289 woes

KnightRider · Jul 28, 2011

The 289 in the 65 went out a couple of days ago. Just got most of the motor torn down this evening and found a spark plug destroyed. Pulling off the valve cover found out one of the valves had broken. Pulled off the oil pan and found the piston completly destroyed in a mangled mess as well as screwing up part of the casting the piston travels down. I'm not sure if this block is still rebuildable. I'll check with a machine shop but just in case I need some advice on what direction to take.

I can get a 79 302 block for $175 but I'm sure I'll need to rebuild it. From what I have been able to find out most everything can interchange between the 2 say the crank, pistons, and rods. Is this correct as I would love to put the performer 289 and edelbrock 4bbl on the new engine. the 65 also has a 6 bolt C4, I rebuilt it 6 months ago, will this bolt up to the 302? If so will I need to change the flexplate?

I don't really care about keeping the car original as this is my wifes daily driver and we never plan on selling it since its her dream car. Any advice on what direction I should take should the block be beyond use. (I'd say there is a 90% chance its toast).

Thanks,

Travis - Spokane, WA
65 Mustang 289V8 "A" Code Coupe
66 F-250 352V8 (Soon to be 390)
58 Mercury Monterey 4dr Sedan 383V8

2+2GT · Jul 28, 2011

The 289 in the 65 went out a couple of days ago. Just got most of the motor torn down this evening and found a spark plug destroyed. Pulling off the valve cover found out one of the valves had broken. Pulled off the oil pan and found the piston completly destroyed in a mangled mess as well as screwing up part of the casting the piston travels down. I'm not sure if this block is still rebuildable. I'll check with a machine shop but just in case I need some advice on what direction to take.
Sounds like it'll need a sleeve to repair, if it can be done at all.

I can get a 79 302 block for $175 but I'm sure I'll need to rebuild it.
Would be a good choice.

From what I have been able to find out most everything can interchange between the 2 say the crank, pistons, and rods.
In 68 Ford built some 289's using 302 block, I have done it myself.

Is this correct as I would love to put the performer 289 and edelbrock 4bbl on the new engine. the 65 also has a 6 bolt C4, I rebuilt it 6 months ago, will this bolt up to the 302?
You betcha.

If so will I need to change the flexplate?
No.

I don't really care about keeping the car original as this is my wifes daily driver and we never plan on selling it since its her dream car. Any advice on what direction I should take should the block be beyond use. (I'd say there is a 90% chance its toast).
The '79 would be a good plan.

PoppyMod · Jul 28, 2011

Hi,
+1...put your time into the 302.
Do an autopsy to determine the cause. When mine died, I found the oil pump locked up due to a bit of umbrella seal jambed in it. To this day, regardless of being new, I'm not a fan of umbrella seals.
Good Luck!

robbz28 · Jul 28, 2011

I'm not sure what your budget is, but Blue Print makes a 5.0 long block thats pretty much a stock replacement for a late 80's fox, I think the only difference would be the imbalance (28oz vs 50oz) the want 1799 for the complete long block in Jegs.

Heres a link:
Blueprint Engines BPF30216C Blueprint Engines Ford 5.0L HO Replacement

This was always my backup plan in case something like what happened to you, happened to me.

Realmongo · Jul 28, 2011

Be very wary of those late '70s prior to the 1986/1987 Roller blocks. Most of them are JUNK! Ford tried cutting corners on them to save money and weight. Plus the casting work was sloppy resulting in lots of core shift on too-thin castings. Best bet is the 1987 and newer roller motor blocks with the extra strength around the bottom of the bores. Then you won't have to worry about today's motor oils destroying your flat tappet cam!

rbohm · Jul 28, 2011

unless the original block has been windowed, the cylinder bore can be repaired using a sleeve. understand though that it will not be cheap. the 79 block is not a bad choice, but as realmongo indicated there were issues with some blocks from that era. do yourself a big favor and have the block sonic checked for cylinder wall thickness, and for evidence of core shift. this will tell you if you can use the block for your purposes of not. i also agree with using a later model roller block, but understand that if you use the 289 crank, and i would if it is good, you will likely need to have it machined to work with a one piece crank seal. not a big deal though.

KnightRider · Jul 28, 2011

Thanks for the input!! I just located an early 70's 302 out of a cougar. has low oil pressure and a couple of burnt exhause valves. It has also already been bored .30 over. Since heads on either engine will need work which ones would be a better choice for HP torque and compression? I really like the peppyness the 289 had. Since they only want $125 for the engine without the intake, which a 4bbl with a performer 289 will be put in the empty hole Should I use the 289 crank or stay with the 302. I've been reading that it will give it higher RPM's but will losse some torque, is this statement correct? Would switching the CAMs be of value, providing the one in the 289 is not damaged from the piston blowing up? I am on a bit of a low budget but I think I can make thing work, just not up on mild performance building. I would like to have a stong engine, making at least what the 289 was in HP, a bit more would be better but I don't need a racing engine since this is a daily driver, but it needs to be a bit peppy and be able to leave small cluds of rubber smoke, like the 289 did

Thanks much!!

Travis

jerthemost · Jul 28, 2011

for what it's worth

i am not an expert like some of the guys on here but i just went thru a rebuild and can share what i learned.

i have a 68 coupe, thought it was a 289, turnned out was 302. yes ford took some 302 blocks and built 289's out of them. mine has 289 pistons and crank which my mechanic says is good.

i had blown head gasket so decided to do total upgrade. installed edelbrock heads, cam, timing set, push rods. already had performer 289 intake and edel carb. used comp cams roller rockers.

my mech was impressed with the basic engine. he said he now knew where to get a good engine to build strokers for some of his racing clients.

this sucker moves, good bottom end and drivability. i use it as my everyday driver and a cruiser.

the upgrades did add heat though so had to upgrade the radiator.

Edelbrock has been great about tech support and questions especially a guy there named Smitty. i have a heat soak problem due to high heat here in houston tx so edel is sending me a free carb isolator. hope this helps.

Realmongo · Jul 28, 2011

I would stick with the 302 crank and rods (don't mix them up as they are different lengths). The cams may actually be the same grind with he 302 having a retarded timing set. DO NOT let the cam and lifers become seperated from which lobe they belong too if you have to use the original cam! If you can provide he casting numbers of the blocks and heads we can approximate what your compression ratio will be.

rbohm · Jul 29, 2011

KnightRider said:
Thanks for the input!! I just located an early 70's 302 out of a cougar. has low oil pressure and a couple of burnt exhause valves. It has also already been bored .30 over. Since heads on either engine will need work which ones would be a better choice for HP torque and compression? I really like the peppyness the 289 had. Since they only want $125 for the engine without the intake, which a 4bbl with a performer 289 will be put in the empty hole Should I use the 289 crank or stay with the 302. I've been reading that it will give it higher RPM's but will losse some torque, is this statement correct? Would switching the CAMs be of value, providing the one in the 289 is not damaged from the piston blowing up? I am on a bit of a low budget but I think I can make thing work, just not up on mild performance building. I would like to have a stong engine, making at least what the 289 was in HP, a bit more would be better but I don't need a racing engine since this is a daily driver, but it needs to be a bit peppy and be able to leave small cluds of rubber smoke, like the 289 did

Thanks much!!

Travis

i personally prefer the 289 stroke over the 302. the difference in torque and horsepower is minimal, but with the better rod length/stroke ratio of the 289, you can run slightly higher compression on 87 octane, and turn in better fuel economy as a result. the 289 also tends to rev a bit higher than the 302 does. in a light weight car like the early mustangs a 289 is perfect.

sparx · Jul 30, 2011

jerthemost said:
i am not an expert like some of the guys on here but i just went thru a rebuild and can share what i learned.

i have a 68 coupe, thought it was a 289, turnned out was 302. yes ford took some 302 blocks and built 289's out of them. mine has 289 pistons and crank which my mechanic says is good.

i had blown head gasket so decided to do total upgrade. installed edelbrock heads, cam, timing set, push rods. already had performer 289 intake and edel carb. used comp cams roller rockers.

my mech was impressed with the basic engine. he said he now knew where to get a good engine to build strokers for some of his racing clients.

this sucker moves, good bottom end and drivability. i use it as my everyday driver and a cruiser.

the upgrades did add heat though so had to upgrade the radiator.

Edelbrock has been great about tech support and questions especially a guy there named Smitty. i have a heat soak problem due to high heat here in houston tx so edel is sending me a free carb isolator. hope this helps.

May I ask what radiator did you use?
Sparx

hhead · Jul 31, 2011

robbz28 said:
I'm not sure what your budget is, but Blue Print makes a 5.0 long block thats pretty much a stock replacement for a late 80's fox, I think the only difference would be the imbalance (28oz vs 50oz) the want 1799 for the complete long block in Jegs.

Heres a link:
Blueprint Engines BPF30216C Blueprint Engines Ford 5.0L HO Replacement

This was always my backup plan in case something like what happened to you, happened to me.

I think there was a discussion of this company awhile back. Although their name says "blueprint", they are NOT 'blueprinted' motors. Just a typical rebuild.
Just an FYI

robbz28 · Jul 31, 2011

hhead said:
I think there was a discussion of this company awhile back. Although their name says "blueprint", they are NOT 'blueprinted' motors. Just a typical rebuild.
Just an FYI

Oh without a doubt....a blueprinted motor would cost 5 times....they are built to such tolerances that you don't even need gaskets. I just know theres a lot of engine builders out there that have budget engines for sale, but if summit and jegs put their name behind them, they must be somewhat reputable.

Hack · Jul 31, 2011

Realmongo said:
Be very wary of those late '70s prior to the 1986/1987 Roller blocks. Most of them are JUNK! Ford tried cutting corners on them to save money and weight. Plus the casting work was sloppy resulting in lots of core shift on too-thin castings. Best bet is the 1987 and newer roller motor blocks with the extra strength around the bottom of the bores. Then you won't have to worry about today's motor oils destroying your flat tappet cam!

Yes I agree with the newer block idea. I would get a newer 302 block set up for a roller cam that needs rebuilding and put a 347 stroker kit into it. Of course if your budget is low you could probably just run the 302 with the roller cam as is. They seem to run virtually forever. If you're doing a rebuild I would definitely go for more cubes though. Strokers for the 302 are very reasonable, especially if you aren't going for high performance.

65ShelbyClone · Jul 31, 2011

Assuming your damaged block can't be repaired in any practical way, I think it would be easier to try finding another 289/302 of similar vintage. More, if not all, of the peripherals from the old engine will fit the old one so there's nothing to worry about regarding compression ratios, crank balance factor, etc. It's too bad you're all the way up in WA because my father has a presumably good 289 longlbock out of a Cougar that he's talked about selling.

PoppyMod said:
Hi,
+1...put your time into the 302.
Do an autopsy to determine the cause. When mine died, I found the oil pump locked up due to a bit of umbrella seal jambed in it. To this day, regardless of being new, I'm not a fan of umbrella seals.
Good Luck!

Been there, done that, and still have a spiraled pump shaft to prove it.

KnightRider · Aug 1, 2011

Realmongo said:
I would stick with the 302 crank and rods (don't mix them up as they are different lengths). The cams may actually be the same grind with he 302 having a retarded timing set. DO NOT let the cam and lifers become seperated from which lobe they belong too if you have to use the original cam! If you can provide he casting numbers of the blocks and heads we can approximate what your compression ratio will be.

Here are the casitng #'s I was able to find:
Heads D70E DA
Block E68E BA - On the block
5H21 - ON a metal plate screwed on the block
I also noticed XXX stamped in the llifer valley - not sure if that means anything.

Pistons H273cp .030 03-020-04c

Casting # on the 289 head is C5AE 10

65ShelbyClone · Aug 2, 2011

D7OE equates to 1977 heads and I think they have ~69cc chambers.

I think the "8" on the block is actually an S, making it an E6SE or 1986 production roller cam block. The "XXX" is another way to ID a roller block, although the two bolt bosses in the lifter valley are a bigger giveaway IMO.

KnightRider · Aug 2, 2011

65ShelbyClone said:
D7OE equates to 1977 heads and I think they have ~69cc chambers.

I think the "8" on the block is actually an S, making it an E6SE or 1986 production roller cam block. The "XXX" is another way to ID a roller block, although the two bolt bosses in the lifter valley are a bigger giveaway IMO.

HUMMM. Dosen't sound like it came out of a early 70 cougar then, sounds more like a transplant into a cougar into my hands First thing I noticed the the shape of the oil pan difference as well as the pick up tube. The dipstick that came with the block does not seat in the hole which is located on the oppsite of the block as the 289. Funny thing though the 289 dipstick fits right in the hole fine, may have to do some fabrication on that one to get the correct height to check the oil. Or just buy one. So the roller block means it can accept a roller cam correct? It has a flat tappet in it now, I'll have to pull a bit more and see if I can get the part # to find out what it really is. There are a few other differences in some of the parts I noticed but nothing I should be able to adapt.

I'm taking the heads to a machine shop for a valve job today. Is it possible to have the valve enlarged a small amount to increase the flow a bit? Or would it be better just to go with the stock. Honestly I'd rather put performance head on it but budget will not allow that to happen for a few more years. Cylinder walls look really good I can even see a few horzonital scratches probably made by a honer. Pistons look preaty new. Going to replace most of the seals, whoever rebuilt it went silicone happy and it looks like crap and I noticed several spots where the seals would have leaked.

Overall it sounds like a good block to start with. Anyone know what the HP and TQ specs were for stock? I find too much crap with a google search. So when I go for parts I should look for 1986 302 parts correct? I'll double check the casting # its a bit hard to read. I'm also going to do some research on flat tappet vs roller cams.

Now I need to find out if the new hyd lifters and push rods will work or If I need to switch them out.

Thanks for the input.

Travis

65ShelbyClone · Aug 2, 2011

KnightRider said:
1.) HUMMM. Dosen't sound like it came out of a early 70 cougar then, sounds more like a transplant into a cougar into my hands First thing I noticed the the shape of the oil pan difference as well as the pick up tube. The dipstick that came with the block does not seat in the hole which is located on the oppsite of the block as the 289.

2.) I'm taking the heads to a machine shop for a valve job today.

3.) Is it possible to have the valve enlarged a small amount to increase the flow a bit? Or would it be better just to go with the stock. Honestly I'd rather put performance head on it but budget will not allow that to happen for a few more years.

4.) Anyone know what the HP and TQ specs were for stock?

1.) The roller 5.0s typically had a dipstick that went into the driver's side of the engine block and a double-sump oil pan.

2.) Which heads? The 289's? I wouldn't bother with the D7s unless you want to run 70 octane gas or lots of boost.

3.) Yes, although bigger valves won't do much without some portwork. Also be aware that '85-86 rollers have flattop pistons with no valve reliefs. That limits what can be done regarding big valves and performance cams. On a a side note, there are better heads that won't break the bank. GT-40 irons come to mind.

4.) I think the '86 Mustang GT 5.0HO SEFI was rated at 205hp and 280-something ft-lbs. The '86 SVO was consequently derated from 205 to 200hp for sales reasons when this car came out. '87-93 5.0HOs were all essentially 225hp/300ft-lb engines with better heads and a few changes to the upper intake/TB.

If that E6 roller block has a factory flat tappet cam, then it likely came out of a non-HO vehicle like a passenger car, truck, or van. You will need to get the lifter valley "spider" and "dogbones" if you use stock roller lifters. Without them, the lifters are free to rotate in the bores and that will destroy them and the cam immediately.

KnightRider · Aug 2, 2011

65ShelbyClone said:
1.) The roller 5.0s typically had a dipstick that went into the driver's side of the engine block and a double-sump oil pan.

2.) Which heads? The 289's? I wouldn't bother with the D7s unless you want to run 70 octane gas or lots of boost.

3.) Yes, although bigger valves won't do much without some portwork. Also be aware that '85-86 rollers have flattop pistons with no valve reliefs. That limits what can be done regarding big valves and performance cams. On a a side note, there are better heads that won't break the bank. GT-40 irons come to mind.

4.) I think the '86 Mustang GT 5.0HO SEFI was rated at 205hp and 280-something ft-lbs. The '86 SVO was consequently derated from 205 to 200hp for sales reasons when this car came out. '87-93 5.0HOs were all essentially 225hp/300ft-lb engines with better heads and a few changes to the upper intake/TB.

If that E6 roller block has a factory flat tappet cam, then it likely came out of a non-HO vehicle like a passenger car, truck, or van. You will need to get the lifter valley "spider" and "dogbones" if you use stock roller lifters. Without them, the lifters are free to rotate in the bores and that will destroy them and the cam immediately.

Thanks for the info. That would mean the pistons are definatly not stock, those things have good size valve releifs. I may as well give porting a try since I have the head completly dissembled. I'll also see if I can come by some GT-40 heads. Was that HP rating with a 2 or 4 bbl carb?

I'll have to see what I have for clearance with the double sump and make sure it dosen't hit the aftermarket anti-sway bar I put on. 1-1/8 inch body hardly has any roll taking corners compared to the stock bar.

Definatly turning into a larger project than I had anticipated. But a good learning experiance for when I get ready to do the 390 I'm going to put in my 66 f-250.

Thanks

289 woes

KnightRider

New Member

2+2GT

PoppyMod

Member

robbz28

Member

Realmongo

I prefer to be called "Evil Genius"

rbohm

KnightRider

New Member

jerthemost

Member

Realmongo

I prefer to be called "Evil Genius"

rbohm

sparx

Member

hhead

robbz28

Member

Hack

65ShelbyClone

KnightRider

New Member

65ShelbyClone

KnightRider

New Member

65ShelbyClone

KnightRider

New Member

Similar threads

289 woes

New Member

Member

Member

I prefer to be called "Evil Genius"

New Member

Member

I prefer to be called "Evil Genius"

Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency