289 short block

steven

Gold forum user
Messages
875
A guy nearby (couple of hours away) has a 289 block bored 40thou over and honed, deck honed, set of new 302 pistons and rings, 302 rods and crank.The crank needs a regrind and bearings. It has end caps, sump oil pump etc. He wants $500 for the lot. Sounds good however how hard is it to make or obtain the 6 bolt to 5 bolt adapter to fit this motor to the Mk1 transmission. What is the general feeling? The 260 motor in my rebuild has not been touched yet however i expect a rebuild is in order.
Steven
 

cadreamn67

Platinum Forum Member
Messages
608
Hi Steven,

First, I am thinking a .040 overbore in the thin wall casting 289 block very likely will be a hot temp running motor. Not sure I would want to go there, especially in a Tiger.

The CAT newsletters have two excellent, lengthy articles on the swap/adapter subject. I see you are not a member of CAT, but maybe you could join and work out something with Rick to get copies of those back issues.

But beyond just the trans issue is the domino effect. Does the 302 crank require a 50 oz. harmonic balancer? If so, additional cost there since your 260 has a 28 oz. Do you get a 302 flywheel that goes with the harmonic balancer weight? Also, the crank pulley has three mounting holes, and many 302 balancers are drilled for a four hole pulley. Need to get an aftermarket one drilled for both configurations. Again, extra costs.

As I recall, all the Ford bell housings that can be made to adapt go with a 164 tooth flywheel. (My Tiger Tales issues are on loan to a friend.) The stock Tiger one is a 157 tooth flywheel. If so, then there is also a need to get a clutch and pressure plate that will go with the bigger flywheel. I do know of people using a Quick Time scattershield with a 157 tooth flywheel, but they do not come cheap.

You would also need to get another clutch slave mounting bracket since they bolt on using the bell housing bolts. I think I spent about $89.00 on this part alone. The hole spacing is different between the 5 and 6 bolt bell housings.

The 6 bolt bell housings also have a bigger hole for the trans input shaft bearing retainer than the 5 bolt ones. So you need a larger retainer housing or machined spacer of some sort to take up the space. Either way, another expense.

Also, you will need a larger block plate for the 6 bolt block to bell housing interface.

If you are going to be running headers, and adapt a 6 bolt Ford bell housing, you may need to get a smaller, gear reduction starter versus using the stock one. The larger bell housing pushes the starter more outboard toward the exhaust system. The stock starter was a very tight fit with my stock 260 motor and bell housing and aftermarket headers as it was.

I probably left out something in all of this. As I said, there is a domino effect!

Gene
 
Last edited:

steven

Gold forum user
Messages
875
Thanks for your comment Gene. I think I have been convinced to pass on it. My mechanic son also said wait till we check the existing 260. Its supposed to be a 80K motor that was only garaged in the 80"s because the lady owner kept pranging it.:) Oh and by the way, I did join CAT and have received newsletters. I have not been told that my membership has lapsed. I also thought you could not post on the Forum if not a member.
 

tiger331

Bronze forum user
Messages
16
Hi,
do a search for a 289 5-bolt block.
Expensiver in the first, but much easier to fix to the car.
You can go all the way to a 347 stroker with this block, no problem.
regards
Hans
 

tiger331

Bronze forum user
Messages
16
The 289 cylinders are not as deep at the 302 block and thus will not support a 347 stroker crank and rods.

I dont think so.
I have messured the 5-bolt 289 laying around and the cylinderlength is 5,04".
I see no problem with a 3,4" stroke an 5,4" rods.
The new Ford boss block is 4,75" long, THIS is a problem, but there are several 3,4" stroker driving around (what I would not do).
I actually drive a 5.0HO Block with 3,5" stroke, this is equal to the 5-bolt 289 with 3,4" stroke.
But if you would like to be safe, build a 331 stroker (with 5,4" rods)

regards
Hans
 

0neoffive

Gold forum user
CAT Member
Messages
2,873
SBF Strokers

I dont think so.
I have messured the 5-bolt 289 laying around and the cylinderlength is 5,04".
I see no problem with a 3,4" stroke an 5,4" rods.
The new Ford boss block is 4,75" long, THIS is a problem, but there are several 3,4" stroker driving around (what I would not do).
I actually drive a 5.0HO Block with 3,5" stroke, this is equal to the 5-bolt 289 with 3,4" stroke.
But if you would like to be safe, build a 331 stroker (with 5,4" rods)

regards
Hans

Stroking exposes the piston skirt bottoms more and creates a "rocking" condition even with the newer teflon skirts. Stubby pistons are also a bit unstable even with full-floating pins. We modified an old 260 a few year back with a 3.4 crank and it ran incredibly strong right up until the main caps let go.
 

Duke Mk1a

Gold forum user
Messages
1,673
Stubby pistons are also a bit unstable even with full-floating pins.

Here is what I am running in my 347 -

184888_1582398325506_6251734_n.jpg

Probe 347 Flat Top -4.0cc - SRS Piston .030 over. Specs on pistons - http://www.probeindustries.com/Ford_347_4_0cc_Flat_Top_SRS_Pistons_p/10660.htm

These with my 58cc combustion chamber AFR heads yield a 10.8:1 CR. I am running 91 pump gas with no issues. I do add octane booster for the drag strip for extra protection.
 

chirodoc

Gold forum user
Messages
281
289 SHORTBLOCK

I wish defer to;
"BIG CUBES FROM A 289" in the October 2004 issue of MUSTANG AND FORDS magazine. "With modern pistons and special length connecting rods we can look to get an early 289 engine to measure up to 347 displacement specs. By using PROBE pistons and connecting rods, the wrist pin eyebrow does not intrude into the oil ring landing, and an improved rod length/stroke ratio should improve any side loading problems". The rods are 5.315 in center to center length (eg:competition BOSS302 rods) compared the 5.400 in length commonly used in most stroker kits'.
The crankshaft must also must be ground for a 289 two piece real seal vs the one piece seal on later model 302s. COAST HIGH PERFORMANCE is Probe Industries retail division.
 

Duke Mk1a

Gold forum user
Messages
1,673
The rods are 5.315 in center to center length (eg:competition BOSS302 rods) compared the 5.400 in length commonly used in most stroker kits'

The above picture are the Probe I beam rods (5.315) that are used in my engine. I still feel that a 302 block is a better bet for a stroker as it will be ready to accept a roller cam from the start.
 

tiger331

Bronze forum user
Messages
16
The 5,315" rods are the wrong one to convert a 289 block.
Use the 5,4" to get the pin in a higher position. The oilring in the pin hole is absolutelly no problem.
The 302 Rollerblock is better, but the 5-bolt 289 is the easier conversion.
And there is absolutelly no problem with a rollercamshaft in a early block.
The right hydros and the thing is done.

Hans
 

chirodoc

Gold forum user
Messages
281
Again deferring to the "BIG CUBES FOR A 289" article :
" While an open oil ring land isn't going to be a problem in drag racing engine run for 30 seconds at a time, this is an important consideration for a street engine. The closed ring land will prevent exessive oil consumption."
 

tiger331

Bronze forum user
Messages
16
Again deferring to the "BIG CUBES FOR A 289" article :
" While an open oil ring land isn't going to be a problem in drag racing engine run for 30 seconds at a time, this is an important consideration for a street engine. The closed ring land will prevent exessive oil consumption."

What I tell to you is not what I read in a book, its what i drivein my car.
The pistons in my stroker have 1" compressionsdistance and the real small oilrings are in the pinhole. The car is a "dailydriver" (2000 miles a year)
The oilconsumption is no problem.
I think there are thousands of 347er stroker with the open oilring on the road, and not only on the strip.

Hans
 

Moondoggie

Gold forum user
Messages
569
The car is a "dailydriver" (2000 miles a year)
The oilconsumption is no problem.
I think there are thousands of 347er stroker with the open oilring on the road, and not only on the strip.

Hans

I would have to agree with Duke that the best choice for a 347 strokker
motor is a 302 block because of the longer cylinders over the 289 blocks.
Now for a dailey driver that goes only 5.5 miles per day ( 2000/365=5.5) I would be more concerned about running the motor cold all of the time beating out bearings than just a simple oil consumption issue no matter where the wrist pin is located.......

Moondoggie
 

tiger331

Bronze forum user
Messages
16
I would have to agree with Duke that the best choice for a 347 strokker
motor is a 302 block because of the longer cylinders over the 289 blocks.
Now for a dailey driver that goes only 5.5 miles per day ( 2000/365=5.5) I would be more concerned about running the motor cold all of the time beating out bearings than just a simple oil consumption issue no matter where the wrist pin is located.......

Moondoggie
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I do not drive every day, are you crazy?
Actually we have -20 °C and snow and salt on the street, do you think I sit in my small little english cabrio. No, not at all.
I drive maybe 50 times a year, and then, the engine is warm.
You can put any engine in your tiger, no problem, its your car.
But if anyone wants to have an easy conversation for his 260, the 289 5-bolt is the easiest way. And again, it is possible to crate a 347 stroker of this block. But, to be save, crate a 331 stroker.
The piston in the 289 5-bolt is in the same or better position with the 5,4" rod than in a 302 block with a 5,315" rod.
And also again, use the longest rods availabile, the oilring in the pinhole is no problem.

regards
Hans

ps. sorry for my bad english, I work on it.
 
Top