dumb Q but can you make a 289 into a 5.0?

65stang289 · Feb 10, 2004

what does it take to do this if you can. What is the big difference in the 5.0 to the 4.6 ... ITS just all internals right that make it different. My buddy has a 5.0 HO in his 91 and it is a 302. So what things are different. I want a 5.0 in my 65 stang I just put the 5.0 HO STICKER on the back of the deck HAHAHA SO THAT ADDS EXTRA HP RIGHT <<<<<<<< JUST A JOKE.

mp67 · Feb 10, 2004

65stang289 said:
what does it take to do this if you can. What is the big difference in the 5.0 to the 4.6 ... ITS just all internals right that make it different. My buddy has a 5.0 HO in his 91 and it is a 302. So what things are different. I want a 5.0 in my 65 stang I just put the 5.0 HO STICKER on the back of the deck HAHAHA SO THAT ADDS EXTRA HP RIGHT <<<<<<<< JUST A JOKE.

The 289 and 302(5.0) share the same cylinder bore. The 302 has a longer stroke, giving it more cubes. You can stroke a 289 to more cubes just as you can any engine. The 4.6 is completely different. Its a modular moter with overhead cams. The 302 and 5.0 is the same as cubic inches go. The modern 302 just got the name 5.0 and is a roller cammed engine with one serpentine belt for accessories. And fuel injection. You can convert an older block to this stuff if you want. Otherwise find a wrecked 5.0 mustang and pirate the engine, electronics, fuel injection and put in your car. You will need the wiring harness and computer.

UNVMATT · Feb 10, 2004

Stroker Kit..

SuperDave · Feb 10, 2004

The difference between a 289 and a 302 (5.0) is 13 cubic inches, No big deal, IMO.

The cheap way to make the change is just buy a "big inch" sticker and wow your friends. Just don't get into a situation where you try to prove what you've got.

65stang289 · Feb 10, 2004

LOL super Dave I understand what you mean. I just like looking at the back end of my car and it says 5.0 HO. What is a 289 a 4.6 right or not? SO I can just get a wrecked 5.0 and switch it back to a carb motor and leave the roller cam and rockers in it then? I want a 5.0 but with a carb not fuel injections. What would you all do go with the carb setup or the injection?

Thanks for getting back to me on this.

mp67 · Feb 10, 2004

65stang289 said:
LOL super Dave I understand what you mean. I just like looking at the back end of my car and it says 5.0 HO. What is a 289 a 4.6 right or not? SO I can just get a wrecked 5.0 and switch it back to a carb motor and leave the roller cam and rockers in it then? I want a 5.0 but with a carb not fuel injections. What would you all do go with the carb setup or the injection?

Thanks for getting back to me on this.

If you could get the motor, fuel injection, wiring, and computor from the same car, I would go with the fuel injection. Less tuning to do. Better fuel economy, easier to supercharge.

sixtyfive · Feb 10, 2004

289 = somewhere around 4.8
281 = 4.6 the newer modular mustang engine

going up to a 302 from a 289 wont be worth it.

FIRE14142002 · Feb 10, 2004

65 The 4.6 is only 281 cubic inches and a totally defferent type of motor (no push rods). There is no difference in cubes between a 5.0 and 302. 5.0 was just the new and mysterious way to refer to the 302 motor with the new fuel injection and roller cam. This probably came about due to the high horsepower foriegn motors being refered to in the liter designation, the 5.0 is 5 liters of displacement(instead of 302 cubic inches).

NoKitten · Feb 10, 2004

SuperDave said:
The difference between a 289 and a 302 (5.0) is 13 cubic inches, No big deal, IMO.

The cheap way to make the change is just buy a "big inch" sticker and wow your friends. Just don't get into a situation where you try to prove what you've got.

So I should put the 5.0 badge on my 73?

~meow

bartman · Feb 10, 2004

changing from 289 to 5.0 isn't too hard. I did it in a 66. You will need to go with 50 oz. counter balance in your flywheel and harmonic balancer as compared to 28 oz. I put a edelbrock preformer intake and holley 600 4bbl. Then you don't have to mess with powering computer or changing wiring harnesses. If you go with older style distributer it makes things easier also. It would be good to go with a pertronix (no points) setup. Also if you use your old dist. you need to change the gear that fits into the cam. It is harder metal than the newwer cam and will wear your cam in the 5.0. Even carbed mine got 22 mph and could dust my neghibors 89 IROC with a 350. At leaste to about 90 then he would start to cath me.

DarkBuddha · Feb 10, 2004

BTW, don't confuse the 5.0 of the past with the recent 5.0 Cammer motor that Ford is beginning to produce (as seen at SEMA in that '65 black fastback).

dodgestang · Feb 10, 2004

NoKitten said:
So I should put the 5.0 badge on my 73?

~meow

maybe I should put a 6.7 liter badge on my 65 too

K:^P · Feb 10, 2004

bartman said:
changing from 289 to 5.0 isn't too hard. I did it in a 66. You will need to go with 50 oz. counter balance in your flywheel and harmonic balancer as compared to 28 oz. I put a edelbrock preformer intake and holley 600 4bbl. Then you don't have to mess with powering computer or changing wiring harnesses. If you go with older style distributer it makes things easier also. It would be good to go with a pertronix (no points) setup. Also if you use your old dist. you need to change the gear that fits into the cam. It is harder metal than the newwer cam and will wear your cam in the 5.0. Even carbed mine got 22 mph and could dust my neghibors 89 IROC with a 350. At leaste to about 90 then he would start to cath me.

Along with that, the 5.0 have a different firing order, water pump, different timing cover. BTW, the opposite is true on the distributer gear, if I read it right. The gear needs to be stainless steel to match the roller camshaft of the 5.0.

SuperDave · Feb 10, 2004

65stang289 said:
LOL super Dave I understand what you mean. I just like looking at the back end of my car and it says 5.0 HO. What is a 289 a 4.6 right or not? SO I can just get a wrecked 5.0 and switch it back to a carb motor and leave the roller cam and rockers in it then? I want a 5.0 but with a carb not fuel injections. What would you all do go with the carb setup or the injection?

Thanks for getting back to me on this.

Carb set up is simpler (no electronics) AND lest expensive. EFI has it's advantages although.

The 302 to 5.0 liter designation was nothing but a marketing ploy by Ford. In the case of the 4.6 liter, it's departure from the old design which gives it more punch and better mileage.

Contrary to popular belief, there IS a substitute for cubic inches.

Lswhat · Feb 10, 2004

if you are going to carb it find a good 87 or 88 motor because the have better heads so u wont have to change them. if u change from a fulie head to a carb head it changes the length needed for the pushrod and its not a whole lot of fun trying to find the right one. oh yeah and use a 68 radiator so u can use a later water pump, trying to line it up with the rad for a 289 sucks trust me it took like 3 weeks to get it done.

302 coupe · Feb 10, 2004

there is some slightly off info here... All of the 87-93 mustang 5.0 fuel injected engines were the same, with the exception that some had forged pistons, I'm not sure of the years though. Same heads(trusty E7TE), cam, and compression.

All you need to get is a 87-93 HO longblock and hardened dist. gear if you want a 302 that bad.

You can reuse the 289's oil pan, timing cover, water pump, intake, headers, and dist.(after you put a hardened gear on it). Reuse the 289's flywheel/flexplate and harmonic balancer and you can avoid the hassle of 28 and 50oz balance issues.

Basically, your adding 13 cubes and a roller cam. It's not worth the trouble IMO unless the 289 is worn out.

If you want to make your 289 into a 302, all you need to change is the crank and rods. Normally, a full rebuild would go along with this procedure though.

302 coupe · Feb 10, 2004

another thing, someone mentioned about sticking with the 50oz balance. This opens a whole 'nother can of worms. The 50 oz balancer has timing marks that are oriented differently than a 289's. This means the 289's timing pointer will be useless. The pointer can't be relocated because of the pass. side water pump outlet. You could use the 5.0 timing cover and pointer, but then the water pump outlet(driver side) is wrong and there is no where to bolt your fuel pump either. Also, your 289's crank pulley won't fit the 5.0 balancer, so you'll have to do some pulley searching(which is no fun).

So, reuse your 28 oz flywheel and 28 oz balancer off your 289 and all your problems will be solved. The late model engine won't know the difference.

bartman · Feb 10, 2004

K:^P said:
Along with that, the 5.0 have a different firing order, water pump, different timing cover. BTW, the opposite is true on the distributer gear, if I read it right. The gear needs to be stainless steel to match the roller camshaft of the 5.0.

You are absolutely right, I forgot the firing order is different. I shouldn't have though, I figured that one out the hard way. It is the same firing order as a 351 I think. You also have to fill hole in block from dipstick and use the oil pan off the 289.

bartman · Feb 10, 2004

302 coupe said:
another thing, someone mentioned about sticking with the 50oz balance. This opens a whole 'nother can of worms. The 50 oz balancer has timing marks that are oriented differently than a 289's. This means the 289's timing pointer will be useless. The pointer can't be relocated because of the pass. side water pump outlet. You could use the 5.0 timing cover and pointer, but then the water pump outlet(driver side) is wrong and there is no where to bolt your fuel pump either. Also, your 289's crank pulley won't fit the 5.0 balancer, so you'll have to do some pulley searching(which is no fun).

So, reuse your 28 oz flywheel and 28 oz balancer off your 289 and all your problems will be solved. The late model engine won't know the difference.

You can buy custom pulley balancer and flywheel for 50 oz at mustangs plus works like a charm

302 coupe · Feb 10, 2004

they aren't cheap though.....extra cost that may not be justifiable, especially when the old stuff will work just as good. It is a viable alternative however .

dumb Q but can you make a 289 into a 5.0?

65stang289

New Member

mp67

UNVMATT

New Member

SuperDave

Early-Model Mentor

65stang289

New Member

mp67

sixtyfive

Member

FIRE14142002

New Member

NoKitten

New Member

bartman

Member

DarkBuddha

dodgestang

Active Member

K:^P

Member

SuperDave

Early-Model Mentor

Lswhat

New Member

302 coupe

302 coupe

bartman

Member

bartman

Member

302 coupe

Similar threads

dumb Q but can you make a 289 into a 5.0?

New Member

New Member

Early-Model Mentor

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Member

Active Member

Member

Early-Model Mentor

New Member

Member

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency