Just for clarification, the journals are not the same. The 351 is bigger.

 

Thought so (I was simply too lazy to edit true66´s quote). And too lazy to lookup the numbers over the weekend when I was near some reference material.

Maybe FRPP PN# M-6010-BOSS302 would be a better beginning for this project. . . 4.125" bore capability . . . I didn't look at the $ page in thecatalog, though.


Norm

 

I was going to post most of what Tyler said a couple days ago, but the website crapped out and wiped my post:-|

Anyway, not only would it be impractical from a parts standpoint, but you'd be building an engine that would basically be fighting itself. The generalidea of a performance 289 is to wind the **** out of it. To do that, you need a really light, well balanced rotating assembly. Sticking longer rods on it is going to increase rotating mass with no real benefit. Like Tyler said, 289/302/351W blocks all share a 4.000in bore, so the valves are going to be in exactly the same place unless you run Twisted Wedge or cleveland-style heads. So in the end, all you'd really be doing is adding mass to the rotating assembly, which is the last thing you want to do. If you want a stronger block, get a Sportsman, Dart, or Man o' War block.

Then you want to add a supercharger to the equation. I'm not an expert on blowers, but I'd think a high-displacementengine built to run in the low- to mid-rpm range would be much better suited to a blower than a 289 winding to 8k. I'm sure finding a cam that would work would be a nightmare.

Don't even get me started on E-85:-|

 

Just to clarify. Ford journal sizes are:

289 2.249
302 2.249
351W 3.00
351C 2.7492

You cannot put a 289 crank in a Windsor or Cleveland block without serious modifications!

FYI, the 351 DART Sportsman blockhas the taller Windsor deck (9.5") and the smaller Cleveland main journals (2.7492"). That means you use Windsor heads and a Cleveland crank. This is done to minimize friction loss and oiling issues at the journals but allow you to use the many many many heads, cams, intakes, etc built for the Windsor.

 

You are also going to have cam timing/firing orderissues, which we should not even get started on. If you really really want to do this, you may can get someone to build you a custom crank for a Windsor with a short stroke and then get some long rods and custom pistons for the compression you want. You are not going to get 289/302 parts into the Windsor without A BUNCH of modificiations, so start thinking custom if that is what you want to do.

 

We all have decided this is a waste of time, but I did want to add one more comment. The cam would not be a problem in this situation. You can run a 289/302 cam in a 351W and vise versa. You just have to time the distributor to match the cam (same firing order; 351W and 289/302 are different, except for 5.0 HO, which has the 351W firing order). The journal sizes on the cam are the same. Actually, the cam in my engine is for a 289-351W, and is designed for a hydraulic roller retrofit. It actually has a 351W firing order, which is the same as a 5.0 HO.

 

I might be partly responsible for this discussion getting into cams.

My comment about cams was directed at this non-standard engine geometry probably preferring a slightly different grind. Not firing order or journal size.


Norm

 

Ok,,, all you naysayers have my ire up!! If I were to end up being able to afford the crankshaft that will be required to make this all work, I may do it.

Not trying to be a smart *** or know it all,I have beenwell aware of certain "issues" regarding stroke, rod length, journal size, etc. well prior to posting this poll, with none of it really having the potential of being a real show stopper with exception of the custom crank.... (which probably will be way too expensive... but admitting this earlier would have not allowed me to see all of these posts... )

I like the idea of the Dart block with the 4.125 Bore... I had thought about one of those blocks before as a "different kind of 347".... (A similar poll I posted some time back).

I have always been one to try things that are different than the norm, this is what appeals to me on the theory of this engine...

Short stroke,over-square,boosted, high compression, easy breathing dinosaur capable of returning respectable economy and outstanding performance....

But then again everyone knows that a 351 with an air gap will not fit under the stock hood of a 66, and that a TKO 600 will require the floor tunnel to be cut if it is to fit in a 66.....

So tell me what can't or should not be done....

 

JMD, my point was that there's no reason to use a 351W block over a 289/302 block. The only major difference is rod length, which isa bad thing in the case of a small-displacement engine. The 289 already has a really good rod ratio, no reason to tweak it. If you want something cool, then yeah, a bored out Dart or Man o' War block is the way to go. Maybe fit some closed-chambered 4V cleveheads to it and call it a Boss 347

But there really is no reason to destroke a 351W when you have hundreds of thousands of 289/302 blocks laying around.

 

It won't work with OTS parts. Ford already uses a monsterously large 1.6" compression height on the 302 pistons. To make it work you'd have to either get custom length rods(a crapload of money) or custom c/h pistons(a crapload of money). A taller c/h piston will weigh a lot more and the engine will spin up slower and lose power from incrased mass and friction(more pistons surface area on the cylinder wall). The longer rod is going to need a LOT of rpm to run right. The 289 already has a decent rod ratio. My 302 is a long rod, with a 5.7 rod and it really likes the rpm, with a small cam and intake it has 0 issues running at 6,500rpm. A 6.4" required rod with a 2.87" stroke 289 crank results in over a 2.2 rod ratio, that's nearly Formula 1 territory, and they run their engines at nearly 20,000rpm. I'm all for doing something different and trying new stuff, And I'm not trying to burst your bubble, but you need to be practical. This would just result in an overly heavy internaled engine that costs a crapload of money and LOSES power as a result. For what you want, put a 289/302 forged crank in something like a Dart/BOSS block, slap on the blower and go make 600hp without issue. Trying to force a 289 crank to work in a 351W block will just result in an overly expensive, underpowered engine that runs like dog poo on the street.