302 vs 289

[somedayaurora]

Was the 302 really the dog everyone says it was or was it part of fords underrating of engines in 68' IE: 428 ( 340hp ) , 428 CJ ( 335hp ) . The 0 to 60 and quarter mile stats always favor the 302 . Is it a torque thing . Thoughts ?
SDR
________
Bob bondurant

[PANAVIA]

The 302 was a dog until it was a 4BBL 5.0L in 1983.

My 289s (with 1969 351w heads and those stepped head bolts) when I was a kid spooled faster than any of my friends 302s, and kept up with most 351's.

Boss 302s were already collector items when i was a kid in the mid-late 80's so we never saw them on the street.

One night my little 66' with a 289 held onto a SS454 chevelle way longer than expected and it was a tie (1/4 mile) basically I got the jump on the light and he had problems with a bit of wheelspin and about 200Lbs of stereo gear.

Vintage 302's are mostly rubbish in the year 2010, the best 5.0L you can get is from a 1994-1995 Cobra Mustang.

Roller cam, 1.7 ratio roller rockers, GT40 heads -- all stock.

put a carb and a distributor on it and you can dress it vintage. -- very capable power plant.

[puppster]

there's really no diferences between a 289 and a 302...is there? the stroke is slightly longer in a 302, and sure, the head choices and compression durring the 70's didn't help the bigger 302. The big difference to me is the addition of the roller cam in the mid 80's. If things were equal, like the cam grind, head design, and exhaust, and induction, the nod would most certainly go to the bigger 302. My first car had a 289 A code, and my second was a 1982 Mustang GT with a 302. Once I added a 4V to that little 302, it was a screamer. much more fun than the 289. Now I have another 289 A code but with aftermarket heads, completely different animal. So I guess in the smog era that the 302 lived, it was probably a real let down, but because of the design.

[Woodz428]

The real beef about the 302 was they never made a Hi-Po, they went to Tunnelports in '68 and they didn't pan out so there was no smallblock Hi-Po engine. The 302 models were basicly the 2 and 4 V 289s with a stroker. A 302 with the same goodies as a 289HP would have been as good or better than a 289. That's why the '68 Shelby GT 350 was a let down. Ford had taken over production and while the car gained a lot of weight it was down on HP and there were NO tweaks to the engine. It had the same hydraulic lifter 302 as any Mustang. No Intake, No carb, No Hi-Po style exhaust or headers...nothing. IF they had offered a Hi-Po engine, that may have tilted the impression of the 302 somewhat. In '69 The Boss 302 was a nice start but the emission nazis were getting rolling so it was short lived. Since it was a Trans Am engine when the rules changed so that a manufacturer could use a larger destroked engine Ford went to the Boss 351 in '71. Of course in '69 all the engines were regular Mustang engines and they had so many leftover they were retitled as '70s. Ford introduced the Mach I in '69 and it offered the same stuff with less weight. I used to whip up on the Shelby guys with my '69 428CJ Mach I. It was an embarrassment because they spent the extra dough for the Shelby not realizing it was just a weighted down Mach I. I guess an unforseen advantage of being down on the bucks.

[Dwight]

I think with the new cams and heads available today you can make a screamer out of the 289 or 302.

Dwight

[somedayaurora]

Ok so its not so much the 302 was a dog as it is compared to a standard 289 , it was the lack of a HI-PO option . So, a 302 with 289 HI-PO pieces should be as good ? Was there more smog equip on a a 302 ?
SDR
________
Mercury capri history

[CobraEd]

The engines are the same the except for the stroke. **SAME**. But the 289 was build pre smog times. The 302 was built during the smog times and was layered with performance killing smog "stuff".

For a Cobra, you build the block, heads, cam, etc. from the ground up with performance parts anyway so there is no issue with the original smog stuff. It is out of the equation.

Except for the larger stroke, they are the same.

For a Cobra with a built up engine this is a non-issue.


.

[Ron61]

I have a 65 Comet with the 289 and had a 75 Mavrick with the 302. Take the smog junk off the 302 and tune it right and it would have been just as good as the 289 if not better. And if you are running it in a car that doesn't have to pass emissions, I would go with the 302 as they can make great power and are still light and fast.

Ron

[CobraEd]

It has been stated over and over again that it is really very easy to get 400hp out of a 302. Take a look at some of these articles:

http://www.mustangandfords.com/techa...ock/index.html

http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles...dup/index.html

http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/1...orse/index.php

My 302 is about 410hp.

When you think that in the 60s, the legendary big block 426 hemi was rated at 425 HP, and the big block Chevy LS6 454 was rated at 450hp. These were the best of the best at that time! It is mind boggling to see what intake manifold, cam, valvetrain, and head technology has done for us allowing 400hp out of a 302, . . . simple and easy to do, but mind boggling when you think of it in relative terms!


.

[WarrenG]

From 1973 until about the mid-80's very few OEM engines performed worth a damn straight from the manufacturer due to smog regulations. By that time the 289 was long gone as an OEM offering.

[tkb289]

My understanding is that the 289 Block and 302 Block are virtually identical, one minor difference being the skirt length in the 302 Block is a bit longer than what is in the 289 Block.

As stated above, a sound 302 short block with a decent cam and good heads would make a fine Cobra motor for a small block car. That's just the recipe I am looking for to use in my ERA. CobraED ... thanks for the articles!

[Woodz428]

Originally Posted by tkb289;10****3

My understanding is that the 289 Block and 302 Block are virtually identical, one minor difference being the skirt length in the 302 Block is a bit longer than what is in the 289 Block.

As stated above, a sound 302 short block with a decent cam and good heads would make a fine Cobra motor for a small block car. That's just the recipe I am looking for to use in my ERA. CobraED ... thanks for the articles!

I'm sure you meant the cylinder skirt, which is about a 1/4" longer. It is to stabilize the piston more when it's down at the bottom...at least that was the Ford press at the time. I am sure some of that was from the stroker racing engines that were built in the 289 blocks and they found that it was a cause of some failures at the track. Most of those were in the 325" range and it is a considerably longer throw than the 3" 302 crank. Again, the manufacturer builds around potential warranty concerns. Since 289 blocks are now over 40 years old and they availabilty of 302 blocks with features that were only dreamed about in the 60s, it doesn't make since to use a 289 block unless you need the casting # for a specific reason. they never made any 4 bolt 289 blocks that were readily available.
For me it was the fact that the 302 offered was, as mentioned, just a stroked plain jane version of the 289 ( 2 and 4V). The 4V engine was only offered in the first model year('68) and then only 2Vs until the 80s. That is with the exception of the Boss engine, which I think would be in a separate discussion.

[somedayaurora]

So what were your options if you wanted a performance smallblock in 68 ? wait till the 351 Windsor in 69 ?
SDR
________
Ferrari 156/85 history

[Woodz428]

Originally Posted by somedayaurora

So what were your options if you wanted a performance smallblock in 68 ? wait till the 351 Windsor in 69 ?
SDR

Pretty much the same as today..without all the choices. Mondello/Airesearch did head work ,Shelby and others supplied intakes/cams/headers. It was a little more experimenting than now, but engine builders ARE engine builders and factory offerings aren't usually an obstacle.
I only suppied a few names but there were many at the time, just get an old Hot Rod, Car Craft, C&D,R&T, R&C and peruse the ads to see the multitude of offerings. Many have been bought up or ceased to exist. Many were WWII military that returned to persue their dreams. There were a few manufacturers that produced for others because they had foundries that the smaller companies didn't. The early "Cobra" products, as well as others, fell into that category.

[Woodz428]

Just to toss another thing in. It seems that there are now 351W blocks available that use the smaller 289/302 main size. I am sure to reduce bearing speed. But I have a 289 crank that has been gathering dust for about 35 years and intend to drop it into a 351W block with the small mains to put in our Coupe. With the longer rods and new aluminum heads it should be a great street engine.

[Maricopa]

Keep mind that the old 302s we're talking about here are not the same as the new '302s' (5.0)

[Rick Parker]

Ford has for the most part (at least until recently) played "catch up" with Chevrolet. GM brought out the 265 V8 in 1955, Ford brought out the Y block 292, Chevy jumped to the 283, Ford to Y block 312. Then Ford developed the thin wall casting technique for the 221, 260, then ultimately the 289. Ford was always behind the curve with their cylinder heads (no news to anyone in racing circles). The ONLY reason the Cobra was so successful was beacuse of its weight compared to other cars it was classed with.

[Woodz428]

Originally Posted by Maricopa

Keep mind that the old 302s we're talking about here are not the same as the new '302s' (5.0)

That's true, but they are the same as the 289s that he is comparing them to.

[Maricopa]

Yes, the old 302s and 289s were the same, but at least one person mentioned the newer 5.0s which have different firing orders and I didn't want them confused.

[CobraEd]

That was me. The firing order and external balance are different, but the block and heads are the same as far as I know. Same overall engine.


.