289 vs 302
New User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
From: London Canada
289 vs 302
Hi all, I have a 1966 289 and a 1972 302. I'm trying to decide which one would be better to rebuild. What, exactly is the difference between the two? If I put the 302 heads on the 289, do I now have a 302?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
Senior User
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
289 vs 302
The main difference is in the crank and rods. The 289 has a 2.87 stroke compared to 3.00 for the 302. The rods are different lengths also. 5.155 for the 289 vs. 5.090 for the 302. They use the same pistons. Using the '72 302 heads on the 289 would be a downgrade, since they are lower compression and I believe would have the bump in the exhaust port for the thermactor system ( air pump ).
Moderator
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 56,966
Likes: 2,728
From: Virginia
289 vs 302
The 302 has a longer stroke than the 289. Both had 4 inch pistons. The 289 generally had a better reputation because it had a higher compression ratio. But if you put flat-top pistons in the 302, it will perform just as well.
New User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
From: London Canada
289 vs 302
Awesome, thanks. I won't bother dressing up these heads then. What I'll do is pick up a set of 351W heads. What are your thoughts on that? I also need to machine my crank but maybe I should use the 302 crank instead. (if I have the clearance)
Post Fiend
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 14,947
Likes: 6
From: Topsfield, MA
289 vs 302
Just so you know, heads don't change the engine size, only the bore and stroke do.
Primary rig is Green Thunder:
95' F-150 XLT 4x4, 302, 5 spd, MSD 6A, Flowmaster Exhaust, Sunroof, Clear corners w/ Diamond headlights, CD player with 2 10" subs and some 32" BFG Muds
.
Thats it for now, saving for a stang. Check out my Gallery for a look-see.
Justin - One Happy FTE Member
Primary rig is Green Thunder:
95' F-150 XLT 4x4, 302, 5 spd, MSD 6A, Flowmaster Exhaust, Sunroof, Clear corners w/ Diamond headlights, CD player with 2 10" subs and some 32" BFG Muds
.Thats it for now, saving for a stang. Check out my Gallery for a look-see.
Justin - One Happy FTE Member
Moderator
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 56,966
Likes: 2,728
From: Virginia
289 vs 302
Use the 302 crank in the 302 block. The 302 block has longer skirts in the bottom of the bores for better piston control with the longer stroke. You can use the 351w heads with special head bolts. 351w's have bigger valves if they are 77 or earlier, but bigger chambers also which will lower compression a little.
Trending Topics
Postmaster
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,351
Likes: 1
From: Escondido, CA
289 vs 302
Ummm... guys you are forgeting that using the 289 heads on the 302 will improve the compression ratio. They have (I believe) 58 cc chambers vise 64 cc. Also a little port work (gasket matching only) and installing new larger vavles will blow away the 351W heads. Another added bonus is that you wont have to buy the adapter washers to install the 351W heads on the 302. Just my thoughts.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
Posting Guru
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,070
Likes: 2
From: Boise, Idaho
289 vs 302
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 17-Oct-02 AT 01:12 AM (EST)]Good advice regarding the heads, Mark. Actually, the C6AE heads have 54cc combustion chambers! They have broached push-rod holes, so he'll need to use his 289 pushrods, too. Otherwise, he's good to go. The 302 heads are lo-po.
These 289 heads really respond to some mild porting, too. Summing up; use the 289 heads and pushrods on your 302 shortblock.
Edit: These heads are the Ricardo quench design heads. Zero-deck the pistons in the block and use head gaskets in the .038-.045" range. IIRC, these heads had decent swirl in addition to the huge quench area. (I have a pair of these heads in storage
).
These 289 heads really respond to some mild porting, too. Summing up; use the 289 heads and pushrods on your 302 shortblock.
Edit: These heads are the Ricardo quench design heads. Zero-deck the pistons in the block and use head gaskets in the .038-.045" range. IIRC, these heads had decent swirl in addition to the huge quench area. (I have a pair of these heads in storage
).
New User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
From: London Canada
289 vs 302
Actually, I don't have 289 heads. All I have are the 302, which I take from all your advice, that I will scrap. I also am tempted to plug the oil drain holes at the top of the block under the Intake. Has anyone attempted this? Was there any improvement? Will the cam get enough oil that way?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
