Does this look like a stock intake for a 302, or aftermarket?

that torker is the best nitrous manifold ever, they flow plenty and have enough material in the runners for plenty of port work. it would work fine on a stroker

 

so now i'm back to thinking about building this motor, or do i sell it and go for a 300...........decisions decisions...

 

follow your heart.. howeever, im sorta in the same boat.. i know im starting a bobtail T bucket come winter if all goes well.. ( have a few parts already ) and im not sure about engine for it yet.. i want the same goals as you do.. i have a 9" rear for it from a ford ranchero which i hope is good. anyhow, iv been really looking at a mopar slant six.. heh dunno why, but im sorta been hung up on that idea for last few weeks.. however, knowing my self when the time comes for a engine who knows what ill do i can be so damn random.. good luck on whatever you decide.

chris.

 

The wiring probably ignited it! BTW no such thing as a '69 289 but 302 heads aren't much different. Just a few CC variance from year to year

Oops missed the previous post about no 289 that year sorry for being Captain obvious!

 

But it used a 302 block with 289 reciprocating assy

 

Actually what you have is not a bad combo,it was commonplace to put 289 heads on 302's to raise compression and end up with adjustable rocker arms.This book could be your best friend:http://www.mre-books.com/interchange/index.html click on this and then click on the sections in blue to preview and learn about block and head codes.You might look for this book on www.half.com sometimes great bargains are there.As far as 1969 heads go another popular SBF popular option was the '69-70 351W heads.

 

BOTH! Build a 300 for this project and save the 302 for the next project....or vice-versa.

 

Everyone is right on about 68 being the last year for the 289 . - I like 65 - 66 289 heads bettert than the 67-68

 

So lemme get this straight, we are I.D.'ing an intake manifold because someone is too lazy to sweep pine needles off of it and see what the name is?????

 

Actually shaggy, i was sitting at work looking at some pics and the question popped into my mind, so I posted. That way I could go ahead and do some research on it while I got some free time. When I got home I looked it over and sure enough these guys were right.

Made for a good pop quiz.

And I've got a lot of good information out of guys on other things (like the 289 heads) besides the ones taking up space leaving stupid comments, ehhmmm. YOURS.

So, thanks to the rest of you.

 

He needs to look into witch heads he has, assuming they had '68 302 heads they had either 53(4V) or 63(2V) cc chambers. The '75 had 58cc, if he has the common 2v heads, the C/R was actually lowered by using the earlier heads.

 

None of the stock heads would carry enough CFM's for a stroker though, right????

 

The Torker 289 was a early version of the torker intake. The later ones had 302 on them.

The Torker was a single plain straight runner intake that was design for high RPMs 3500 and above. It also had the carb flange at a 15 degree angle which was suppose to keep the motor from leaning out on the one side during circle track racing.

The Torker II was also a single plain intake but the running were changed so that it had a little more tork at lower RPMS. 2500. It also went to the straight inline carb frange and set lower then the torker.

 

302 & 351W shared heads after '77.

 

Didn't look like you I.D'd anything.

 

modern wisdom is basically that the stock SBF castings are undersized for 302 builds, and completely inadequate for any stroker or 351W with performance aspirations. Maybe some GT40/GT40Ps, but even those cost almost as much as a nice pair of aftermarket heads by the time you get decent springs on them and clean them up.

 

Okay, just givin you crap!!