302 destroked
08-08-2009, 07:42 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ky
Posts: 4
302 destroked
I'm new here and just registered to get some info since I figure you guys know. I just sold 2 good mustangs{68&70} for financial reasons so have none now.
I want to build a 289 cubic inch motor for my 65 sunbeam tiger .I don't want to spend a fortune so would like to use anyparts I already have that are possible.
I'm looking for maybe 325 to 350 usable hp and this car will just be for fun ,has a 260 special now but I just want a little more umpth.
Is there any reason I cant use a 5.0 block I already have with a 289 crank ?
I also have nice gt40P heads and an assortment of motorsport cams for 5.0 along with crane roller rockers.
I want to keep the quick rev of the 289 but want more power.
I appreciate any help I can get,regards,Tim Kennedy
I want to build a 289 cubic inch motor for my 65 sunbeam tiger .I don't want to spend a fortune so would like to use anyparts I already have that are possible.
I'm looking for maybe 325 to 350 usable hp and this car will just be for fun ,has a 260 special now but I just want a little more umpth.
Is there any reason I cant use a 5.0 block I already have with a 289 crank ?
I also have nice gt40P heads and an assortment of motorsport cams for 5.0 along with crane roller rockers.
I want to keep the quick rev of the 289 but want more power.
I appreciate any help I can get,regards,Tim Kennedy
08-08-2009, 08:22 PM
#5
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ky
Posts: 4
Not sure what TT means ,but I have had a 65 since january. It is a survivor with 65k miles and a single repaint. It is a nice car but not perfect, I suppose it shows 65k miles worth of wear. Mine is a mk1 with a wood dash .I also have a csx4000 cobra with a 427 fe and have to admit,all around the tiger is more fun. Tim K
08-08-2009, 08:50 PM
#7
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ky
Posts: 4
08-08-2009, 09:52 PM
#9
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 614
my vote is to go 5.0 all the way for your app.
How easy it is to simply freshen up a working 5.0 powerplant. Often, due to the hardness of the block, a 100,000 mile engine *can* reuse the std bore. That with decent strength factory crank and often keeping decent forged slugs gives a good arguement for a simple(read cheap) freshen up. Unless there is an overriding reason to "destroke" to a 289, I say the effort is not worth any reward... if there is a reward. I am using the crank from my 67 289 in a 1989 5.0 with a particular roller cam, P heads, and systemax I lower and a few other tricks to see (as part of an overall plan): how much MPG I can squeeze out of a "modern" injected sbf in a RWD...for my 1992 DD
THATS my overriding reason. However I cant think that it would suddenly scream at higher rev and put down mad peak hp compared to a well put-together 302 or 331
I had to pay the shop for machining the crank to accept the modern 1 piece rear seal, actually the operation nets the use of an oversized 1 piece seal. Also you need the proper rods. At that point you should get the rotating mass balanced. All that is extra effort and cost. you have to decide if the extra effort will give you a reward. Consider that more cubes is often more fun off idle
How easy it is to simply freshen up a working 5.0 powerplant. Often, due to the hardness of the block, a 100,000 mile engine *can* reuse the std bore. That with decent strength factory crank and often keeping decent forged slugs gives a good arguement for a simple(read cheap) freshen up. Unless there is an overriding reason to "destroke" to a 289, I say the effort is not worth any reward... if there is a reward. I am using the crank from my 67 289 in a 1989 5.0 with a particular roller cam, P heads, and systemax I lower and a few other tricks to see (as part of an overall plan): how much MPG I can squeeze out of a "modern" injected sbf in a RWD...for my 1992 DD
THATS my overriding reason. However I cant think that it would suddenly scream at higher rev and put down mad peak hp compared to a well put-together 302 or 331
I had to pay the shop for machining the crank to accept the modern 1 piece rear seal, actually the operation nets the use of an oversized 1 piece seal. Also you need the proper rods. At that point you should get the rotating mass balanced. All that is extra effort and cost. you have to decide if the extra effort will give you a reward. Consider that more cubes is often more fun off idle
Last edited by Hamutoff; 08-08-2009 at 09:58 PM.
08-08-2009, 10:09 PM
#10
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ky
Posts: 4
my vote is to go 5.0 all the way for your app.
How easy it is to simply freshen up a working 5.0 powerplant. Often, due to the hardness of the block, a 100,000 mile engine *can* reuse the std bore. That with decent strength factory crank and often keeping decent forged slugs gives a good arguement for a simple(read cheap) freshen up. Unless there is an overriding reason to "destroke" to a 289, I say the effort is not worth any reward... if there is a reward. I am using the crank from my 67 289 in a 1989 5.0 with a particular roller cam, P heads, and systemax I lower and a few other tricks to see (as part of an overall plan): how much MPG I can squeeze out of a "modern" injected sbf in a RWD...for my 1992 DD
THATS my overriding reason. However I cant think that it would suddenly scream at higher rev and put down mad peak hp compared to a well put-together 302 or 331
I had to pay the shop for machining the crank to accept the modern 1 piece rear seal, actually the operation nets the use of an oversized 1 piece seal. Also you need the proper rods. At that point you should get the rotating mass balanced. All that is extra effort and cost. you have to decide if the extra effort will give you a reward. Consider that more cubes is often more fun off idle
How easy it is to simply freshen up a working 5.0 powerplant. Often, due to the hardness of the block, a 100,000 mile engine *can* reuse the std bore. That with decent strength factory crank and often keeping decent forged slugs gives a good arguement for a simple(read cheap) freshen up. Unless there is an overriding reason to "destroke" to a 289, I say the effort is not worth any reward... if there is a reward. I am using the crank from my 67 289 in a 1989 5.0 with a particular roller cam, P heads, and systemax I lower and a few other tricks to see (as part of an overall plan): how much MPG I can squeeze out of a "modern" injected sbf in a RWD...for my 1992 DD
THATS my overriding reason. However I cant think that it would suddenly scream at higher rev and put down mad peak hp compared to a well put-together 302 or 331
I had to pay the shop for machining the crank to accept the modern 1 piece rear seal, actually the operation nets the use of an oversized 1 piece seal. Also you need the proper rods. At that point you should get the rotating mass balanced. All that is extra effort and cost. you have to decide if the extra effort will give you a reward. Consider that more cubes is often more fun off idle