289 Buildup time!

Topic: 289 Buildup time! (Read 2201 times) previous topic - next topic

289 Buildup time!

June 16, 2009, 12:36:58 AM

I picked up a block,heads,manifolds.etc tonight for 100 bucks.
I just got home and ran the block numbers, shes a 66 casting. Ive read the late 67s and 68s are tricky because they built 289s and 302s at the same time...
Im almost positive it has the factory pistons and crank in it. The guy said the heads are off of a 302, ill have to get them cleaned up to read tomorrow.

The first place my mind is stuck is the 5 speed setup with the 289, ive read enough if memory serves right the 289 will need the 28oz flywheel to bolt up to a T-5 right?

Im thinking about starting off with the factory 2bbl intake and carb just to see what kind of mileage i can get out of it then start adding the power. I know im going to need to re-do my fuel system now but what about the wiring? convert the 289 to serpentine with my 302 parts? is that possible? what about oil pressure, and tach, and what not, will the digital dash play happily with it?

Im really considering just gutting the car and getting a painless wiring kit before i even get the motor done. Where would you guys start?

I want 20-25mpg and if it does a 16second 1/4mile ill be pleased...for now

289 Buildup time!

Reply #1 – June 16, 2009, 07:23:34 AM

Heads from the '60s do not have hardened valve seats, figure 15K-20K miles as a max before the valves are burned out of it... Except for having a bit higher compression, those heads are no better than E7s... No 302s till the '68 model year(late '67), I don't care what anyone says... Often find 289s built in 302 blocks in '68, no biggie, 289s were dropped for '69...

Yes you'd need a 28oz flywheel, all 289 & the 302s before '81, used the same...

289 Buildup time!

Reply #2 – June 16, 2009, 01:42:39 PM

Thanks for confirming that flywheel, And as for the head, i understand the older valves required leaded gas because of the softer seats. I plan on building the valvetrain for 150k, nothing too crazy as far as lift goes, the farther out the valve goes the more snap the head takes coming back in so Im really looking for streetablity over performance. I figure if i get tired of the power i will end up going the turbo route for the sake of MPG, and longevity.

You said the older heads are a little higher compression though? I need to do my research on heads now that ive got somewhat of an idea how the era's of small blocks were made. Im thinking a 9.0 - 9.5 :1 ratio should put me in the realm of sometimes py pump gas with proper adjustment to timing ?

289 Buildup time!

Reply #3 – June 16, 2009, 01:43:31 PM

By the way everyone this is the first engine ive built with 8 pistons, Nothing rice in my garage now but the bike.

289 Buildup time!

Reply #4 – June 16, 2009, 02:25:49 PM

You'll have a great time with it. I'm currently tackleing my first real rebuild right now. Hope it works out well for you man.

289 Buildup time!

Reply #5 – June 16, 2009, 06:44:22 PM

If you start playing with rods and pistons, remember...numbers facing out(on the con-rods/rod caps), con-rod bearing tangs facing in, and piston notches forward.

We had to strip down the boss' 302 in his '68/9 Galaxie...some idiot at another store built the motor for him...mis-matched rods/rod caps, rods in the wrong cylinders and 4 pistons with the notch backwards. They wondered why the engine wouldn't turn over...then they installed it into the car...it was a fun day stripping that down.

You'll be good as long as you pay attention to what you're doing and what parts go where.

good luck,
Don

289 Buildup time!

Reply #6 – June 16, 2009, 07:42:55 PM

You could always have hardened valve seats put in.

289 Buildup time!

Reply #7 – June 16, 2009, 07:50:35 PM

Spending the money on having hardened seats put in those heads would absolutely 100% NOT be worth it...1.68"/1.46" valves...maybe even a smaller exhaust valve...memory isn't so great. Even having bigger valves put in...the ports are TINY.

I'd recommend cleaning up a set of E7's or GT40/GT40P's.

289 Buildup time!

Reply #8 – June 24, 2009, 08:10:04 AM

2 brl will use more fuel than a 4 brl. 2 brl throttle opening is larger than the primaries on a 4 blr. The 4 brl will get better mpg as long as you keep your foot out of the pedal.

289 Buildup time!

Reply #9 – June 24, 2009, 09:29:53 AM

Quote from: quick50stng;279499

2 brl will use more fuel than a 4 brl. 2 brl throttle opening is larger than the primaries on a 4 blr. The 4 brl will get better mpg as long as you keep your foot out of the pedal.

Which ain't going to happen... Also depends on the carb, most Ford/Holley based 4bbl carbs have same size primary and secondarys...

289 Buildup time!

Reply #10 – July 08, 2009, 08:05:41 PM

Quote from: Sick88Tbird;278157

Spending the money on having hardened seats put in those heads would absolutely 100% NOT be worth it...1.68"/1.46" valves...maybe even a smaller exhaust valve...memory isn't so great. Even having bigger valves put in...the ports are TINY.

I'd recommend cleaning up a set of E7's or GT40/GT40P's.

Early 302 heads come with 1.78"/1.46" valves. Which are the same size as E7s. The early 260s came with 1.68" intake. GT40/GT40Ps came with 1.85"/1.54"

289 Buildup time!

Reply #11 – July 09, 2009, 07:15:16 PM

Quote from: Bruce M;281464

Early 302 heads come with 1.78"/1.46" valves. Which are the same size as E7s. The early 260s came with 1.68" intake. GT40/GT40Ps came with 1.85"/1.54"

He's not running 302 heads or GT40/GT40P heads, 289 heads.

BTW, GT40 and P heads have 1.84" intake valves.

Best way for him to know is to pull out an intake and exhaust valve and measure 'em up with a dial caliper...almost fool proof and beats the hell out of guessing. The only real good think about a set of 289 heads, is that they typically have tiny chambers(54cc I believe).

289 Buildup time!

Reply #12 – July 09, 2009, 07:25:32 PM

Quote from: 87crzypssy;277962

I picked up a block,heads,manifolds.etc tonight for 100 bucks.
I just got home and ran the block numbers, shes a 66 casting. Ive read the late 67s and 68s are tricky because they built 289s and 302s at the same time...
Im almost positive it has the factory pistons and crank in it. The guy said the heads are off of a 302, ill have to get them cleaned up to read tomorrow.

The first place my mind is stuck is the 5 speed setup with the 289, ive read enough if memory serves right the 289 will need the 28oz flywheel to bolt up to a T-5 right?

Im thinking about starting off with the factory 2bbl intake and carb just to see what kind of mileage i can get out of it then start adding the power. I know im going to need to re-do my fuel system now but what about the wiring? convert the 289 to serpentine with my 302 parts? is that possible? what about oil pressure, and tach, and what not, will the digital dash play happily with it?

Im really considering just gutting the car and getting a painless wiring kit before i even get the motor done. Where would you guys start?

I want 20-25mpg and if it does a 16second 1/4mile ill be pleased...for now

He said that the heads were off of a 302.

Quote from: Sick88Tbird;281558

He's not running 302 heads or GT40/GT40P heads, 289 heads.

BTW, GT40 and P heads have 1.84" intake valves.

Best way for him to know is to pull out an intake and exhaust valve and measure 'em up with a dial caliper...almost fool proof and beats the hell out of guessing. The only real good think about a set of 289 heads, is that they typically have tiny chambers(54cc I believe).

The GT40 heads that I have came off of a lighten and the intakes measured 1.85" with a dial caliper. Not that it matters you're only talking about .010". I dont know if it matters but if you set early model heads and late model heads side by side the water jackets are not the same. so putting late model heads on a early model block MIGHT cause issues. I do know what Im talking about I have been a ASE certified engine machinist since 03.

289 Buildup time!

Reply #13 – July 09, 2009, 07:36:44 PM

Thing about a dial caliper is they are generally close but not dead on rule of thumb is your measurement +/- .010. A Micrometer is the closest way to be dead on. So it more than likely IS the aforementioned size valve.

289 Buildup time!

Reply #14 – July 09, 2009, 07:37:51 PM

Please dont think that Im trying to being a know it all. I dont mean for it to sound that way. Im not trying to start a g contest.