3 part engine question

chucks1967 · Mar 27, 2008

Ok so I am doing a simple intake swap... and everything is/was ok untill I took off the old intake manifold (2bbl intake with 289 stamp on it). I get it off and in the lifter vally there is a 302 stamp? What? so now im confused. is the block not orrigonal. the stamp on the finder says the engine code is "c" which I thought was a 289 2v 200 HP. I knew when I bout the car that the previous owner had put in a cam and headders, but said the block was orrigonal. have I been lied to? and the second question is should I care...... Third part of this question is I was under the impression that the push rods should not be able to spin with thumb and forefinger when pre-loaded... is that true and if so should I adjust my lifters.... the engine ran great before the intake swap, but should I adjust now that i have the intake off.
Thanks in advance.

LMan · Mar 27, 2008

1. 1967 was a crossover year from 289 to 302. No surprise that you have a 302-stamped block.

2. It doesn't matter.

3. You cannot adjust hydraulic lifters. Don't worry about it.

68keyblr · Mar 27, 2008

LMan said:
1. 1967 was a crossover year from 289 to 302. No surprise that you have a 302-stamped block.

2. It doesn't matter.

3. You cannot adjust hydraulic lifters. Don't worry about it.

+1, If you have stock rockers then there's no adjustment...they are simply torqued down.

chucks1967 · Mar 27, 2008

ok.... so if Im understanding you correctly.... the 67 engine could still be a 289 just with 302 stamped on the block, or is it truly a 302 advertised as a 289..... if it is a 289 is it just a de-stroked 302? if so that’s cool, and I said lifters I had a brain fart and ment to say rocker arms.... they are not adjustable?

When I was taking out the old intake, the bolts were not tight at all, they could be removed with very little effort. What are the torque of the intake bolts and what pattern should they be torque?

rbohm · Mar 27, 2008

i also have a 289 block from 1967 that has the 302 cast in the valley. no big deal. measure the stroke to see which crank you have. by the way 1968 was the crossover year for the 289 to 302, NOT 1967.

remember that the 302 is a factory stroked 289. ford wanted more low end torque from the little engine because the cars were getting heavier, so the added .13" of stroke.

to determine of you have adjustable rocker arms or not, pull one rocker arm and look at the stud. if it has a shoulder just below the threads, then you have non-adjustable rockers. if on the other hand the studs are straight then you have adjustable rockers.

chucks1967 · Mar 27, 2008

Would you think that there was any kind of vac leak arround the intake because of the intake bolts being loose....

D.Hearne · Mar 27, 2008

I think the real reason for Ford's stroking the 289 to 302 was for Trans Am racing, to take advantage of the 5 liter displacement limit. Otherwise I agree with all everyone's posted. No surprise that the intake bolts would be loose. They're only torqued to 20-25 ft/lbs to start with and over time, the gaskets settle and they'll loosen up. But once the gaskets have bonded and the seal made, there's little chance of vaccum leaks.

rbohm · Mar 27, 2008

DH, i agree with you to a point. remember that the 5 liter rule was around from the beginning, and ford could have taken advantage of it at anytime. however since the 289 was doing so well in both B production racing, and in early trans am racing, they decided to leave well enough alone, until chevrolet came out with their 302 in 1967, thus ford had to respond in kind.

D.Hearne · Mar 27, 2008

Yea, you're probably right there.

htwheelz67 · Mar 27, 2008

you were lied to.......its a 302 more than likely unless someone put 289 internals in a 302 block.

68keyblr · Mar 28, 2008

For the torque value and sequence on the intake, double check the manual, but I believe for stock it's about 25 ft lbs and it's an inside out torque pattern like the heads...but double check that. If you have an aluminum intake I'd torque to 20 ft lbs.

3 part engine question

chucks1967

New Member

LMan

68keyblr

chucks1967

New Member

rbohm

chucks1967

New Member

D.Hearne

New Member

rbohm

D.Hearne

New Member

htwheelz67

Member

68keyblr

Similar threads

3 part engine question

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency