289 V8

[rangerkid91]

How are the 289 v8s?

 

[Earl43P]

Older than the 302 and newer than the 260.

Same family of engine.

I believe the 289 came out in '65 with the Mustang. I know the 64 Fairlane still had the 260 because that was my first car.

A lot of 302 stuff crosses over, but I have no specifics to give you without searching.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The early ones have the same bolt pattern as the 260 for the transmission, otherwise they are pretty similar to a 302. If you have one with the 260 bellhousing boltpattern it sort of limits your transmission choices.

The biggest downside to a 289 (and 302's up until about '80) for a RBV swap is the dipstick thru the timing cover, it puts the dipstick right into no mans land when you don't have a front sump oil pan on it. You either have to get a pan for a Mustang that has the dipstick tube in it that they only used for a couple of years, or put one in it yourself.

 

[COPPERHEAD85]

Built right .....will rev like a chainsaw on crack!

 

[RangerFabWorks]

they are awesome engines. and built are nasty as a 300 pound black woman bending over, lol

 

[alaskan155]

i got one, block difference, same as 302 for 65 or 66 + minus the cyclinder skirts dont extend as far as a 302, so you cant install 302 interal in a 289 block but you can install 289 internal in a 302 block.
supposidly they rev quicker than a 302 to.
302 heads will bolt up, but unless they have a small combustion chamber or you mill them down to lower the compression you cant run them because it will drop the compression to much, 280z balanced like the 351w and early 302s

depending on state laws illegal to install in a RBV, since its a 60s motor and a rbv is 83+

specs for mine
duraspark conversion
2150 carb from 351w
probally gonna run my 99 explorer manifolds, assuming they clear the spark plugs if not the stock manifolds from the 289(exploder looked like it flowed better
.40 over


would love to have a 289 HI-PO

early first run, current resolving some coolant issues
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=52778402

 

[rangerkid91]

What would you all prefer: 289, 302, or 351W?

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

What would you all prefer: 289, 302, or 351W?

All things equal with non smog era engines I would pick the 351W, but I wouldn't be afraid to run any of them.

I have a 289 to go into my Ranger right now that needs rebuilt, but I am shopping for just about anything that runs good just to hold me over until that happens. It will probably end up being a 302 out of a land yacht.

 

[Mac]

See you have a 4x4. All depends on the type of driving you are going to do. You're kind of limited to the F-150 transfer case. For all around use, I would go for a 302/5.0. Like 85_ Ranger said, all good motors. You aiming for a carb'd or EFI motor, torque or HP. The 351 will sure give you the torque but might lead to more drive train/cooling improvements. Just so many different options out there. Fun no matter what!
Dave

 

[COPPERHEAD85]

4x4 351 More torque in the bottom end
street 302/289
But you cant go wrong with either or.

 

[fiftyv8]

Does that mean that you could use the stock Ranger 4 speed auto tranny and the 289/302 will match this existing bellhousing in my 3.0 liter Ranger.

 

[Will]

No, it won't.

The 289 was available in 1964. I've had three cars with it--2 Fairlanes and a Galaxie. They were black with Orange valve covers. In the 1965 Fairlane my dad had the 289 was blue.

 

[rickcdewitt]

the 289 has almost exactly a 1/4" less stroke than a 302. i sold my rebuilt 289 so i could find a roller cam 5.0 that gets more power and mpg's.

 

[baddad457]

i got one, block difference, same as 302 for 65 or 66 + minus the cyclinder skirts dont extend as far as a 302, so you cant install 302

Sorry, bud but Ford was doing exactly that in 1968 when the transition was made to the 302. The difference in cylinder wall length is a non issue.

 

[baddad457]

the 289 has almost exactly a 1/4" less stroke than a 302. i sold my rebuilt 289 so i could find a roller cam 5.0 that gets more power and mpg's.

The difference is exactly, .130, about half of a quarter inch.