But the internet says that you can't stroke a 289!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 авг 2023
- I have a 1964 5-bolt 289 that I've stroked to 347ci with an Eagle forged steel crank, Eagle H-beam rods, and Mahle pistons. The popular sentiment on the internet is that 289's can't be stroked, and that 5-bolt blocks are only useful as boat anchors. This sentiment couldn't be more wrong.
Авто/Мото
I've never in my entire life heard anyone say you can't stroke a 289.
Ford did it in the sixties and continued it for decades. It's called a 302.
Solid point, if only the internet were so sensible! 😁 Thanks for watching!
If you bore a 289 30 over, don't you get a 302?
@@jimbradd2783 No, a 4.030" bore x 2.87 stroke would give you 293 cubes. 4.060 x 2.87 would give you 297 cubes. If you used a 289 crankshaft in a Dart block, with a 4.125 bore x 2.87 stroke, you'd have 307 cubes.
Exactly. There’s literally infinite number of stroker kits for 289/302 ford. 289 isn’t special. I’ve owned a mustang restoration shop since 2001. I have no idea how many I’ve built. But it’s in the hundreds.
@@puttervids472 I'm not sure about infinite, but as far as stroker kits go I think the only ones they offer are 3.25 or 3.40, any other odd stroke units would need to be special ordered, and don't come as a kit.
those pre-balanced kits look like good deal for a home build - nice content 👍
Yes, they really make things easier - especially if you live in an area where there is limited access to a really good machine shop. Thanks for the comment!
They're only close balanced. They still require a good machine shop to precission balance them with the "bob weights", the flywheel & the harmonic balancer on them.
A 289 is impressive on its own without strokin it
I couldn't agree more! I stroked this one just because I wanted to, but I had zero complaints with it as a 289. In fact, I'm going to buy another one and keep it as a 289, I'll just have to figure out what to put it in. Thanks for watching!
Nice video Bill.
You are absolutely correct, no problem using a stroker in a 289.
This is a nice build.
I just subscribed to your channel.
Have a great week. 👍
Thanks for subscribing!
I am an avid 289 fan. I built mine with stock crank and she only quit revving after 8500. Made about 350+ HP. The 289 blocks are hard to find but 302 blocks are plentiful. The 302s have thicker castings then the 289s. It's not that you can't, it's if you should. I love the stock stroke of a 289, if I went stroker I would just buy a run of the mill 302 block. If she blows, no harm to history. Mexican or Australian blocks are all the same dimensions as a 289 but even better than the normal 302s. Have fun!
Thanks for your comments, and thanks for watching!
No Aussie Windsors ever. All out 302Ws are imported.
We did make Cleveland blocks though until 83.
The 289 has a 2.87” stroke, the 302 has a 3” stroke. The formula to determine an engines size is .7854 X Bore X Bore X Stroke X number of cylinders. If you have a decent calculator you can square the bore, but some cheap calculators don’t have that function.
The Rod length for the 289 is 5.155” and the 302 is 5.09”. The Boss 302’s Rod length is 5.15” and it can be used in the 289 with a loss in compression. The Boss rod is forged while the other two are cast.
Thanks for the info, and thanks for watching!
cheap calculators aren't worth having.
I’m really not a Ford guy by any means but this was a very interesting bit on the 289 cu in. Great video and build. Thanks for teaching me something new. 👏 👍
Thank you so much!
Bill, first off, I want to say a big thank you for the block oil mods video, that really got me to thinking. I will be doing that mod to my block because of your video. I will do the same to my cylinder heads as well. I will also be completely polishing the valve spring galley area of the cyl. head as well as the lifter galley. It won’t make any more power as a result, but it will speed up the oil return, and that can only help the big picture. Also, because of your videos, I am about to start getting parts together for a “late” 260, a C4OE casting. I am going in a completely different direction than most any other Ford guy has gone. Not “dare to be different”, mind you, but just my way. Stuff that everyone says won’t work, junk this, junk that, ( as in parts selection). I will say this, think Engine Masters. ( this isn’t my first rodeo, I have been around the block a few times) No, I didn’t say I’m an engine master, it’s just my interpretation of their approach and parts selection. In reality, I’m just standing on the shoulders of guys that are way more experienced than me. All I am doing is copying their approach along with a really strange set of parts. In theory and on paper, it should run like the wind. But, reality says it will either be a turd, or it’s going to run damned good. The dyno will either give good news, or bad. I will keep you posted.
Thanks for your comments! I've never worked with a 260 before so I'll be really interested to see how that goes for you. I'm really glad you found the video helpful - many people have shared information with me over the years, and this is my way of passing that on to others, so it makes me really happy to see it well received. Good luck on your project, and thanks for watching!
@@billsgarage I also wanted to say that my choice of transmission will be very off the wall, as well as the crankshaft, intake manifold, and cylinder heads, and carburetion. But, like I said earlier, it should run really good( hopefully). Thanks again !
Actually polishing is bad news. Tidy up the oil returns front and rear but leave the iron as is. It will stabilise both oil and coolant temps. And these engines need all the help they can get in that respect
Right on my man. I know you can’t go hogging out the bores as they get pretty thin and the later blocks have a thin deck casting too.
A good trick I learned years ago to pick a good block (especially with chevs) was to look at the cam tunnel offset at the front. If it was off to one side the cylinder walls are also off to that side making them thinner that way. The Datem centre is off.
Thanks for watching!
That looked like a nice job to me. That motor is going to be impressive
It runs great, I really happy with it. Thanks for watching!
It's a wonderful time to be a hot rodder. When I first got into messing with engines you could hardly find aftermarket heads for a Chevrolet. Now the market is flooded with heads and stroker rotating assemblies for all makes!
I couldn't agree more, it's amazing the things that can be done now vs 30 years ago. Thanks for watching!
Yep, in the days of old you had to rely on a guy who knew a guy, scrounge junkyards and swap meets. Or pay the big bucks at a speed shop if you were lucky enough to have one in your town.
Very solid video sir.
Thank you!
Thanks for debunking "fake news" about the 289. My first car was a '63 Galaxy with a 289 for whatever that's worth! Your build looks nice and clean and well thought out.
I love the early '60s Galaxies! Thanks for watching.
Well done , very thorough video best ever seen
Thank you so much!
100% absolutely correct Bill!
way to shut em up!!
great build buddy, and good luck
Thanks for watching!
I was told the same thing, that I couldn’t stroke my 289. But I did anyway. I stroked it to 331 and ran it in my 64 fairlane for 10 years. I put almost 100,000 miles on it and it still didn’t burn oil. I loved it. It was running strong when I sold the car.
Awesome, I'll bet you had a blast! My 289 originally came out of a '64 Fairlane. Thanks for watching!
i agree i have been running a 347 stroker for 15 yrs
Awesome, here's to another 15 years!
One of the best engines of all time is the 289 ford. Most people think its the 427 FE but Carol Shelby one all the cobra races with 289s.
They have a well-deserved reputation, and I love them! Since I stroked this one, I'm going to have to pick up another one to put in something else. Thanks for watching!
You're correct, it's not the two bolt mains that are the problem, its engine harmonics is why ppl have engine failures with these early blocks. 500HPish at the flywheel all day long.
Thanks for your comments!
If you try this, pay close tension to how far the piston comes out the bottom, longer rod helps
Definitely! Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching!
I've been using a 67 6 bolt block and other than total weight and the lifter casting area in the roller blocks being a little better and bolt holes in the old blocks that are blind, I don't see much of a difference. I do like the new blocks dowel pins in the front cover. People talked about the cylinder bores being shorter in the 289 blocks for years but I never measured one that was any different than my 302's or 5.0. Not saying they didn't make them, saying I have yet to run across one that was different than a E7 or so block. If you are building what I've always built which is 525 to 575hp bracket motors, you will never have a problem with older blocks except that you may experience some wear in the lifter itself with a roller lifter and race type springs (550 to 600 over the nose). Concrete them to the bottom of the water pump holes and have fun. I always internally balance them too but it isn't necessary.
Thanks for your insightful comments, and thanks for watching!
Believe me they are horribly short
Mine was not. It's a 67 289 block and I specifically measured the cylinders up against an E7TE Block when I was tearing it down and they were the same. Maybe its the older blocks that are different but I've never run across an older block.
I loved these engines ..drag raced & oval track....had a 63 2 dr comet street rod which I dropped a 221 v8 screamer in to it...
Sounds like it was a lot of fun, thanks for watching!
I stroked mine with a 3.25" steel crank, stock rods, small end opened to chevy size and 327 pistons. just needs a little valve cutout work. cheap and easy. runs great.
Very cool! Thanks for watching.
I love the Mustang you have there
Thanks - and stay tuned, lots of videos coming on the work that I'm doing to that car. Thanks for watching!
Respectfully, the issue isn't the deck height of the block. Early strokers back in the 1960's used a machined Y block crankshaft to get more displacement. the issue with the 289 block was the length of the cylinder walls--too much stroke could pull a piston out at BDC enough for the piston to rock and cause wear. The last year casting (1967) of the 289 had the 302 length walls, because Ford engineers realized there was a BDC piston rock issue. Boss 302's actually used the longer 289 connecting rod.
Not true at all - I mentioned this in the video. That wildly popular book about SBF engines makes the same claim about the length of the cylinder walls, which is why the internet says that you can't stroke a 289, but reality (and precision measuring equipment) proves otherwise. The length of the cylinder walls on all of my 1964 289s is exactly the same as my 1970 302.
@@billsgarageI agree with you that an engine stroked out needs to get checked out--the more you invest, the more you should investigate. Not all hecho en mexico blocks are great...core shift happens everywhere...and there are low deck Windsors that will bore out to .060 over and still not flex.
Personally, I wouldn't buy a 289 block to max out for three reasons:
1) it sure is seasoned, but it has better odds of a bad machine job in its long past than say, a 1994 302 block
2) if you're scared of flat tappets, it's cheaper to go roller with that 302 block than a 289.
3) around here, 289's sell for restoration prices, while i can snag a roller 302 for $50-$300 and store it away for later, since everyone wants a 351W or a Coyote.
that said, if someone handed me a matching numbers 289, i'd still be tempted to build it the old school way--"cobraized" with cam designs out of the old Shelby catalog. but to each their own, and i'm glad that you found a block you can work with.
Good explanation. Using a good 5.4 inch rod in a stock stroke engine stops the piston rocking.
Kieth Black makes a piston with the correct compression distance.
The 331 is a more stable option than the 347 if wanting to stroke a 302.
Personally if I was going to mess with stroking an engine, I'd do a 372.
Windsor.
Strange, I have measured several And the late 80s on style blocks are about 6mm longer at the bottom.@@billsgarage
Early 302s were way too short and left the piston skirts in the pan. I stripped an 1968 302 with 8 skirts in the pan. And still actually running.
289 rod is slightly over 5", not shorter, 5,155". 302 rods are short.
The piston coming out the top is controlled by the compression distance of the piston. Strokers, or any engine with a different length con rod will have a piston to match the deck height.
One thing to remember is that all small blocks are thin wall and can't take big overbore. That is part of the reason for the better metal.
Boss 351 and 351 CJ are true 4-bolt main small blocks.
Yes, I got mixed up when I was talking in the video. My preference is not to go over 0.030" overbore on these blocks, they tend to get hotspots on the cylinder wall if you go too big. Thanks for your comments!
@@billsgarage Way back, in the middle '70s, I had one develop pinholes in the cylinders from going too big.
Niice video. Are the cylinder bores shorter in the 289 block vs. the 302 blocks? Or are the block dimensions the same?
The common belief is that they are, but in reality they aren't. The blocks have identical dimensions. Thanks for watching!
That engine is sweet!!!
Thanks - it runs great and I'm really happy with it!
I fitted 302 crank and rods using the old ford master parts catalouge with the 289 heads was a rocket 4bbl and ford performance cam
problem is 289 heads flow the worst. All those heads are junk. Late 80s on engines are far better.
For many years, I raced with a set of ported 289 heads that had oversize valves installed. It ran great!
Li ported and polished the heads with slightly larger valves was only for street use like most things on the net not always the right answer just opinions
when you think about block load and strain as the clutch engages and the tires hookup, having a tried and true setup is the key, if this is for casual use and talk will do the job but I would not try to put is beside a new style block like a 4.6 as old block forging worked but it is not like new tech
Yup, just a toy for me. Lots of fun, but no track-level abuse in it's future, so this setup will do fine. Thanks for watching!
Had a 1963 Falcon with a 289 hipo 271 plus hp, 4 speed out of mustang, 9 inch axle 4.57 out of a 59 Galaxy . Crane cam and .030" milled heads and headers and of course a high rise hood. And I still have the Shelby parts catalog. I miss that car.
Sounds awesome, I'll bet you miss it! Thanks for watching!
Thanks! Doing the same . 5 bolt 289.
Awesome, good luck!
Way back in 1963 one of first mods was to turn journals on steel 292 Y block crank and put it in the new 289 for 327 c.i.
I just love hearing about the creative ways stuff like this was done back in the day! Thanks for watching.
Hey just comes back to people passingadvice that they heard many years ago even though most people have never tried itIt's the same thing when people say I have a Corvette motorIt's the same motor as in the basic car It might have the number saying it came off of Corvette or I might have a different grind cam but it's not any different and people still say that to the day
True indeed, thanks for watching!
Very good video, and by the way, your engine looks really awesome. Question what is it going into? Do you have anymore updated videos on this?
Thanks for the kind words! The car is a 1978 Mustang II, and there are a bunch of videos on the build coming soon.
I tried to send you some information on my 76 Mustang II I had, but I guess it was to many characters. Anyway, I’ll try and shorten it. I was working at a Ford dealer in the late 70’s and purchased the from the original owner, a woman who traded it in on a new car, this was 78. I made some changes to it. I wanted the hatch back with a V-8. This one had the 2.8 and was the coupe, I got the heads shaved and removed the smog junk and had a set of custom duals on it. Grant steering wheel and a Hurst T handle aluminum shifter knob and other things.
I also had some Anson aluminum dish mags and some cool Firestone Super Sport tire, they were 60’s all the way around. I had raise the front end by removing the front springs and installing a set of 1” aluminum spacers. I raised the back end with some leafy springs from an E-150 van. One each on both sides. I then took some rubber snubbers from the pickups. I worked in front end and power steering. It worked out well, car sat nice and level. A little stiff. I had the tune up guys tune it for most power and gas mileage, which wasn’t to good. It was better with the smog stuff on.
After I left the dealer, I worked at another shop and purchased some nicer radials. The car road much better. I had the car for a while. My brother ended up with it a few years later. That been over 40 years ago. Oh we all move on. Looking forward to more rebuild videos.
Great motor.
Thanks, I'm really happy with it!
Have you ever put a aod trans in an early ford that just had the c4, would like to have a n overdrive in my 68 mustang?
I never have, but from what I understand it's a pretty straight forward swap. There are even stand-alone computers you can use of you want to run an AOD-E or 4R70W. Good luck!
I know a year, maybe 2 Fomoco had 260ci in the early 80s. Maybe that's the non-strokable motor?
(I worked in an engine machine shop for 10 years and never rebuilt one, we threw them in the garbage!)
The 260s were a precurser to the 289, and were made in the early 1960s. They had a pretty strong racing heritage with the 1962 Shelby AC Cobra and the 1964-66 Sunbeam Tiger, but the 289 quickly came on the scene and overshadowed them, so you really don't see them too much anymore.
255 cubic inches if I remember correctly. Trash can or boat anchor.
Both the 289 and the 302/5.0 Windsor Ford have an 8.2" deck height! By the the way so does the 221" and 260" engines.
Thanks for watching!
Most people who say you can't do something have never actually tried it themselves. I made 392rwhp with a 2.875 stroke and I wish now that I had gone 3.000 or 3.250 for that little bit more. I'll eventually squeeze a few more out of it for that 400+ rwhp dyno sheet.
Nice - you're almost there at 392rwhp, I have no doubt that you'll go beyond 400! And I couldn't agree more with your first statement. Thanks for watching!
Where did your get the rotating assembly from?
I bought it from Eagle: www.eaglerod.com/home Thanks for watching!
I had a 1967 Mustang with a 289 ho and it made 500 horse power on methanol and 12.5 compression and I ended up giving the engine to my nephew so he could put it in a 65 Mustang with that was his father's car, but when they phased out leaded gas he needed new valve seats and he removed the forged pistons and had to buy some 8.5 to ones so it would run on the cheap gas that they are still producing today
It's amazing how long a life these old 289s can have!
looks nice, I went the other way......EVERYONE keeps telling me to do a 383 stroker with my 350 chevy build and I just don't want to deal with all the block clearanceing , small base circle cams, etc etc. At least on my 1st engine build. BTW where did you get that trick main stud girdle?
Good for you for sticking with what you want, rather than what everyone else wants you to do - I definitely wouldn't recommend a stroker as a first build! The girdle came from Trick Flow.
Personally I do not feel the 400 3 3/4" crank helps much in a Chev. A 350 crank in a 400 makes a big bore short stroke engine. Though the spacer bearings leave a little to be desired.
Shelby was running a 325 cheater engines back in '62 and '63. He was almost successful in getting Ford to put that combo into production, along with the competition heads, to combat the Duntov-cammed Chevrolet 327.
I didn't know that, thanks for sharing!
In my personal experience I've heard the myth for years about the shorter cylinder skirts in a 289 vs 302. I've bored every year small Ford block imaginable and I have yet to see a length difference. Gages don't lie. Now where I have seen a difference that DOES affect a stroker or early 302 crank in a 289 block is the bottom of a couple cylinders, #1 and #8 if memory serves me, does NOT have clearance machined for the longer throw weights on the crankshaft and hits the bottom of the cylinders. Remedy: Go to Harbor Freight and buy the cheap 4 1/2" angle grinder and grind the reliefs. Useful to have a 302 block there for reference. You can get identical results with the radius of the grinder wheel.
Thanks for your comments - you can't beat the insight that comes from practical experience! My comment section has a bunch of comments from people who haven't actually done this work telling me why it won't work, it's nice to hear the voice of reason. Thanks for watching!
Curious how much a build like this costs nowadays. I have an old CAT, not Scat 331 kit. I'll be using a roller block 302 and short rods with taller pistons. I'm sold on your combo, but those 3 wheel engine stands make me nervous 😅.
😂🤣 That stand makes me nervous too! I bought it in the early 90s when it was all I could afford and it's been with me ever since. Maybe I'll get myself a 4-legged stand for my birthday.
@@billsgarage I dropped a 283 while moving it and I somehow thought I was going to stop it from hitting the ground when it tipped over. I have the scars as a reminder. I bought myself a four wheel stand with a rotation device from Jegs for Christmas. I'm going to go check out the rest of your build.
@junkyyarddawg I have a CAT crankshaft in a small block chevy. (Cal Auto Transpeed). Nodular Iron. After I bought it, I was impressed with it's machining accuracy. Everything was spot on. I emailed the company asking how much HP it could handle. The China Man actually answered and told me 500 HP. I've abused it over the years and it has held up well.
The 365 hp. Chevrolet 327 was a 2 bolt main engine and worked.. A lot of what we would say are performance engines were 2 bolt mains if it has strong enough main bearing bolts and caps it should be okay...
Definitely true. Thanks for watching!
I like a 289 just like it is. Perfection in iron.
👍
I had a friend build a 289 that should rev way past what should have destroyed it. Somehow someone at Ford found about the engine build and sent some engineers to look at it build. They were apparently quite impressed and offered to purchase the engine. I don’t remember if he sold the engine or gave them the build design or what but I know some thing came out of it. This was over thirty years ago now.
I think all 289s revved past what should have destroyed them - mine hit 8,500rpm a couple of times and had no business doing that! Thanks for watching.
Bill, what is the stroker kit number that you used for this build. What compression did you end up with?
The Eagle part number for my kit is B14003030. The compression calculator says I'm at 9.8:1, which is what I was going for. I could have selected a head with a smaller combustion chamber and bumped up the compression to make more power, but I'm not racing this car. It's just a toy to have fun with, and I can have a lot of fun on pump gas!
Thank you sir. @@billsgarage
you gotta realize it has already been stroked at least once, maybe twice , by ford. most ford guys probably know there is a 221 and 260CID versions that came before the 289 (the 221 was developed for the fairlane) and i am pretty sure the 221 is a shorter stroke than a 289, even if the 260 is the same as a 289 . when designing an engine they usually try to make it as compact as possible , and as light as possible without sacrificing strength. so, when they design the cylinder block for example although they may leave some extra clearance around things like the crankshaft counter weights and the block , they probably don't leave a whole lot because they want the block to be compact to save weight and make servicing the engine when it's in a vehicle easier . and as some other viewers mentioned ford themselves did increase the stroke, the 302 has a longer stroke but the bore size is the same
Thanks for your comments. I wasn't sure, so I looked it up - the 221 had the same 2.87" stroke as the 289, but it had a smaller bore, at only 3.5" and the 260 also had the same stroke but had a 3.8" bore. So, Ford kept the same stroke but increased the bore size to go from 221 to 260 and then to 289. The 289 and 302 relationship is interesting though because they have the same bore and the same piston, but to make the 289 piston work with the 3" stroke of the 302 crank, they needed to use a shorter connecting rod. So, the 289 has a short stroke and long rod, while the 302 has a longer stroke but shorter rod. I guess the point to all of this is that, while there are limits to what you can do with any particular block, you can definitely stroke any of them. Thanks for watching!
Bill , What are doing about the early 2 piece rear main seal issue using the Eagle crank that was designed for the one piece rear main seal ? Eagle says it's going to leak !
Great question! The rotating assembly kit that I used is an Eagle B14003030, and the forged crank in this kit is designed to work with either a 1- or 2-piece rear main seal. I didn't want to have the machine work done to switch this engine over to a 1-piece seal, so I installed a quality 2-piece seal and it doesn't leak. I'm considering the 1-piece seal upgrade for another stroker that I'm working on, but I'm probably going to leave this one as is. Thanks for watching!
More of a question and not a challenge. As you get close to the 351 displacement why not that instead of all the investment in the 289? The 331 I would understand. Great tradeoff between torque, cubes, and rpm potential. Also, nothing very close in the Ford stable. The 347 I'm not sure I understand.
It's a size thing. I'd love to have a 351W in my Mustang II, but that would require major modification to the right side of the front subframe and the firewall. A 347 stroker gets me there without changing the external dimensions. Thanks for watching!
Did you stick with a flat tappet lifter or go to a roller lifter?
I used a Comp Cams retrofit kit to install a roller cam & lifters. Thanks for watching!
It can be done, I have done it, for all the gain I have been able to get. It's time for a 5.8 l or a 385 series to do a stroker now. Have fun with it and I will enjoy watching and pass it along.
I think my next one will be a 408. Thanks for watching!
Is that a Mustang II I see in the background?
Yup, a 1978 Ghia. That's what the 347 stroker is going into. This same block (as a 289) was in my 1977 Mustang II for many years.
All on what you want and feel like building, you do what you want and you don't need a roller block unless you want one.
Agreed. Seek all the advice you want, but don't let others tell you what can and can't be done. If you want to do something, then figure out how, and do it. Thanks for watching!
A 5 litre roller block for a hydraulic roller is cheaper than tie bar lifters. And with hydraulic cams losing lobes way too often roller is the way to go for a mild or even healthy engine.
For every person who stands and says it’s impossible, comes another person who asks them to step aside who is actually doing it!!!
Yesss!!! Thanks for watching!
Yup I’m actually doing it. Using the original 67 289 block that was in my Mustang. When I took it apart with 140,000 mile on it the bores looked great. Now going with AFR heads, roller cam and rockets ARP fasteners through out with a Shelby intake and a Holley Snyder. Gonna be fun. Those early blocks are superior to late model blocks.
They say the 262 in my recently acquired 75 Nova is not worth touching, but I wonder.....
Go ahead and wonder, my friend, life's too short to listen to "they." Thanks for watching!
Will this kit work on a 260.
Really? I was wondering about that - I don't have any experience at all with a 260. Thanks for watching!
no. Need a 4" bore block.
The set up u have are a great set up for 1,300 bucks
I'm really happy with it. Thanks for watching!
@billsgarage I had the same set up and it took a beating and still running strong
289s make very nice 331s and 347s.
I agree, I love mine! Thanks for watching.
One advantage of the 289 IS the short stroke.
It allows very quick rpm increase under acceleration.
Why would you want to stroke that engine?
I stroked it because I wanted more torque, and the easiest way to get that is with a longer rod. I do love the quick revving nature of the 289 though, and am probably going to build another one. Thanks for watching!
Well that settles it. If the internet says it, it must be true.
🤣😂 Thanks for watching!
internet knows everything without knowing everything
So true. Thanks for watching.
Not the Internet. It's the claiming it can't be done. They do it to get reviews on their channel. When I see someone or a posting like this. I just say. Don't recommend this channel
I stroked my 302 to a 347 I ran a xe274hr-12 cam it ran hard for many years many times pushing it to 6,800 rpm
Awesome, sounds like a lot of fun!
@@billsgarage people tell you that you have to notch the block for the stroker to you don't have to all I did was took a grinder and ground a little bit of the rod bolt off at a 32° and it cleared just fine I didn't have to touch the block at all and it took a pounding you couldn't imagine and it still runs strong today best running 302 or I should say 347 stroke I've ever built
What do the internet "experts" think a 347 is? 3.4" stroke/4.030 bore. And,,,,,,, you can build a 372 with the 3.4" crank in a Dart or World block with a 4.185" bore. The 351 Windsor will go out to at least 408 with a stock block & 427 with an aftermarket block
I knew this video would probably stir up a few people, but I'm honestly amazed at how many people have commented that my engine is going to blow up at the mere suggestion of stroking it after watching a video that explains why this belief is not true! Thanks for watching.
What I've learned about the internet is that at least 95% of the so called internet experts don't know sh!t about anything! I've made a living for over 50 years in the auto repair & race car business & I've had clowns tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. My reply is, "I'm not the moron on the internet asking dumb questions to guys dumber than me about how to build or fix sh!t!!!" The dumbest people always think they're the smartest! LOL @@billsgarage
A lot of people just have no imagination!😊 thanks for sharing your thoughts and information.👍
Exactly right! Thanks for watching!
I see a broken rod or piston in your future! I''ll look to see an update in 6 months!
I built this engine last year, and it's fine, but thanks for your concern.
A: why would you want to?
B: what do they think a 302 is?
C: how do they think the 289 and 302 differ?
Stroking the 289 was a great way for me to get more cubic inches without changing the external dimension - a bigger engine won't fit in my Mustang II without major modifications. As for your other questions, it seems that most people are unaware that a 302 is just a stroked 289; there is widespread belief that the blocks have different cylinder dimensions, but that is not true. Thanks for watching!
@@billsgarage I understand, I would just stroke a generic 302 before I'd use a 289.
289 are hard to come by, the short stroke is a strength.
*2.87 stroke is stock.
Yup, lots of people putting that in the comments. Sorry I misspoke in the video, and thanks for watching!
I wish I would have know this before I built my 347 efi ranger. 😢
I'll have to go outside and tell her she's been a bad girl.
😁
I have a 66 Mustang with a 289. I had a stroked to a 331. That thing is nasty.
Awesome, I hope you have a blast with it!
I did all the block work at a race machine shop. Ive had a 5 bolt 289, a 6 bolt 289, a '70 302, and a '90 5.0 BLOCKS sitting side by side.
The only real difference in ACTUAL machined WALL LENGTH is the chamfer in the bottom. And that varies more from 302 to 302 in production.
After boring 30 or 60 the differences are so minimal its irrelavent.
Look at a long rod Chevy 383 piston. The piston is so short its absurd looking.
The 5 bolt SBF blocks are 1" narrower across the bellhousing.
Cool that you've been able to compare all of those blocks side-by-side. Thanks for the comment!
NEVER bore a Windsor of any capacity more than 030. Many strike water even at that size.
I'm a Ford guy,but still I've never heard you couldn't stroke a 289 or 302.There are literally thousands of 347's out in the wild.
I'm glad you haven't run into that, but you know the internet is a crazy place! The comment section of this video has a bunch of comments from people who are convinced that my block is going to split, my rods are going to snap, and on and on! Thanks for watching!
You can safely bore those Ford small blocks 0.040
Agreed. I wouldn't go to 0.060, but don't see any problem with 0.040. Thanks for watching!
I think i will sti k with a boss 427 build, but thanks
Have fun with that!
289 engine is actually 2.87 in stroke!
Yup, I've been beat up a lot in the comments about that mistake! Thanks for watching.
You can stoker a 289 with a y block crank an turn it into a 383,
Wow, that's a lot of displacement out of that block! Another viewer commented that Y block cranks were used to stroke a 289 to 327 back in the day. Thanks for watching!
I worked in a machine shop locally for over 5 years. As well as friends built some. But every one i seen come through that we did, the problem comes into play that because these stroke factors you talk about has a couple problems. You have excessive connecting rod sweep, and the most concerning is all these engines have oiling and smoking problems because id say 99 percent of pistons go through that ring land with the pin. All normal stroker pistons dont come with the slugs to put in the end of the pins to complete the ringland. So all the motors we did were before that technology of the pin slugs, so not only do they consume oil and smoke, it also reduced the strength in that area, and slready said problem with the rod sweep, anything making real power will have problems. Do yourself a favor and start with a 351. Regardless of this video, dont do it. Unless youre not trying to make power, and just want to say you have a stroker.
The Mahle pistons that I used completely eliminate the concern that you raised about the ring land (both oil consumption and strength). As for excessive rod sweep, millions of 347 strokers out there reliably making 400-500 HP prove that to be an old wives tale. Funny that it's always the people not running a stroked 289 that seem to be the most opposed to their very existance.
@@billsgarage im not opposed, id rather spend the same money on something thats more reliable. Snd my first cars were s small block 64 falcon, two 67 mustangs, and now i have a 94 gt, and a stroked 72 olds. And like i said, i worked at a reputable machine shop, and did a bunch of side jobs, and still do, and have been a mechanic for over 30 years. Once again, someone will always say theyll make it work, doesnt mean it right or wrong, just baseing it on actual factual expieriences,not living on what someone says or yhe internet. And like i say, thats cool if you want to make under 500 hp.
289 had a 2.87 stroke. With a 4 inch bor
Yes, I misspoke in the video, sory about that. Thanks for watching!
Why waste money on junk
Just put a LS in it
Better yet..buy a chevy
🎉🎉😂😂
Great video 😅
Sorry, don't let me keep you from your lack of imagination and...oh, wait, I see what you did there!! 😂🤣😂🤣 Thanks for watching!
2.87 inch stroke
Yeah, thanks for pointing that out - I definitely misspoke in the video!
I have do 50 or so of these 347
Awesome, here's to 50 more!
thankyou there is so much misinformed bs on the internet it is staggering.
Yes, it can be hard to make sense of things sometimes. Thanks for watching!
Why stroke a 289 to 347 when a 351 windsor is 351 stock the 351 uses the same mounts and same accessory drive
Because a 351W won't fit in my car without major modifications. Stroking the engine is an easier way to get more cubic inches than cutting off the right side of the subframe. Thanks for watching.
maybe you need to do some reading a 289 stroke is 2.87 the rods are 5.155
Yup, I definitely misspoke! Thanks for watching.
@ 2:20 you say the stroke of a 289 is 1.87 (little less than 2") You're incorrect - 289 Bore & Stroke. 4.005" X 2.87" also 302 is Bore & Stroke. 4.000" X 3.00". Your 347 stroker kit is 3.400 stroke using 5.4" Rod Length, you state the rods are 5.1" All in all it's a nice build and you're right regarding it can be done, actually it's a popular modification. Just have your details incorrect.
Yes, I've taken a beating in some of the comments for stating the wrong dimensions in the video, thanks for being nice about it! Rest assured, the dimensions are correct inside the engine, I just messed it up when I was recording. Thanks for watching!
@@billsgarage Interested in what your going to use for a camshaft and heads. I have an extensive racing machine shop background but am retired now without any projects.
Spacer plates between head and block. Stroke it to the moon.
Interesting, I've never seen that done before.
Longer crank throw and shorter pistons will stroke any engine.
Yup, you just need to do a little machine work. Thanks for watching!
WTF ! There are kits for this
Yup, and yet there are a lot of comments saying that my engine is going to blow up! Thanks for watching.
Internet says just about anything
Yup! Thanks for watching.
Rhe Oracle is wrong!😅😅😅
Thanks for watching!
You cant stroke a 289/302 like you can a 351 but you definitely can.
Yup, it works really well as long as you don't take it to an extreme. Thanks for watching!
Know a guy was running a 347ci 35 years ago
That's awesome! You couldn't just order a kit online back then, he probably had a machine shop do some custom work. I really miss the times when good machine shops weren't that hard to come by! Thanks for watching.
That girdle is the best thing you did it makes a 4 bolt main
Lol no it absolutely does not
Girdles don't add any appreciable strength, they just address a specific wear problem and increase longevity. Thanks for watching!
@@billsgarage They also help keep the carnage contained when the block does split lol
NEVER a 4 bolt. But an improvement .
I have a question about the oil pump setup that ur using I have a 9 qt pan front sump and rear sump And always wondered if using an oil pump setup like urs is better ? Thanks
I think that either works fine, it's more a matter of which fits in the car better. Most of the 70s and older vehicles use a front-sump pan like mine, but with the 80s and 90s came the mid- and double-sump pans. In my opinion, the aftermarket pans do a great job of allowing for increased capacity, baffling, and better pickups regardless of configuration. You'd probably have to modify the crossmember in order to install a front-sump pan in a vehicle designed for a double-sump pan, but I doubt there's any real benefit to doing that.
I like ur setup looks good with those brackets I unfortunately just use an alternator and a 80mm turbo that takes up all the engine space Yet ur setup makes me wanna do it all over again thanks for the videos man I appreciate real people doing real things on these videos
Thank you!
Your block is stronger than a 302 roller also
I've heard that too, thanks for the comment!
Iam ready to hear that pony whinny
It's not in the car yet, but you can hear it idle in my engine run stand video. Thanks for watching!
There is no point in it , the performance gains you might get in such a low displacement engine will be offset by the lower maximum safe rpm ....The deck hieght is no different the bore size is smaller ...
In a small car like my Mustang II it's extremely difficult to fit a 351W without major modifications, so a 347 stroker is an excellent way for me to get more displacement without increasing the external dimensions. I'm not racing the car, just having fun on the street, so I don't need to wind it to 8,000 rpm like I did when I was racing my 289. BTW, all of the small blocks (260 through 351W) have the same 4" bore.
@@billsgarage Really .... didn't know that ... That being the case , there's no reason you shouldn't ...