i drive a 289 as well, but if someone would swap it for a 302 roller I'd take that
Just because it's easier getting heads, no hassle with ZDDP like Tad said. As well in case you wanted to stroke this thing 302 would be easier (from what I hear).
I don't have any Ford SB experience, but why not take something easier that makes (at least) the same power if you had the choice

 

Yea... 289 is a great motor but a 302 is at least as good...

 

btw i'm quite annoyed by you people having a block sitting around.
I'd never find one over here. Those things seem to only come with cars

 

to further elaborate on my last post...

roller 302 block > 289 block
289 rotating assembly > 302 assembly

302's rods are soooo damn short, and while the 289 rods are only a little longer the stroke is also a little shorter and any move that direction in the rod/stroke ratio is a very good thing. not to mention you'll never notice the loss in 13 cubic inches with the benefits of quicker, higher revs of the 289.

not to mention everyone and their mom has a late model 5.0 stuffed in their classic =/

btw kalli, heads are the same for either, so its not harder finding heads for em

 

hiya .. what I was trying to say with that is that a stock 289 allows 1.9" intakes max without flycutting the pistons whereas the later roller 302s allow 2.02"
There's a _lot_ of aftermarket 2.02" intake heads and only very little with 1.9" intakes.
I know edelbrock, afr have them and trickflows 2.02s are ok with those engines as well. but if you are after a cheapo head, they are all 2.02 and won't fit on mine

Kalli

 

ok so anyways, anyone have a block they wanna get rid of? lol