289 vs 302 what's the diff?
5th Gear Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,566
From: Marquette Mi
RE: 289 vs 302 what's the diff?
very little difference between the 289 and 302, just one will rev a few hundred RPM higher provided they have the valve train to handle it. Its just that most 302s were smog era 2v engines with abysmally low compression, and the 289s were higher compression and often the performance version with a 4 barrel.
The difference is minimal and nothing you would notice on the street.. If I werent building Clevelands there would be stroker kits for all the 289/302/5.0L I have to make them 331 or 347s.. A 347 in the truck would be nice.. its something I want to do to it.. more power for towing...
The difference is minimal and nothing you would notice on the street.. If I werent building Clevelands there would be stroker kits for all the 289/302/5.0L I have to make them 331 or 347s.. A 347 in the truck would be nice.. its something I want to do to it.. more power for towing...
I ♥ Acer
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 17,565
From:
RE: 289 vs 302 what's the diff?
ORIGINAL: THUMPIN455
very little difference between the 289 and 302, just one will rev a few hundred RPM higher provided they have the valve train to handle it. Its just that most 302s were smog era 2v engines with abysmally low compression, and the 289s were higher compression and often the performance version with a 4 barrel.
The difference is minimal and nothing you would notice on the street.. If I werent building Clevelands there would be stroker kits for all the 289/302/5.0L I have to make them 331 or 347s.. A 347 in the truck would be nice.. its something I want to do to it.. more power for towing...
very little difference between the 289 and 302, just one will rev a few hundred RPM higher provided they have the valve train to handle it. Its just that most 302s were smog era 2v engines with abysmally low compression, and the 289s were higher compression and often the performance version with a 4 barrel.
The difference is minimal and nothing you would notice on the street.. If I werent building Clevelands there would be stroker kits for all the 289/302/5.0L I have to make them 331 or 347s.. A 347 in the truck would be nice.. its something I want to do to it.. more power for towing...
9.5:1 -302 2 barrel in 1968
9.0:1 - 302 in 1972.
I suppose later 302's dropped down into the 8 compression ratio range as the polution crap was added.
5th Gear Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,566
From: Marquette Mi
RE: 289 vs 302 what's the diff?
ORIGINAL: Soaring
The compression ratios were virtually the same for the 289 and the early 68-72 302's. 9.3:1 - 289 2 barrel
9.5:1 -302 2 barrel in 1968
9.0:1 - 302 in 1972.
I suppose later 302's dropped down into the 8 compression ratio range as the polution crap was added.
ORIGINAL: THUMPIN455
very little difference between the 289 and 302, just one will rev a few hundred RPM higher provided they have the valve train to handle it. Its just that most 302s were smog era 2v engines with abysmally low compression, and the 289s were higher compression and often the performance version with a 4 barrel.
The difference is minimal and nothing you would notice on the street.. If I werent building Clevelands there would be stroker kits for all the 289/302/5.0L I have to make them 331 or 347s.. A 347 in the truck would be nice.. its something I want to do to it.. more power for towing...
very little difference between the 289 and 302, just one will rev a few hundred RPM higher provided they have the valve train to handle it. Its just that most 302s were smog era 2v engines with abysmally low compression, and the 289s were higher compression and often the performance version with a 4 barrel.
The difference is minimal and nothing you would notice on the street.. If I werent building Clevelands there would be stroker kits for all the 289/302/5.0L I have to make them 331 or 347s.. A 347 in the truck would be nice.. its something I want to do to it.. more power for towing...
9.5:1 -302 2 barrel in 1968
9.0:1 - 302 in 1972.
I suppose later 302's dropped down into the 8 compression ratio range as the polution crap was added.
Did ya know in 68 you could get the 289, 302, 390, 427, or 428 in the Mustang or Cougar? Its the only year that happened...
I ♥ Acer
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,845
From:
RE: 289 vs 302 what's the diff?
i like the 289 because its small yet plenty powerful enough with little work to it
a) i didn't have to buy it, it was included
b) everyone gets 302/351 put in
c) i like the stock apperance (for the most part)
i mean don't get me wrong i would love to have the 390 but i would want that in a FB actually i would prolly just put the Aliminum Genesis engine in it with a mass flo EFI setup or something similar just cause i know it will fit in there i wish i could drop my 460 in my car but that wouldn't work out so well
a) i didn't have to buy it, it was included
b) everyone gets 302/351 put in
c) i like the stock apperance (for the most part)
i mean don't get me wrong i would love to have the 390 but i would want that in a FB actually i would prolly just put the Aliminum Genesis engine in it with a mass flo EFI setup or something similar just cause i know it will fit in there i wish i could drop my 460 in my car but that wouldn't work out so well
I ♥ Acer
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 17,565
From:
RE: 289 vs 302 what's the diff?
ORIGINAL: baddog671
Since there is alot of CID talk going on in here, what about those 260's? Did they only come in the 64.5's?
Since there is alot of CID talk going on in here, what about those 260's? Did they only come in the 64.5's?