Register now to get rid of these ads!

Would like to build a Stroker 289, what crank

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by BigO, Oct 24, 2011.

  1. Gathering parts to build a 289 stroker motor but not sure whick crank I need, any info on building a streetable, reliable SBF would be great. Thanks in advance. Michael :rolleyes::D
     
  2. Deuces
    Joined: Nov 3, 2009
    Posts: 17,785

    Deuces
    Member
    from Michigan

    A '68-'70 302 crank might do the trick....
     
  3. I'm interested too!I've thinking about building a high rev'n 289 SBF as well.
     
  4. I thought it was a 302 crank, I know a 260 crank will de-stroke it an not sure if a 351W would fit. Thanks
     
    Register now to get rid of these ads!

  5. rallisracing
    Joined: Nov 3, 2008
    Posts: 199

    rallisracing

    a 331 is a great combination..3.25 stoke, 030 over bore...easy on the cylinder walls, piston speed is good...I used a kit from SBF.com..have it balanced, check rod clearances to the bottom of the cylider wall...then just put it together.
     
  6. OH YEAH thats the kind of info I'm after. I will be using Windsor heads that have been worked over but not sure what cam come to think of it. Looking to buy a XF-8 cross ram intake from a fellow HAMBer ( not gonna say who, someone might buy before I can, HAHA).
     
  7. Kenneth S
    Joined: Dec 15, 2007
    Posts: 1,527

    Kenneth S
    Member

    A 260, and 289 have the same stroke 2.870", the 260 is a smaller bore engine 3.800" to the 289/302 bore of 4.00". A 351W crank has 3.00" dia main journals while the 289/302 crank has 2.249" dia main journals. If you really want to build a stroker 302 the 331 is as big as I'd go with a 302 block.
     
  8. Shaggy
    Joined: Mar 6, 2003
    Posts: 5,208

    Shaggy
    Member
    from Sultan, WA

    Ive read contradicting info, but one source said the munster coach ran a 425 cube 289..... but ive also read that it still had the stock 2bbl carb under the intake.....
     
  9. Kenneth S
    Joined: Dec 15, 2007
    Posts: 1,527

    Kenneth S
    Member

    425 out of a 289 no way. BTW: if you want to build a stroker don't use a 289, or early 302 block.
     
  10. Thanks Kenneth for the info.
     
  11. Kenneth S
    Joined: Dec 15, 2007
    Posts: 1,527

    Kenneth S
    Member

  12. mart3406
    Joined: May 31, 2009
    Posts: 3,055

    mart3406
    Member
    from Canada

    ----------------------
    A 260 crank has the same stroke as a 289.
    The 260 has a smaller bore, not a shorter
    stroke. By the way, a 289 and a302 uses
    the exact same 4 inch bore pistons - with
    the 302 using a shorter connecting rod to
    make up for the 302's longer 3-inch stroke.
    A 3.5-inch stroke 351 crank won't work in
    a 289 or 302 block first, due to the 351's
    bigger main journals. Even if if you
    turned the journals down to 289/302 size,
    the counterweights would hit the block and
    you'd need custom pistons with an abysmally
    short connecting rod to fit everything into
    the short-deck-height of a 289/302 block. If
    you want more inches, rather than trying to
    re-invent the wheel, why not just go with
    a 351 and be done with it??

    Mart3406
    ========================
     
  13. 29AVEE8
    Joined: Jun 28, 2008
    Posts: 1,384

    29AVEE8
    Member

    If I recall correctly, which these days is kinda' iffy, in the late 60's some used a 292 Y-block truck crank (cause they were forgings) in 289 blocks. I seem to remember they did quite a lot of work to them, (mains, maybe the counterweights) to get them in but I think they yielded about 339-340 c.i. I can't say I have ever seen it done but read about it in the magazines of the day. The current crop of aftermarket cranks were not available (maybe Moldex) then.
     
  14. yellow dog
    Joined: Oct 15, 2011
    Posts: 398

    yellow dog
    Member
    from san diego

    BigO I presume that you just want to build it yourself for the fun of it (I appreciate) because its a lot cheaper to buy something already done. Anyway I agree that a 331 is probably best to get longest rod w/o any piston pin/ring consideration. Here is a really nice build http://www.mustangmonthly.com/howto/mufp_0602_ford_stroker_engine_building/photo_02.html

    There are some pretty reasonable rotating assy. (even Eagle nodulars) and aluminum heads out there as well, cheaper than any machine work into OEM. Have fun!
     
  15. wisdonm
    Joined: Jun 20, 2011
    Posts: 428

    wisdonm
    Member

    If I ever blow up my Boss 302, I think I'd install a 351W based 427.
     
  16. blue57ford
    Joined: Jul 24, 2005
    Posts: 491

    blue57ford
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    I think I remember reading once Jack Rousch doing this.
     
  17. Shaggy
    Joined: Mar 6, 2003
    Posts: 5,208

    Shaggy
    Member
    from Sultan, WA

    you can get 460 cubes outta a 283 sbc.... but yea, sounds like show car Bullshit....
     
  18. Better hurry I've been watching that manifold too >>>>.
     
  19. JeffB2
    Joined: Dec 18, 2006
    Posts: 7,666

    JeffB2
    Member
    from Phoenix,AZ

    There was just a thread on this,in 1968 Ford was using up parts and some early 302's had 289 blocks when they did this it caused the piston skirts to crack and for this reason you do not want a 289 block for a stroker build as the 289 blocks have a slightly shorter cylinder wall.I am sure you can find a 1970 or later 302 block for your build for low bucks.
     
  20. Deuces
    Joined: Nov 3, 2009
    Posts: 17,785

    Deuces
    Member
    from Michigan

    That's what I did!!! :D I built a Windsor with a set of canted valve heads from Trick-Flow and it runs like a raped ape... :)
     
  21. Thanks guys, this is why I like the HAMB so much. I'm a tin bender more than a mechanic, not to say i don't know how, just better at building stockers. This time I want to build something a little bit more challenging without breaking the bank. Thanks again, an like they say "It takes a village", even though ours may a few more idiots than most, its still our village. Anymore thoughts on this topic? (Off to work for now).
     
  22. telecaster_6
    Joined: Dec 8, 2001
    Posts: 484

    telecaster_6
    Member
    from Dorr, Mi

    You'd be much better off to start with a 351w block. You can build a 396 stroker for it using the stock rods and off the shelf 302 pistons with a $300 stroker crank and there's no block clearancing required. Or you can go all the way up to 427 cubes with a complete stroker kit. Anything bigger will require an aftermarket block and things get really pricy at that point.

    69-74 blocks handle the most hp of the factory blocks, but if you're not going real wild, the late model blocks from the 90's are roller cam blocks which free up some serious hp.

    I would be suprised if you really need as much power as a stroker 351w will produce in the first place. I'm building a .030" over 351w, stock stroke, with a decent set of trick flow heads, a thumpr cam, and just a decent intake and header set up and it will produce over 450 hp.
    Keep in mind, its not always about discpacement, airflow is really everything, if a motor doesnt breathe it wont make squat for hp. No matter which route you go, the stock 289 style heads are going to be majorly restrictive. If you dont wanna run aluminum heads because they look too "new", look into a set of world product cast iron heads. There are some super deals to be had as alot of circle track guys use them.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2011
  23. Hmmmm; that'd be tuff to do. Let's see, 8 sleeves siamesing the bores and use a late 283 block so the crank has swingin' room? If you meen that GM took the little Chevy architecture and evolved it to the point that guys are getting that kind'a displacement out of it, well Ford did the same thing. They raised the deck a bit and made the 351's, and that evolved into the 400.
     
  24. Sheep Dip
    Joined: Dec 29, 2010
    Posts: 1,572

    Sheep Dip
    Member
    from Central Ca

    The 289 and 302 blocks are a little different with the 302 having a longer bore depth or cylinder wall/skirts to stabilize the piston on the longer stroke...you are very correct in stating not to use the 289 block for a stroker....just my 2 cents worth also:D
     
  25. Bigcheese327
    Joined: Sep 16, 2001
    Posts: 6,659

    Bigcheese327
    Member

    I thought the 400/351M was a variant of the Cleveland, and not the Windsor. I could be wrong, though, Ford changed its mind so much after 1948 I have a very hard time keeping up.

    -Dave
     
  26. chopper cliff
    Joined: Aug 19, 2011
    Posts: 265

    chopper cliff
    Member
    from lodi ca

    whats wrong with the 289? short stroke, fast wind up, reliable,etc. built 1 in 69 put it in a 31 tudor, ran Kingdon on Jan 1st 71 at 11.98, made believers out of the bow tie guys, rite now I am looking for another 5.0 HO to destroke, have a 260 crank and rods, (same as 289) to replace the tired 302 in my 28 PU. The HO has roller cam and can build HP cheap. I'm a die hard Ford guy. :)
     
  27. Deuces
    Joined: Nov 3, 2009
    Posts: 17,785

    Deuces
    Member
    from Michigan

    Those are Cleveland based motors... Not something I'd want to mess with...
     
  28. Kenneth S
    Joined: Dec 15, 2007
    Posts: 1,527

    Kenneth S
    Member

    The 351M/400 is a 351C block but with a taller deck height, different motor mount bosses than the 289/302/351W/and 351C, and it uses the 429/460 bell housing bolt pattern. In the mid-late 70's Ford had a shortage of 400 crankshafts so they used cranks for 351W since the 351W, and 400 have the same main journal diameter, along with a piston with a taller compression height the 351M was born. What made the 351M/400 bad was the fact that the cylinder heads had huge open combustion chambers which are very prone to detonation.
     
  29. slepe67
    Joined: Jan 22, 2008
    Posts: 1,146

    slepe67
    Member
    from NW MT

    Sbftech.com covers this conversion on a regular basis. Check there.


    Sent from my iPhone using TJJ
     
  30. fiveohnick2932
    Joined: Mar 29, 2006
    Posts: 889

    fiveohnick2932
    Member
    from Napa, Ca.

    A 289 is just a 302 with a shorter stroke. The 302 has longer cylinders than the 289. So you might run out of cylinder if you stroke a 289 too far. A 260 is a smaller bore 289 so no advantage there to using a 260 crank. A 351w has larger mains than a 289-302 so might as well use a aftermarket crank made for the 302 mains. There are tons of 302s out there, I say if you want to do a stroker then start with a 302.
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2020 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.