is there a difference in depth of the shaft on the pumps? i see the 289 timing covers have a profile that accepts the impeller on the pump (no backing plate) and the later ones have a backup plate on the waterpump and the impeller is set outside the timing cover.
so as long as i put on the timing cover off of the 302 i have it should work no problem right. If your wondering i put my 289 in a fox and cant find a hose to work. It would be easier if i could find a hose do you guys know where i could find a hose to work.
so as long as i put on the timing cover off of the 302 i have it should work no problem right. If your wondering i put my 289 in a fox and cant find a hose to work. It would be easier if i could find a hose do you guys know where i could find a hose to work.
Summit sells long radiator hoses for this. Or you can do what us "rednecks" have done for ages and splice two hoses together with a short piece of exhaust tubing. This is the method I used to make a lower hose for my V8 Ranger. Looks like crap but it's worked for 5 years now.
Well, as I recall, the timing cover that will work with it doesn't have a dipstick tube hole, the later cars had them in the side of the pan. Since you've put the 289 into a Fox body, I'm guessing you used the later double sump pan. If this is correct, you should be able to use the late model front dress as well at the late model timing cover and pump just fine.
Now, did you use the early balancer? You don't say if it's an auto or a stick, but the 289 has a 28 oz imbalance and the late model 302 has a 50 oz. imbalance.
Using the late timing cover on the 289 will require that he take extra care in bolting on the cover, namely getting the cover located correctly with the front seal. The late cover uses two dowels that fit into the cover and block, the 289 lacks the countersunk portion for the dowels.