• Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech

How to identify a 289 vs 302?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno Duck
  • Start date Start date Feb 26, 2006

Techno Duck

New Member
Apr 3, 2003
4
0
0
Long Island, New York
Feb 26, 2006
#1
  • Feb 26, 2006
  • #1
Hey, my friend has a '68 Mustang couple, 3-speed manual. He bought the car about 5 years ago in HS and its sat unused in his garage for more than 3/4 of that time. Mostly due to insuring two cars...etc. Anyway he mentioned he was thinking of selling it and i told him i would buy it if he still wanted to in August (or around fall of '06).

Its not a huge buying point, but i was interested in figuring out which engine the car has in it. It originally came with a 289, however the previous owner said he swapped for a 302 (however my friend never verified). It has the badges on the fender..however that doesnt say much. Is it possible to visually tell the diference between the two engines? Or should i start looking around for the engine code, which should be on the intake manifold ive read?

Also what is the redline on these motors? The car does not have a tach and we were going to add one once the weather warms up.

Was looking at buying a 'go-fast' kinda car. Im big on handling, have a Porsche 944 with some suspension work for autocross fun..would like to get something thats faster in a straight line. Was thinking of a 944 Turbo, however forgot how fun muscle cars always are (and cheaper for the most part). Always wanted to get one as a project car in HS, my father warned me i would never finish these $1500 project cars you see floating around on eBay, he was right. This car needs minimal work really, newly repainted, garaged. It still has the drum brakes on the front (stopping is an adventure), and the seats dont hold well...i practically fell on my friend as he was doing a donut, slide all over the place. So brakes and maybe race seats would be first on the list.

Another question i just thought of, was a locking rear end a option for Mustangs of this vintage? Only one wheel spins on the few occasions he launched the car hard, usually is the passenger rear.

I appreciate the info..
 

fvike

Member
Aug 24, 2004
335
0
16
Mosjøen, Norway
Feb 26, 2006
#2
  • Feb 26, 2006
  • #2
You will find the engine serial on the block under the starter. Locking rears was an option in '68.
 
J

John Z

Founding Member
Sep 21, 2000
581
0
0
Morgantown WV
Feb 26, 2006
#3
  • Feb 26, 2006
  • #3
fvike said:
You will find the engine serial on the block under the starter.
Click to expand...

That is actually a casting number. It is not tied to a specific vehicle. Casting numbers can be revealing. Here is a guide to understanding these numbers.
http://www.classicmustang.com/decoding_part_numbers.htm

Other than the original tag on the motor, which is usually long gone, there is very little way to externally tell a 289 from a 302. If the casting number is before the 1968 production year you know it is a 289. If it is 1969 or later it is a 302. If a 4 barrel (J code) it is a 302. If it is a 2 barrel engine then it could be either a 302 or 289. Frugle Ford used 289 internals on 302 blocks in some cars, especially early in the production year. The way to tell for certain is to measure the stroke, 289 = 2.87" stroke, 302 = 3.00" stroke.
 

68stangman

New Member
Sep 23, 2003
49
0
0
New Orleans area
Feb 27, 2006
#4
  • Feb 27, 2006
  • #4
The 289 three speed in 68 is undoubtedly a C-code rated at 190 hp. The heads had larger compression chambers, and the carb was a 2bbl. The rear was a 2.79 peg leg. If the engine was swapped for a 302, you can tell by taking off the intake manifold. "302" was cast on the block above the lifter valley. Even if it is a 302, it doesn't mean it is any higher performing than the 289 originally equipped. If it was swapped for a 68 302 with the 68 heads, then it was a good swap. A later seventies 302 had different heads with a smaller compression ratio and emissions junk. You should get the numbers off the heads to find out how big the combustion chambers are.
 

Techno Duck

New Member
Apr 3, 2003
4
0
0
Long Island, New York
Feb 27, 2006
#5
  • Feb 27, 2006
  • #5
I will defenetley look into it. I really appreciate the info.
 

SoCalCruising

Founding Member
Jul 25, 2000
2,437
0
47
SoCal
Feb 28, 2006
#6
  • Feb 28, 2006
  • #6
You can also remove the pan and have someone rotate the crank (by turning the damper bolt or bumping the starter with the coil wire detached, etc., easiest with plugs removed so there's no compression to battle). 289 crank is has a "1", a 302 a "2" and a 351 a "3" on it near the snout.
 
6

68conv4sp

New Member
Oct 24, 2005
270
0
0
Feb 28, 2006
#7
  • Feb 28, 2006
  • #7
would it be possible to take out a spark plug, insert a thin dowel and hand rotate the engine to measure the stroke (3" = 302, 2.87" = 289)?
 

SoCalCruising

Founding Member
Jul 25, 2000
2,437
0
47
SoCal
Mar 1, 2006
#8
  • Mar 1, 2006
  • #8
Wait a minute, didn't '68s come with 302s? I thought '67 was the last year for the 289 - they didn't even have enough 289 blocks to complete 289 engine production and had to use 302 blocks stuffed with 289 internals to finish off the '67 build. Why do you think the car came with a 289?
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Mar 1, 2006
#9
  • Mar 1, 2006
  • #9
68conv4sp said:
would it be possible to take out a spark plug, insert a thin dowel and hand rotate the engine to measure the stroke (3" = 302, 2.87" = 289)?
Click to expand...
That won't work due to the angle of the spark plug hole. You could try it with one of each engine, but then you'd have to know that you had one of each to start with. But then again you're dealing with that plug hole angle. A .013 difference will be even less with a shallower angle. Only sure way to find out is to either remove the oilpan and verify it using the crank casting numbers, or remove the heads and measure the stroke. -------------------------------Socal------ you've got 67 and 68 model years confused. 68 was the changeover year for the 289 to 302.
 

mfp4073

Founding Member
Mar 14, 2001
387
0
38
Hells Ditch, FL
Mar 1, 2006
#10
  • Mar 1, 2006
  • #10
yeah, all 67s were 289s, 68 could be 289(2bbl) or 302(4bbl) IIRC.
 

SHIFTY101EASY

New Member
Feb 24, 2006
129
0
0
Mar 1, 2006
#11
  • Mar 1, 2006
  • #11
yeah i have a 1968 and it was originally a 289 2v and its now swapped for a 302 4v....
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Mar 1, 2006
#12
  • Mar 1, 2006
  • #12
68's came with any one of the straight sixes, 289 2bbl, 302-2bbl, 302-4bbl, 390-2 or 4 bbl, and the 428 CJ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bought a 2001 GT from My Son
  • Hawkester
  • Oct 17, 2025
  • The Welcome Wagon
Replies
1
Views
189
The Welcome Wagon Oct 17, 2025
gkomo
F
289 to 302 Engine
  • Fri Guy
  • Feb 13, 2025
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
650
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Feb 13, 2025
Fri Guy
F
T
What's it Worth? 2002 GT conv/auto
  • tonydetesta
  • Jan 7, 2026
  • What is it Worth?!?!?
Replies
3
Views
619
What is it Worth?!?!? Jan 21, 2026
Mustang5L5
D
Engine HO cam in non HO roller block ‘93 f150
  • DanC1993f150
  • Mar 21, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
7
Views
272
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Mar 29, 2026
General karthief
R
Rcapri - 1980 Capri, bought new by inlaws
  • RCapri
  • Sep 18, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
19
Views
794
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 20, 2025
manicmechanic007
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?