FWIW, I have 375hp out of my 302 at 9.5:1 compression. The builder that I got my engine from also builds 347's and 331's, with his personal preference being the 331.

The real question is will you be able to put 400hp to the ground reliably? In my experience with the lightweight early Mustangs, once you get above 300hp, you're moving! If you want longevity and reliability,get the 302 as it is a completely known commodity. If your chief objective is pure grunt, stroke it.

 

LOL i love it (i really DO drive my II like an ***, because thats what that car is built to do )

i dont know if your talking 400 @ flywheel or wheels - but 400 @ flywheel is very do-able from a 302 with the right parts. to be perfectly honest, i would take a 289 over a 302 if thats the route you want to go.

my suggestion, use a later model roller 302 block, taking advantage the HP gains from a roller cam. grab a 289 crank and have the lip on the rear ground down so it fits into the later block, get the rotating assembly balanced. hell a stock rod would work for you (look at my destruction.... not a single rod snapped). throw in a cam in the .500 - .525 range along with some ARF 165's, Canfields, or Trick Flow Twisted Wedge heads and full roller rockers..... top if off with something like a performer rpm intake and a holley 600 or BG 625. add in the little things like a windage tray, quality long tube headers, x pipe, port matching, decent ignition (the crane system is my personal fav) and you should have 400 reliable HP @ the flywheel

 

I used a Probe industries kit in mine (331)which came from Mustangs Unlimited. Fully balanced, Roller block, Edelbrock heads, Roller rockers Comp cam, and i can tell you this, it goes like stink. I built it myself and checked everything over and over again after clearancing the block . Speak to Woody at ford strokers and you won't go wrong. Please bare in mind that parts are harder to find in the U.K if i had known about Woody when i ordered my kit, I would have ordered from him.

Cheers, Phil

 

Why do you like the 331/347 over the 302 but prefer a 289 to the 302? After all, the 302 is essentially nothing more than a slightly stroked 289 with longer cylinder walls.

I know this is the classic section, but since when did the 302 becom the red-headed step child? Bored over as a 306, it does have 17 c.i. over the 289.[sm=icon_rock.gif]

 

short rods[:'(]

thats why

the 302 is inherently at a disadvantage with its rod/stroke ratio. however, i would prefer a 302 block over the 289 even if i was building the 289.

if your wanting maximum cubes in a small package, then a 331 or 347 is the route to go.

no to mention everyone and their mothers have a 302 - almost as bad as they chevy guys with their 350s (i'd never own one, much rather have a 327 or a 400 block with a 327 crank)

 

That is correct, however, the 331 and 347 have even small ratios than the 302 and they're beloved by everyone it seems. By my calculations, the ratios for the 289, 302, 331 & 347 are 1.796:1, 1.697:1, 1.662:1 and 1.563:1, respectively. By using stroke ratio as the benchmark for performance, then the 289 is a better choice than the 347 which everybody loves. There must be more to it than that, right? There must be some balance between ratio and displacement. Looking at the numbers, the 331 seems to have the same characteristics as the 302 with added cubic inches.

I'm by no means an expert on engines, but I find itodd to see how the 302, arguablythe small block most synonymous withFord,is derided on this board. At least you were honest and stated that part of your reason for not liking them is because they are so ubiquitous.

 

your correct..... with a smaller motor (289/302) you wanna get your rpms up to a decent level quick where your actually making power, so a 289 wins cause it'll spin quicker, and higher. but with a 331 or 347 that longer stroke is giving you more torque, so you will make more power earlier and revving it real high real quick isnt as important.

all in all, IMO 289 > 302 and 331 > 347 but that doesnt mean the 302 or 347 is BAD (by no means)....... i would just prefer the other.