• Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech

1966 Mustang Coupe With 302 Engine

  • Thread starter Thread starter metsguy69
  • Start date Start date Mar 1, 2018
  • Tags Tags
    1966 mustang coupe v8
M

metsguy69

New Member
Feb 15, 2018
3
0
1
Mar 1, 2018
#1
  • Mar 1, 2018
  • #1
New member here.
Recently purchased a 66 coupe with a V8, thought it was a 289 as the VIN indicated. The car didn't run at the time of purchase, but I did notice the pulleys didn't line up correctly. Figured someone installed an incorrect power steering pump at some point in time.
I got the car running, and immediately heard the grinding noise from the water pump pulley rubbing up against the lower pulleys on the balancer.
After doing some research, I found the car has a 1972 302 engine that I verified through the block casting numbers. The alternator and brackets, power steering pump and bracket all appear to be from a 1966 289 engine. The engine runs good otherwise, however I can't see the timing marks (on passenger side of motor) as they are blocked by the brackets and lower radiator hose.
After talking with a few seemingly knowledgeable Mustang guys at a local cruise night, seems it was common to swap an old 289 with a 302. Was told I have 2 options to correct these issues.
Option 1, change over the alternator, power steering pump, and all brackets with early 1970's 302 components. Everything will line up correctly, though I still may not be able to see the timing marks.
Option 2, replace 302 balancer/lower pulleys, timing cover, water pump with mid 1960's 289 components. Everything will line up correctly using my existing alternator, power steering pump and brackets, and the timing tab will now be on the driver's side of the motor. Was told the 289 balancer and pulleys are smaller, giving me the proper spacing so that the pulleys would no longer rub together.
Sounds plausible to me, but did notice the 302 balancer is much larger in size than the 289 balancer and was concerned that the car would run normally that way.
Sorry for the long winded post, but wanted to get all the info out there.
I can't be the only one to experience this. Anyone out there know if option 2 will work? I prefer to keep the 289 look under the hood, and be able to use 1966 components.
Any feedback will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
 

General karthief

wonder how much it would cost to ship you a pair
20+ Year Stangneter
Aug 25, 2016
27,914
10,563
203
polk county florida
Mar 1, 2018
#2
  • Mar 1, 2018
  • #2
Welcome to stangnet, let me take the first step by moving this to the classic forums and the members over there can chime in with some suggestions, post some pics too of that pully system, that maybe helpful, dang, give us some pics of the whole car, we love to see pics.
 

tos

Founding Member
Apr 27, 2001
896
68
59
Cincinnati Ohio
Mar 1, 2018
#3
  • Mar 1, 2018
  • #3
You'll want to verify the proper Imbalance of the harmonic balancer. If that is truly a 72 motor and the didn't replace the crankshaft then it should be a 28oz imbalance. If they put a later model crank from the 80s or some aftermarket crank, it could be 50oz imbalance. The balancer needs to match the crank and flywheel imbalance.
 
M

metsguy69

New Member
Feb 15, 2018
3
0
1
Mar 1, 2018
#4
  • Mar 1, 2018
  • #4
tos said:
You'll want to verify the proper Imbalance of the harmonic balancer. If that is truly a 72 motor and the didn't replace the crankshaft then it should be a 28oz imbalance. If they put a later model crank from the 80s or some aftermarket crank, it could be 50oz imbalance. The balancer needs to match the crank and flywheel imbalance.
Click to expand...
Hey thanks!
Guess I need to see if a 289 balancer is 28oz imbalance as well.
Thanks again.
 

General karthief

wonder how much it would cost to ship you a pair
20+ Year Stangneter
Aug 25, 2016
27,914
10,563
203
polk county florida
Mar 1, 2018
#5
  • Mar 1, 2018
  • #5
I think you also need to pay attention to 3 or 4 bolt balancers for the pully, somewhere between the 289 and the 302 they changed,
 

tos

Founding Member
Apr 27, 2001
896
68
59
Cincinnati Ohio
Mar 1, 2018
#6
  • Mar 1, 2018
  • #6
metsguy69 said:
Hey thanks!
Guess I need to see if a 289 balancer is 28oz imbalance as well.
Thanks again.
Click to expand...
Yes a factory 289 balancer is 28oz
 
M

metsguy69

New Member
Feb 15, 2018
3
0
1
Mar 1, 2018
#7
  • Mar 1, 2018
  • #7
Yes, thanks. I did notice that. Its my understanding that the 289 pulleys have 3 bolts and a smaller circumference than the 4 bolt 302 pulleys. Thanks for the reply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
1965 Mustang with 80s 5.0 engine in it Power Steering hose or connection ID?
  • spearce
  • May 19, 2026
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Replies
2
Views
98
Classic Mustang Specific Tech Jun 8, 2026
AeroCoupe
H
1966 mustang starter and pulley troubles
  • Hotrods4ray
  • Sep 24, 2025
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
6
Views
361
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jan 10, 2026
Realmongo
O
Sooty/Oily Front Engine & Pulleys
  • ozenator
  • Jun 15, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
12
Views
269
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jun 22, 2026
Blackhawkxx
C
SN95 Another Coyote swap list
  • catkiller
  • May 10, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
121
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 10, 2026
catkiller
C
For Sale Ford 331 stroker engine for sale - with options!
  • TTSaleen
  • Jul 1, 2026
  • Engine and Power Adder
Replies
6
Views
219
Engine and Power Adder Jul 2, 2026
Noobz347
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?