u can get a stock 302 up to 400 horses with just bolt ons....so stoke it to a 302 and then add bolt ons....400hp is a nuckin futs for a street car
heres an article, its based of a 91 302 but the 289 is the exact same engine except for the bore and stroke.
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles...dup/index.html

 

While some 331 kits do move the wrist pin bore below the oil ring land, you get a much better rod/stroke ratio by running a longer 5.4" rod with the 331 kit. This puts the wrist pin bore right back up into the oil ring land with most pistons, but as JMD said, it's not really much of an issue anymore. Better kits will include better pistons and rings that reduce oil consumption. Some of it also has to do with how you position the ring gaps during install.

The other side note is that you can get rods designed for cap screw rod bolts. If you go this route, you'll still need to notch the cylinder skirts to clear the bolt heads.

I ran into both of these issues with my 331. Neither were a big deal to me, and I wouldn't go back and change the build if given the option.

 

I don't see the point in moving to a 3" stroke unless you have an already reconditioned 302 crank on hand already. 331 kits aren't that expensive, and you'll need to put more money into reconditioning a 302 rotating assembly than it's worth, IMO. And in the end, you'll make more low-end torque with the 331, which makes for a more streetable build.

Also, there's a big difference between a 289 and a 5.0, namely the fuel injection and roller camshaft. There's a lot more streetable power potential in a roller cam than a flat tappet cam. Semi-streetable 400hp can be had from a 5.0 with good heads and a good cam. It'll be a stretch for a 289/302 with a windy flat tappet cam. Doable, but you'll be winding the motor up to 3k before you make any decent amount of power. With a 331 or 347, 400hp isn't a problem.

 

Well, there's no way you're going to get 400hp out of a 302 with bolt ons, and heads are not a bolt on. Secondly, that dyno they used in that article is pretty damn generous, even for not turning a single accessory on the engine.

And the pin intersecting the oil ring land issue is a non issue with good pistons. I'm running a rod/piston setup in my 302 that uses a 1" CH Mahle piston with the pin intersecting the ring land....and with over 150,000 miles it hasn't burned any oil. Good pistons(like Mahle for instance) use a heavy gauge support ring after the pin is installed to give the oil ring something to sit on, just like if the pin didn't intersect. And the nice thing about a setup like that is the compression height is shorter on the pistons AND the pin is shorter in length, so the whole package weighs significantly less.

 

 

Let's say you build both engines up to the same hp/CID level. Doesn't matter what that level is or how you get there. The question then becomes . . . how much performance difference can be expected from a 4% displacement difference?

At 1.00 HP/CID with those engines and a 3000 lb car, it's about a two-tenths difference in the quarter mile ET and a mph or two in the trap speed. That's probably within the range of driver consistency for many of us, and the translation to street performance is that it's not significant. In normal part-throttle street driving, you'd have to step just a little deeper into it with the 331 to keep up with the 347 car. You'd probably end up driving the 331 with a little more throttle or a little longer in each gear. Jump into the 347 car and you could drive in slightly more relaxed fashion with a little less throttle and shifting a couple hundred rpm sooner.

I do slightly favor the 331 here anyway, and the T5 durability issue alone is enough reason for me to stop right there. Transmissions that are undercapacity either for the engine installed or the use that the car is put to will eventually fail. In my experience, which does not include drag strip use or burnouts/abusively harsh shifting for any other reason, 1.0 lb-ft of transmission rating per cubic inch of NA carbureted engine seems to work for an indefinitely long time (what you want in a street driver). At ~0.85 ft-lb/CID or under, you do not have that kind of durability unless you always drive "gently" (in which case a stock 289 would be plenty and we wouldn't even be having this discussion).


Norm

 

in the end .. if you want 1hp/ci, that you can do with replacing cam, heads, intake (and maybe carb), if you want to stroke then I feel sorry for the T-5 already.
what seems to kill them (i haven't ripped one apart yet and I have no plans to do so) is dumping the clutch and powershifting

 

There are people on this forum who have T-5 347 cars that drag race and are fine, but you have to select the right clutch/tire setup and drive properly. Most people can't drive properly and destroy the trans. The vast majority are better off upgrading the trans.

 

Kalli, actually high gear where you have the least mechanical advantage for the engine to spin the wheels is when tranny seams to cr@p out. I blew the input shaft on my toploader when shifting from 3rd to 4th at 100+mph. Clutches die with clutch dumping and massive amounts of torque when they cannot maintain a hold on the flywheel. Each clutch I have trashed died when I see the rpms run up and the speed not change...then the smell...then clutch no worky.

When the T5 dies from too much torque, it will trash a shaft (either input, output, or main). The gears will probably due fine unless someone grinds them off or breaks them while slam shifting.

Back to the original question...1:1 hp to CID is very doable if you know what you are doing. The real question is how much torque do you want? Where do you want your torque curve? Those things are going to influence the end result which is horsepower...not the other way around. If you plan for a bunch of horsepower but do not have a bunch of low end torque, then the engine is going to need to rev high which is not going to be streetable. The secondary question is how much torque can your drive line take? How much RPM can your valve train and rotating assembly take?