You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
Okay... so I realize the 289 in this 69 coupe is not correct for the year. But after reading several posts I'm convinced the 289 and 302 are essentially the same with the exception of the internals.
It'll be a daily driver for the owner's daughter in college and beyond, so I plan to just rebuild the current motor without a lot of performance enhancements.
I'm mostly concerned about fit and function of the motor's external touch points to other components in the engine bay. Searching for the things to be worried about when putting this motor back in the car.
It's a three-speed manual, with no A/C, and I'm planning to add power steering and front disc brake package.
Appreciate any words of wisdom!
This ad is not displayed to registered or logged-in members. Register your free account today and become a member on Mustang Forums!
a 289 should work just fine in a 69 stang. I can't say on the power steering but the power disc brakes should not be a problem. I recently added them to my S code 69 coupe and other than taking alot of time, it went in fine. The 289 allows alot more room so should make things easier. Should make a very nice setup for your daughter.
The original motor was a 6-cylinder (250) with this same 3-speed transmission in the car. It's a 1963 motor (from a Fairlane I think he said) and it appears as though it's been a LONG time since it's been rebuilt (if ever).
The original motor was a 6-cylinder (250) with this same 3-speed transmission in the car. It's a 1963 motor (from a Fairlane I think he said) and it appears as though it's been a LONG time since it's been rebuilt (if ever).
Thanks again!!
OH! Flag on the play!!
The 63-63 260/289 had a unique bellhousing pattern, usually calle the 5-bolt. In 65, Ford changed to the 6-bolt, which is still in use today. These do NOT interchange. Your 250 would have also had the 6-bolt pattern, but if you use a 63 or 64 260/289, you must obtain a 5-bolt bell to attach it to the trans.
You will also need a V8 radiator, V8 engine brackets and motor mounts, and V8 throttle linkage, V8 engine wiring, and of course V8 exhaust. All of these would be the stock 69 items.
The 63-63 260/289 had a unique bellhousing pattern, usually calle the 5-bolt. In 65, Ford changed to the 6-bolt, which is still in use today. These do NOT interchange. Your 250 would have also had the 6-bolt pattern, but if you use a 63 or 64 260/289, you must obtain a 5-bolt bell to attach it to the trans.
You will also need a V8 radiator, V8 engine brackets and motor mounts, and V8 throttle linkage, V8 engine wiring, and of course V8 exhaust. All of these would be the stock 69 items.
Yup. What he said.
__________________
Absolute rule number one: If it has tires or tits, your going to have trouble with it.
The 63-63 260/289 had a unique bellhousing pattern, usually calle the 5-bolt. In 65, Ford changed to the 6-bolt, which is still in use today. These do NOT interchange. Your 250 would have also had the 6-bolt pattern, but if you use a 63 or 64 260/289, you must obtain a 5-bolt bell to attach it to the trans.
You will also need a V8 radiator, V8 engine brackets and motor mounts, and V8 throttle linkage, V8 engine wiring, and of course V8 exhaust. All of these would be the stock 69 items.
Excellent info! The motor was actually in the car and running (if you can call it that), so things were rigged up to "operate" somehow. It does have a 5-bolt bellhousing, which I was thinking about as I was taking out the trans/motor this week. Also has an aftermarket exhaust that chaffs everything along the way, so that'll get redone. I noticed the clutch equalizer bar was not installed parallel to the ground either--more at a downward angle toward the motor (wrong motor mounts possibly?).
So three questions:
1) Sounds like if I had upgraded the car with a '69 302, I'd still need all these additional items (wiring, linkage, mounts, etc) for the process and the only significant difference with the fact that it's a '63 289 is the bellhousing. Is that true?
2) Is there any significant reason to consider ditching this motor for a "post-65" 302 motor?
3) If I keep this motor, I'd plan to order my parts (wiring, mounts, etc) as though the car had a 302 upgrade. Would that cause issue with possibly getting incorrect parts?
Taking notes! Really do appreciate everyone sharing their thoughts!
Thanks!!
Last edited by int1m1d8r; 11-04-2009 at 07:48 AM.
Reason: Because I can't spell... :-)
2) there are variations in heads and block weights/thicknesses throughout the years. the '85 and later blocks can run a roller cam. all of the 302s used the 6-bolt bellhousing. at some point they switched the imbalance from 28oz to 54oz which requires a different harmonic balancer and flywheel. Rear sump blocks have the dipstick in the block, front sump blocks have it in the timing cover. But the block has the same mounting points and general shape through the years. The only difference between a 289 and a 302 internally is the stroke. And the 302 is supposed to have a little longer cylinder wall skirt. By '68 the 289 and 302 used the same block.
3) the only thing I'm aware of is the bellhousing. You can run '60s accessories, exhaust and intake on a '92 long block if you want. gt-40p heads are an exception (the plugs stick straight out and interfere with some headers).
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company
289 in a 69 Coupe...
