Register now to get rid of these ads!

Technical Ford 289/302 question

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by seadog, Jul 11, 2021.

  1. I currently have a 289 Ford in my 32 Roadster. I think it is about to expire and rather than mess with a rebuild I’m thinking about swapping in a new crate 302. Can somebody tell me if the dimensions of the 302 are the same as the 289. Will I need to change the motor mounts, or will the 302 bolt to the existing mounts? What about the transmission…currently it has a Tremic 5 speed with a hydraulic slave clutch. Will the rocker covers on the 289 work on the 302? What else do I need to know/consider? It’s a Pete & Jakes chassis.
     
    loudbang and Deuces like this.
  2. 55 Ford Gasser
    Joined: Jul 7, 2011
    Posts: 698

    55 Ford Gasser
    Member

    The 302 will " drop right in". At least that is what I and others told my friend, Larry, when someone offered him a rebuilt 289 and C4 to replace the 260 in his '63 "Mayberry Police Car". When we got done, Larry said, "When someone says 'it will drop right in', it just means the hole is big enough!" The 260, 289 and 302 are all the same demensions. But, we had to modify almost everything (linkage, mounts, etc.) to put it in.

    But as far as yours goes, it should be no problem, as long as your 289 had a 6 bolt bell housing. Valve covers, intake, distributor, mounts, exhaust will all swap out. At some point the harmonic balancers changed due to balancing weight (I'm sure someone will chime in with that info). The pulleys on balancer may need to be changed. I have a Blue Print 302 Crate motor in my '50 F1. The oil pan sump was different than the 302 I replaced but I just turned the engine mounting "bar" around in the frame. When you get done with the swap, it won't look any different.

    Hope this helps.
     
  3. finn
    Joined: Jan 25, 2006
    Posts: 1,280

    finn
    Member

    Flywheel balance changed, and, depending on what cam it has, the new engine may have the HO/351 firing order. Water pump and timing cover changed, as did dipstick location and probably the oil pan and pickup.

    The last 289 was built in 1968. Lots happened in 53 years.
     
    perry parsons likes this.
  4. oldiron 440
    Joined: Dec 12, 2018
    Posts: 3,299

    oldiron 440
    Member

    There is a difference in the early 289 mount. The 302 has longer motor mount pad at the block. It's been a long time since I swapped a 289 but I believe it only an inch you need to extend it. I put new urathane motor mounts on the Fairlane for the later block and avoided this altogether.
     
    loudbang likes this.

  5. deathrowdave
    Joined: May 27, 2014
    Posts: 3,518

    deathrowdave
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from NKy

    Pulleys could be different 3 vs 4 bolt , as stated flywheel balance also . The timing cover will change as well as water pump that matches the cover . You will need eccentric to drive the fuel pump , it’s a bolt on swap . All my years only bolt differences I remember are 5 vs 6 bolt bell-housing . I need an early 221-260 timing cover with oil fill if anyone has a cheap one they want to part with .
     
    loudbang likes this.
  6. Deuce Daddy Don
    Joined: Apr 27, 2008
    Posts: 5,544

    Deuce Daddy Don
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Ak Millers Cobra performance catalog 260 c.i.d V-8 1963.jpg B.jpg
     

    Attached Files:

  7. Marty Strode
    Joined: Apr 28, 2011
    Posts: 8,798

    Marty Strode
    Member

    As long as the 289 is a 6 bolt bellhousing, you should be able to work around the other details, for the swap.
     
  8. I'll try to give you a bit more detail....

    There's really only two biggies; is it a 5-bolt or 6-bolt block, and what balance factor is the motor you want to buy? To check the block configuration, check the bolt head size on the bellhousing bolts; the 5-bolt will be 9/16", the 6-bolt will be 5/8" or 11/16". As to the balance factor, all 260/289/302 up to '81-82 were 28 oz factor, it went to 50 oz after that. Depending on who you order from you may be able to specify the factor.

    Now, if you're unlucky enough to have a 5-bolt block, there's a few more worms in that can. You won't find any rebuilt 5-bolt crate motors these days so you'll have to get a 6-bolt bellhousing (readily available). These aren't the same dimensionally as the 5-bolt bell, so some research into just which 5-speed you have will be in order to insure fitment. You'll probably find an adaptor between the 5-bolt bell and the trans. If you have a 6-bolt block/bell, none of this matters, it will all swap to the new motor.

    If you buy a 50 oz balance motor, you'll need the matching 50 oz flywheel; your existing one won't work.

    Next, the timing cover/water pump. The '62-65 was a unique design and can be identified by it's factory aluminum water pump and the fact that the timing cover forms the back wall of the water pump chamber. It was also only available with a passenger-side pump inlet. This one is slightly shorter than the newer ones, if you have tight clearances you may need to retain it. You can still buy the pump, but they're not reproducing the timing cover AFAIK. This cover/pump assembly will fit any 289/302/351 block. These were popular 'back in the day' as it was the only way to get an lighter-weight aluminum water pump at the time. The '62-63 version had provision for oil fill in the timing cover, the valve covers were 'bald'. Ford ditched this part of the design as they found it promoted sludge build-up in the valve covers.

    The more likely one will be the '66-80 style. This design used a cast-iron water pump, had a steel plate that separated the pump chamber from the timing cover, and was available with either side pump inlet. This is the cover/pump commonly used on most crate motors as the cover is being reproduced, although most come with a drivers-side pump inlet. This will also fit any 289/302/351 block. There are a few variations on this cover (drilled for a front sump dipstick or not, timing pointer location) but they're essentially all the same. Be aware that some come with a newer-design cover/pump (Ford crate motors in particular) that requires special pulleys if using v-belts. This is something to ask about. I'll note here that you don't want to swap pulleys between designs, Ford had a lot of different 'sets' that don't interchange. Again, whatever you have will fit any block.

    Lastly, the crank pulley/damper. Ford used a three-bolt pulley '62-69, then switched to a 4-bolt in '70 to end of production. Many of the crate motors with dampers use an aftermarket unit that's drilled for both pulleys, verify your pulley will work. If you buy a 50 oz balance motor, you'll need a 50 oz damper also.

    A few minor details that may or may not matter. Ford deleted the clutch linkage boss off the 302 block in the '80s (just in case you're using it for something else), the '62-64 cylinder head tapped accessory holes on their ends were only 3/8", they were enlarged to 7/16" in '65. And if you're using a rear-sump oil pan, the dipstick goes into the pan on the early motors. These were prone to leaking, the mid-'80s and newer 302s had their blocks drilled for the dipstick, a nice upgrade. If your using a front-sump pan, this won't matter, just plug the hole in the block.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2021
  9. 57Custom300
    Joined: Aug 21, 2009
    Posts: 1,424

    57Custom300
    Member
    from Arizona

    Back in the 70's when a customer couldn't afford a new or rebuilt engine to replace their worn out one we would install a used one to get them back on the road. Usually ended up disassembling a lot of the replacement engine and using some parts off the old engine to make it work. PITA sometimes but the customer was usually happy to get back on the road.
     
    loudbang likes this.
  10. Ford also made a major change with the 289 in mid 66 production. They went to the rail rocker arm design. If your existing heads don't have rail rockers, the heads are highly sought after.
    If the 302 is a "new" crate motor, it will probably be the 50 oz./roller rocker/block dipstick version. If a "reman" crate motor, I would ask the bore size before ordering. Not unusual to see those bored to the max .060 oversize.
     
    loudbang and Hamtown Al like this.
  11. finn
    Joined: Jan 25, 2006
    Posts: 1,280

    finn
    Member

    I don’t think anyone mentioned the change to a reverse rotation water pump and deletion of the mechanical fuel pump provisions somewhere around 1986 or so. I recall that the front cover changed along with the introduction of the reverse rotation water pump.
     
    loudbang likes this.
  12. onetrickpony
    Joined: Sep 21, 2010
    Posts: 753

    onetrickpony
    Member
    from Texas

    There are also distributor and oil pump drive issues. When Ford went to computer controlled timing with no advance in the distributor, they lengthened the distributor shaft and shortened the oil pump drive. This means you have to pull the pan and swap the drive when changing to the old style distributors. There is also the issue of the factory roller cams needing a steel distributor drive gear instead of cast iron like the flat tappet cams.

    Like stated above, the main issue is if your 289 is an early 65 or older block with only 5 bellhousing bolts. In mid 65, Ford changed to the 6 bolt design that they used all the way until the end of the 302 production run.

    The 28oz vs. 50oz imbalance issue can be dealt with using the correct balancer and flywheel. The other issues (3 vs 4 bolt balancer, rocker arms, distributor and oil pump drive, etc) can be pains in the rear but they aren't show stoppers.

    By the way, someone said there was a difference in motor mounts but I have never seen that. All 260-302 blocks I have ever seen have the same motor mount pads on the side.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2021
    loudbang likes this.
  13. 55blacktie
    Joined: Aug 21, 2020
    Posts: 793

    55blacktie

    Family member put a 302 in his 64 1/2 with no problems. C4 transmission. I don't know year of 302. As already stated, flywheel balance and firing order changed with later 5.0 engines. I can't remember if ring-gear teeth went from 157 to 164. You might check that.
     
    loudbang likes this.
  14. What year did Ford go to roller cams in the 302 and did they do so in all 302's?
     
    loudbang likes this.
  15. Relic Stew
    Joined: Apr 17, 2005
    Posts: 1,208

    Relic Stew
    Member
    from Wisconsin

    Additional info for the 3-bolt vs 4-bolt pulley/damper; The 3-bolt has the water pump inlet on the passenger side, the 4-bolt has the inlet on the driver side. The timing cover is also different as the timing pointer is opposite side of the pump inlet. The dampers have timing marks to match. Select whichever hose routing works best for you and use the whole system. The radiator inlet/outlet need to match the pump as well.
    Factory 50 oz-in dampers were only 4 bolt, but aftermarket can be had with both patterns.

    The 96-01 Explorer 5.0 engine had the shortest water pump/pulley/fan system for the Ford small block, if radiator clearance is an issue, but it is serpentine, so o.t. for this forum.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2021
    loudbang likes this.
  16. rlsteel
    Joined: Apr 10, 2005
    Posts: 513

    rlsteel
    Member

    All good info you will enjoy the late-model 302.
    now a 351 w motor would really be nice.
     
    Truckdoctor Andy, seadog and loudbang like this.
  17. Relic Stew
    Joined: Apr 17, 2005
    Posts: 1,208

    Relic Stew
    Member
    from Wisconsin

    The Mustangs got roller cams in '85. The block was revised in '87 (E7TE casting #) and became the standard 5.0 block. These blocks are roller ready, but not all applications came with roller cams. The lifter retainer bosses might not be tapped.
    F1SE is the last of the 5.0 blocks, also roller equipped.
    F4TE-AA is the roller equipped 351W block.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2021
    loudbang likes this.
  18. 55blacktie
    Joined: Aug 21, 2020
    Posts: 793

    55blacktie

    Sidevalve, 85 first year for roller cam and last year for carburetor. True dual exhaust and fuel injection in 86, however, 86 heads were one-year only and should be avoided.
     
    loudbang likes this.
  19. Relic Stew
    Joined: Apr 17, 2005
    Posts: 1,208

    Relic Stew
    Member
    from Wisconsin

    The E6SE heads were one year in the Mustang 5.0 HO, but they continued to be used for several years in non-HO applications, Crown Vics, Thunderbirds, etc. They are a high swirl combustion chamber. More efficient, make more low rpm torque, but don't flow at higher rpm. The E7TE heads flow better, but are nothing special. Similar to a late 70's head.
    The GT-40 heads were used on Explorer 5.0 engines and some specialty vehicles like the Lightning trucks. They are the best flowing factory iron 5.0 heads.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2021
    loudbang likes this.
  20. Joe Travers
    Joined: Mar 21, 2021
    Posts: 708

    Joe Travers
    Member
    from Louisiana

    I believe everything has been covered here but more details on the 302 are needed for specific answers. The 302 changed a bit over the years of production. The big changes occurred when it was re-introduced as the '5.0L' after a couples years of ceased production. 'Crate engine' could be any year, any re-manufacturer. Thanks for the 260 Cobra info, @Deuce Daddy Don. Dandy info I've been researching lately.

    Joe
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2021
    loudbang likes this.
  21. BamaMav
    Joined: Jun 19, 2011
    Posts: 6,709

    BamaMav
    Member
    from Berry, AL

    One more thing to look at, not all roller cams used the HO firing order. Some used in Crown Vics, T birds, and I believe trucks carried the old firing order.
     
    loudbang likes this.
  22. Deuces
    Joined: Nov 3, 2009
    Posts: 23,753

    Deuces

    '85....
     
    loudbang likes this.
  23. 55blacktie
    Joined: Aug 21, 2020
    Posts: 793

    55blacktie

    The GT-40P heads had weak valve springs; but you should replace the valve springs on anything that old. I would think, do to availability, that most crate engines would be the later roller-cam engines, but check with the seller/builder. Something built in someone's garage could be any year.
     
    Joe Travers and loudbang like this.
  24. Deuces
    Joined: Nov 3, 2009
    Posts: 23,753

    Deuces

    I put an X303 cam in a '95 Windsor block.... What a screamer that one turned out to be....:cool:;)
     
    loudbang likes this.
  25. A few clarifications/additions are in order....

    The transition from 5-bolt to 6-bolt wasn't done mid-year; it was a clean break at the start of the '65 MY changeover. The Mustang muddied the waters somewhat because the '64.5' Mustang (which was technically a '65 model) used the 5-bolt from it's April '64 introduction until the rest of the lines switched to '65 production. The only 5-bolt motor that made it into the actual '65 MY was the 260 which Ford continued to offer until Jan '65 then discontinued it. Ford actually disposed of all it's remaining 5-bolt motors, donating them to Voc-Tech and HS auto shops. This led to Ford making 'service' dual-trans-pattern 6-bolt bells and transmissions to allow warranty replacements without having to change both the engine and transmission.

    The odd-ball motor mounts were limited to the 221/early 260 motors, I've never seen a 289 block with them.

    The 3-bolt/4-bolt pulley. While the 3-bolt used a passenger-side pump inlet up to '69, starting in '70 a driver-side inlet was starting to be used (passenger-side inlets were still used in some applications) and could be fitted to the '66-69 timing covers. Most (but not all) '66-up timing covers had provisions for both timing pointers. Only the '62-65 cover was limited to passenger-side-only pumps. This is where you could get into trouble with pulley alignment if you weren't careful...

    One often-forgotten difference between the 289 and 302 is the 302 had the bores extended deeper into the block for better piston support with the longer stroke. In '68 when both sizes were still available, Ford cast '302' into the lifter valley to allow easy identification when assembling. Some '302' blocks did sneak into 289s, but Ford dropped the identifier after '68.

    Lastly, the early '62-63 'bald' valve covers are 'shallow' and won't clear roller rockers or even some later OEM rockers, particularly with high lift cams.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2021
  26. Budget36
    Joined: Nov 29, 2014
    Posts: 13,174

    Budget36
    Member

    Damn, I’ve learned more about the 289/302 than I ever thought I would.

    Been a great thread to read.
     
    Truckdoctor Andy, Deuces and loudbang like this.
  27. WOW, the HAMB never dissappoints! Lots of good information here, thanks a bunch. When I get into the swap I'll try to start a thread. Probably will be end of summer/beginning of fall.
     
    loudbang and Deuces like this.
  28. Basically, whatever you buy if there's any issue with fitment you can transfer almost any external part on your existing motor to the new one, as long as you don't have a five-bolt block. You will need to match the damper/flywheel balance factor to what you buy. Depending on just what you have, it may prove cheaper to buy a long block and swap your external bits. If you go to a roller cam, you will need to change the distributor gear.
     
    loudbang, Truckdoctor Andy and Deuces like this.
  29. 55blacktie
    Joined: Aug 21, 2020
    Posts: 793

    55blacktie

    A roller cam in a non-roller block will require retro roller lifters/w link bars because the lifter bores aren't tall enough.
     
    Deuces and deathrowdave like this.
  30. Crazy Steve, I had a 64 Fairlane with a HiPo 289 that was 5 bolt. It's the only one I have seen. Sorry to disturb the thread.
     
    loudbang and Deuces like this.

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.