de-stroking to 289?

[KamiKaziDK]

Has anyone ever de-stroked their engine? I was thinking of doing this with my 65 Coupe project. I was thinking of yanking the 289 and putting the crank and rods into a roller 5.0 block, but I'm not too incredibly sure it would work. If so though that'd be awesome, a block that weighs a tiny bit less, is stronger, and is a roller to boot!

 

[Look Its Aaron]

Do you really think it would be cool? You think the weight is worth the cubic inches?

I dont know if it would work. How bout drop a Honda engine in there, that way you get SOHC and it weighs a lot less.

:/

 

[KamiKaziDK]

I'm sacrificing a massive 13 ci..... The 289 is a higher reving engine, so you can make a more broad powerband with it. How bout no more ***gy honda ideas, k? Oh yeah...that's right....that 385 hp cobra engine is what???? oh yeah....281 cubic inches? And it's how much smaller and makes how much more power than a 5.0 stock?? How bout we stay on the subject of what I was asking and not make comments that have no brain power behind them.

 

[Mavrick]

What LookIt'sAaron is saying, is that it's not worth it.

Your cobra motor statement is retarded... Why do you think the 281ci cobra motor makes 390hp? Well, new technology for one.. and its DOHC and comes stock with a power adder..

 

[pb_paulie_b]

for it to be real you'll need all forged internals to take advantage of those 9000 revs you seek. example 289 ci @ 6000= 289hp, 289 @ 9000=500hp...PB

 

[KamiKaziDK]

Cobra R motor that is ALL motor, not supercharged. Or I could simply say 300hp mustang GT motor. Then if you want to pick it apart about how Ford had a 285 hp engine in 1965, ya'know 40 years ago...but we've got all this NEW technology. And honda motors are ohc too, so does that new technology make them better than our motors?? ~sigh~ PLEASE stay on the subject, I'm not asking if it's worth it or not, I know I could stroke out a lightning motor to 427 cubic inches and make it fit in a 65, but I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. I don't wanna be another guy with a classic car and a roller 5.0 either, I'm shooting for something different. And a roller 289 WILL make just as much power as a 302. So once again......Does anyone know if it's possible to do this?

 

[TheUser]

I'm no expert and can't guarantee anything, so make sure and get a 2nd opinion. I searched google and found a "history of the windsor engine" page. It said the 302 replaced the 289 w/ a longer stroke, so it doesn't sound like much else changed. The bore of the 289 and 302 are both 4". Interesting idea, but I hope you're doing it soley for yourself because there's no way to actually show someone how many cubic inches it is and you're still using the 302 block anyway. It's your money and your car, so have fun.

 

[tjm73]

The 289 block is actually a little bit stronger. The extra weight it carries is in all the 'right' places...ie the main bearing webbing. It's work just fine as long as the machine shop knows that you are putting your 289 rotating assembly inthe 302 block. They are dimensionally the same outside. If the 289 car is a stick shift the 3023 roller engien won't have the clutch pivot you will need for the clutch to operate. Windsor-Fox makes a bolt on pivot I think.

Horsepower ratings is the '60's were done differently. They had no accessories on them. They could pull any engine run it and choose the highest power producer to get the ratign they advertised. If a 5.0 was rated the same way the '65-'66 289 was rated it'd be in the 265 hp (possibly higher) neighborhood. Instead thet 5.0 was rated with all accessories intact as the engine would have been installed in the car. The K-code's were probably closer to a true 240-250 horse engine as installed in a car.

 

[Daggar]

if anything, I'd stroke out the 289 block.

 

[Look Its Aaron]

Cobra R motor that is ALL motor, not supercharged.

if you want to get picky the cobra r was a 5.4

 

[KamiKaziDK]

bah! I eat my words on that one Aaron, I forgot it was a 5.4. tjm, I'd always heard the 289 was weaker, but that's good to know. So maybe the way to go is to spend the extra cash and go true roller with the 289 block then? I have a toploader in it now.

 

[hllon4whls]

bah! I eat my words on that one Aaron, I forgot it was a 5.4. tjm, I'd always heard the 289 was weaker, but that's good to know. So maybe the way to go is to spend the extra cash and go true roller with the 289 block then? I have a toploader in it now.

Why not go full roller 331 in a 289 block? Forged internals so you can zing it to the moon if you so desire.

 

[90mustangGT]

KamaKazi: So let me get this straight, your saying that the stroke of the engine determines it's powerband and it's capability to rev??? My buddy John with his 351W based 424cid stroker that revvs to 9000rpm. 4.1" stroke. The powerband has a lot more to do with the heads than the shortblock. The revving capability is mostly in the valvetrain, and somewhat the mains. No offence, but you seem to be mislead in your knowlege on engines. OHC has it's advantages due to less valvetrain weight and such, but takes a bigger motor to get less displacment. Plenty of guys on here running 302's with a decent H/C/I setup putting 390FWHP, (fly Wheel Horse Power) of course we only talk about RWHP, (Rear Wheel Horse Power) which is a much different story. 390FWHP = 340RWHP.

 

[iskwezm]

if you want to try it, i have a 289 shortblock ill sell cheap

 

[KamiKaziDK]

KamaKazi: So let me get this straight, your saying that the stroke of the engine determines it's powerband and it's capability to rev??? .

I never said that at all, did I? OH YEAH....I said higher reving engines make broader powerbands. Oh, and thanks for explaining to me that FWHP and RWHP are two different things to your allmighty knowledge. How bout next time if you have something to say that's :OT: you just don't say it. Thanks to all the people who ACTUALLY answered my question and gave me some new things to think about.

 

[Paul Perreca]

i'd get a crate motor LOL HAHAA

 

[Dark Knight]

The 289 block is a bit stronger than the roller 302 block. You cant just drop the 289 crank, rods and pistons in a late 302 block, the rear main seal is different so the crank would need to be machined to use the one piece seal.

You could use a hyd roller cam in the 289 block, but it would need to be a small base circle cam, the late 5.0 hyd rollers are to tall for the lifter bores in the 289 block.

If it's a street car, why would you want a high winding engine anyway? Low RPM torque will be alot better in a street car with alot less strain on the bottom end.

 

[Daggar]

I never said that at all, did I? OH YEAH....I said higher reving engines make broader powerbands. Oh, and thanks for explaining to me that FWHP and RWHP are two different things to your allmighty knowledge. How bout next time if you have something to say that's :OT: you just don't say it. Thanks to all the people who ACTUALLY answered my question and gave me some new things to think about.

Dude... you need to get a grip (or develope a thicker skin).

 

[ForceFed70]

I see little advantage to de-stroking an engine for 13ci. Destroking has it's advantages... but the amount of money/work to only destroke it 13ci is not worth it.

Now... destroking an early 69-74 351W to 331ci along with swapping to a roller cam and lifters. THAT would be worth it.

 

[RsStanG1987]

Arent theese 300+ cobra and Gt engines your talking about Modular engines??