289 was built by chevy ???????

SLVRBOY · Oct 15, 2005

my uncle keeps telling me that the 289 was built by chevy and that the distributor is in the back. i tell him that its in the front but he doesnt believe me. is there any truth to this or is just a myth from a chevy guy.

Shakin66 · Oct 15, 2005

Im afraid he is pulling your leg or thinking of the Chevy 302 possibly. It is a very close version of the more modern 5.0.

ttoney · Oct 15, 2005

or the 283.

ForceFed70 · Oct 15, 2005

The 260,289,302,and 351W were all "windsor" blocks and are all built on the same design. And they were all made at Ford's windsor plant.

The distributor is on the front, like all windsor engines..

1Bad67 · Oct 15, 2005

Your uncle must be thinking of the old 283.

65mistress · Oct 15, 2005

I think that there were only 2 engines from Ford and Chevy that have the same displacement and that's the 302 and the 427. I could be wrong though.

You know what Chevrolet stands for right?
Cracked Heads Every Valve Rattles Oil Leaks Every Time.

Or Chevy?
Cheap Heap Every Vehicle Year.

Tubo(2-bo) · Oct 15, 2005

Early small block Chevy 265c.i., 1955-56. I had one w/power pack heads & Duntov cam, in my first car, 56 2dr hardtop. Thats one Chevy I wish I had back.
283c.i. came in 1957.

ashford · Oct 15, 2005

65mistress said:
I think that there were only 2 engines from Ford and Chevy that have the same displacement and that's the 302 and the 427. I could be wrong though.

You know what Chevrolet stands for right?
Cracked Heads Every Valve Rattles Oil Leaks Every Time.

Or Chevy?
Cheap Heap Every Vehicle Year.

don't forget the 400 or the 250

THX 138 · Oct 15, 2005

SLVRBOY said:
my uncle keeps telling me that the 289 was built by chevy and that the distributor is in the back. i tell him that its in the front but he doesnt believe me. is there any truth to this or is just a myth from a chevy guy.

you're uncle is an idiot. Chevy had a 283 not a 289. My dad had one in his '64 chevelle malibu convertable. Chevy smallblocks stock sizes were 265, 283, 302, 305, 307, 327, 350, 400. You can mix and match cranks and bores to make other engine sizes.

tylerrocks · Oct 15, 2005

THX 138 said:
you're uncle is an idiot.

Thats rude. Your uncle was mistaken. Maybe he has heard of a 283 that was bored enough to dispace 289 cubic inches. Im dont know much about chevy engines but Ive never heard of a stock 302 chevy. I have heard of the 305 and a short stroked 327 (using 283 crank) that equated to a 302.

Tyler

65ShelbyClone · Oct 15, 2005

Every Ford V8 built after the 292/312 Y-blocks has the distributor in the front. Some engineer must have figured out that its a b#tch to turn the dizzy when it back behind a running engine. Also, the 289 displacement is exclusively Ford.

rbohm · Oct 16, 2005

65ShelbyClone said:
Every Ford V8 built after the 292/312 Y-blocks has the distributor in the front. Some engineer must have figured out that its a b#tch to turn the dizzy when it back behind a running engine. Also, the 289 displacement is exclusively Ford.

1: the reason that ford put the dist in front on the new windsor small blocks was to reduce spark scatter from cam wind up.

2: the 289 engine displacement was NOT unique to ford as studebaker had a 289 ci engine a few years before ford did.

THX 138 · Oct 16, 2005

tylerrocks said:
Thats rude. Your uncle was mistaken. Maybe he has heard of a 283 that was bored enough to dispace 289 cubic inches. Im dont know much about chevy engines but Ive never heard of a stock 302 chevy. I have heard of the 305 and a short stroked 327 (using 283 crank) that equated to a 302.
Tyler

sorry I'm use to boads like that
GM put the 283 crank in their 327 block to meet the trans am rules of 5.0L in the late 60's. There's a small and large crank journal version. The idea actually came from drag racers that bored out their 283s .125" over to make "301's" but they called them 302s when the factory did them possibly not to confuse them with pontiac 301's but I think those were in the late 70's though
.
a 307 is a 327 crank with a 283 block. a 305 has the same crank as a 350. You can make a 335 with a 305 block .030 over and 400 crank. You can make a 377 with a 400 block .030 over and a 350 crank. You can make a 350 with a 400 block and a 327 crank. and on and on and on and of course a 383 with a 350 block .030 over and 400 crank... I fyou wanted to make a modern chevy 302 you can get a 265 (4.3L)v8 crank from a L99 b-body and put it in your LT1 or LT4 or any 1 piece rear main seal 350 Gen 1 or Gen 2 block.

65ShelbyClone · Oct 16, 2005

rbohm said:
1: the reason that ford put the dist in front on the new windsor small blocks was to reduce spark scatter from cam wind up.

2: the 289 engine displacement was NOT unique to ford as studebaker had a 289 ci engine a few years before ford did.

1. Still a good reason

2. Could you even get a 289 Stude' when Ford had one? Even if so, a Studebaker still isnt a Chevy.

glastang · Oct 16, 2005

I remember the 69 trans-am wars and both the z-28 and the boss mustang had 302 with the boss getting the nod most of the time.

10secgoal · Oct 16, 2005

I heard the same. Not that Chevy made the motor. But they designed the heads, and turned around and screwed up theirs. But the is just something I heard once.

1320stang · Oct 16, 2005

Pontiac had a 389.....

The SBC was almost the SBF. They tried selling the design to Ford first then sold it to Chevy. I read that somewhere, I think Smokey U was a consultant on the engine as well.

mustangman1974 · Oct 16, 2005

I bet he looked at an early SBF manifold. I have one for my 260 and it has a knock out for a distributer. Possible mistaken identity.

rbohm · Oct 17, 2005

1320stang said:
Pontiac had a 389.....

The SBC was almost the SBF. They tried selling the design to Ford first then sold it to Chevy. I read that somewhere, I think Smokey U was a consultant on the engine as well.

in fact zora arkus duntov designed the small block chevy, and tried selling it to ford first. for some reason ford rejected the engine design and duntov sold it to chevrolet. gm then hired duntov to head up the corvette program as well. as far as i know yunick didnt have anything to do with the design of the sbc, but he did consult with all the automakers on improving engine efficiency over the years.

rbohm · Oct 17, 2005

65ShelbyClone said:
2. Could you even get a 289 Stude' when Ford had one? Even if so, a Studebaker still isnt a Chevy.

as i recall, by 1964, the first year for the 289, studebaker was buying engines from chevrolet, and the 289 and 327 studebaker engines had been dropped by then. and yes studebaker did have a 327ci engine also.

289 was built by chevy ???????

SLVRBOY

Member

Shakin66

ttoney

Member

ForceFed70

That's why they call it "dope"

1Bad67

New Member

65mistress

Member

Tubo(2-bo)

Member

ashford

Member

THX 138

Member

tylerrocks

New Member

65ShelbyClone

rbohm

THX 138

Member

65ShelbyClone

glastang

New Member

10secgoal

Active Member

1320stang

mustangman1974

Member

rbohm

rbohm

Similar threads

289 was built by chevy ???????

Member

Member

That's why they call it "dope"

New Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Active Member

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency