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).
Click to expand...

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
 
#14
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.
 
#15
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.
 
#18
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
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
65intex said:
Isnt there a 306 stroker kit available...
Click to expand...
Yes
It's called a 302 crank, rods, and .030" over pistons.:p

On the other posts:
I heard the 'myth', didn't know for sure, but thought I would post it and let folks that knew for sure either confirm or deny.

I don't know why everyone is so ga-ga over 5.0 blocks. They are easy to hydraulic roller, yes. However they are thin as tissue paper.
Pre-72 blocks are thicker and higher strength iron (nodular).
They can be converted to hydraulic roller with a retrofit kit or purpose made cam.
Better yet, they can go solid roller with no issues at all.
Not down on 5.0 blocks too bad, just my opinion.

Nice thing about 289s and 302s, you can't tell from the outside what the engine really is. It looks like a 289, but is it a 302, 331, 317, 347...

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sav22rem22
Progress Thread H/C Swap Problems/Ideas
Replies
3
Views
373
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
AeroCoupe
AeroCoupe
S
For Sale All parts from 408 build that never materialized - all brand new! (Georgetown, TX)
Replies
4
Views
3K
Engine and Power Adder
Ang3lgarcia
A
I
68 289 2V Budget Build Advice
Replies
0
Views
1K
Classic Mustang Specific Tech
iaff284
I
J
Need Help: 95 Mustang GT Engine Rebuild
Replies
0
Views
1K
Other Auto Tech
jurban421
J
darkfader
For Sale 1993 GT 5spd project for sale
Replies
4
Views
3K
Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93)
Liari
L
Top Bottom
Back
New
Hot
Menu