'65 289 vs newer 302
05-06-2011, 10:38 PM
#1
1st Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: FL
Posts: 59
'65 289 vs newer 302
Hey guys!
Im new to the mustang forums and i have so many questions for you all, but first id like to start with a few about potential motors...
I am looking into picking up a 1965 mustang coupe with an unmodified 289 and an automatic transmission (ugh!) this weekend, but i am concerned about the power output of such an engine. Now, before i begin i would like to say that i am not at all concerned with keeping the mustang "original", matching #s, etc. I am after a nice looking mustang that performs well solely for my own enjoyment as a daily driver (with some umph, of course).
I dont know the exact mileage on it, but it seems to me that an older motor like that will need to be rebuilt at the very least. However, would a rebuild of a 289 net a comparable amount of hp at the rear wheels to a newer, say 1980-1995, 302 built up from a block? I know some people seem say that a smaller yet older v8 will push just as much if not more hp than a newer one due to smog and emissions constraints. Yet, where i live there are no emissions tests and i could realistically drive it down the road with no cats or any other emissions control devices of any kind and nobody would say a word to me about it, so that may shift the balance in favor of a 302, yes?
The three options i am entertaining at the moment are:
1) rebuild the 289 it has with good quality parts in hopes of ending with a motor that offers a good bit of power without throwing my gas mileage in front of the bus
2) build up a 302 from a block this summer (already have the space set aside just in case) with only minor experience with my 86 f150s 302 (been doing my homework though!), allowing a mechanic/machine shop to do the really intense stuff
3) buying a 302 crate motor thats ready to drop in
I dont want to have to go the crate motor route because most people that i have talked to say that almost any affordable crate motor is garbage and i would just be throwing my money away. Do you all agree? If not, do you know of any quality crate motor manufacturers that you would be willing to use in your mustang?
My hesitation with building up a 302 is that i am worried about encountering problems that i am unable to handle myself causing the build to become expensive and lengthy. However, i do feel confident that with all the books, internet research, and help of my very mechanically inclined friend (built a '32 ford from the ground up) i would be able to get it done eventually as long as i dont stumble into any catastrophic problems.
I just feel that a 289 wont get as good gas mileage or horsepower as a newer 302. I also feel that if i do build the motor that goes into this vehicle myself i will be able to handle any and all maintenance as well as knowing that it was done with quality parts and care resulting in (hopefully) a very nice motor that will hold up for a long time.
What are your thoughts? Am i stark raving mad? Am i on the totally wrong track? Roast if necessary, but include answers!
Im new to the mustang forums and i have so many questions for you all, but first id like to start with a few about potential motors...
I am looking into picking up a 1965 mustang coupe with an unmodified 289 and an automatic transmission (ugh!) this weekend, but i am concerned about the power output of such an engine. Now, before i begin i would like to say that i am not at all concerned with keeping the mustang "original", matching #s, etc. I am after a nice looking mustang that performs well solely for my own enjoyment as a daily driver (with some umph, of course).
I dont know the exact mileage on it, but it seems to me that an older motor like that will need to be rebuilt at the very least. However, would a rebuild of a 289 net a comparable amount of hp at the rear wheels to a newer, say 1980-1995, 302 built up from a block? I know some people seem say that a smaller yet older v8 will push just as much if not more hp than a newer one due to smog and emissions constraints. Yet, where i live there are no emissions tests and i could realistically drive it down the road with no cats or any other emissions control devices of any kind and nobody would say a word to me about it, so that may shift the balance in favor of a 302, yes?
The three options i am entertaining at the moment are:
1) rebuild the 289 it has with good quality parts in hopes of ending with a motor that offers a good bit of power without throwing my gas mileage in front of the bus
2) build up a 302 from a block this summer (already have the space set aside just in case) with only minor experience with my 86 f150s 302 (been doing my homework though!), allowing a mechanic/machine shop to do the really intense stuff
3) buying a 302 crate motor thats ready to drop in
I dont want to have to go the crate motor route because most people that i have talked to say that almost any affordable crate motor is garbage and i would just be throwing my money away. Do you all agree? If not, do you know of any quality crate motor manufacturers that you would be willing to use in your mustang?
My hesitation with building up a 302 is that i am worried about encountering problems that i am unable to handle myself causing the build to become expensive and lengthy. However, i do feel confident that with all the books, internet research, and help of my very mechanically inclined friend (built a '32 ford from the ground up) i would be able to get it done eventually as long as i dont stumble into any catastrophic problems.
I just feel that a 289 wont get as good gas mileage or horsepower as a newer 302. I also feel that if i do build the motor that goes into this vehicle myself i will be able to handle any and all maintenance as well as knowing that it was done with quality parts and care resulting in (hopefully) a very nice motor that will hold up for a long time.
What are your thoughts? Am i stark raving mad? Am i on the totally wrong track? Roast if necessary, but include answers!
05-06-2011, 10:46 PM
#2
1st Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: FL
Posts: 59
I forgot to mention that in the near future i plan on picking up a manual tranny conversion kit to put in a t5 from tremec.
Also, what are your thoughts on the torque boxes? i hear the '65 289 has one, yet on a thread i read not long ago someone suggested that you have 2...
Also, what are your thoughts on the torque boxes? i hear the '65 289 has one, yet on a thread i read not long ago someone suggested that you have 2...
05-06-2011, 11:15 PM
#3
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: az
Posts: 459
You gave us permission to roast. By my estimates, your question has been asked about 16,756 times on this forum alone.
Search function. BTW, the only significant differences for typical applications between an older 289/302 BLOCK and a newer one is the 1 piece rear main seal. Some newer 302 blocks have provisions in the lifter valley to run oem dogbones on roller lifters. Otherwise the blocks are same/same. The engine can be different due to head, cam and piston choices. Again search function.
Search function. BTW, the only significant differences for typical applications between an older 289/302 BLOCK and a newer one is the 1 piece rear main seal. Some newer 302 blocks have provisions in the lifter valley to run oem dogbones on roller lifters. Otherwise the blocks are same/same. The engine can be different due to head, cam and piston choices. Again search function.
05-07-2011, 02:48 AM
#5
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California
Posts: 10,468
Just get a late model 302 block already set up for a roller cam, build a 347 and be done.
The real question, is how much money do you have to spend and what kind of performance are you looking to get?
The real question, is how much money do you have to spend and what kind of performance are you looking to get?
05-07-2011, 07:07 AM
#6
6th Gear Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 5,232
Im new to the mustang forums and i have so many questions for you all, but first id like to start with a few about potential motors...
Understandable
I am looking into picking up a 1965 mustang coupe with an unmodified 289 and an automatic transmission (ugh!)
Before completing that thought, this car has a C4:
this weekend, but i am concerned about the power output of such an engine. Now, before i begin i would like to say that i am not at all concerned with keeping the mustang "original", matching #s, etc. I am after a nice looking mustang that performs well solely for my own enjoyment as a daily driver (with some umph, of course).
I dont know the exact mileage on it, but it seems to me that an older motor like that will need to be rebuilt at the very least. However, would a rebuild of a 289 net a comparable amount of hp at the rear wheels to a newer, say 1980-1995, 302 built up from a block?
Yeah, this 289 looks really pokey. Anything you do to a 302 applies equally to a 289.
I know some people seem say that a smaller yet older v8 will push just as much if not more hp than a newer one due to smog and emissions constraints.
Yet, where i live there are no emissions tests and i could realistically drive it down the road with no cats or any other emissions control devices of any kind and nobody would say a word to me about it, so that may shift the balance in favor of a 302, yes?
That has nothing to do with it. Cars can pass "smog" tests and still do burnouts, it's not either/or.
The three options i am entertaining at the moment are:
1) rebuild the 289 it has with good quality parts in hopes of ending with a motor that offers a good bit of power without throwing my gas mileage in front of the bus
You can do mid-teens mpg with over 300 hp, easily.
2) build up a 302 from a block this summer (already have the space set aside just in case) with only minor experience with my 86 f150s 302 (been doing my homework though!), allowing a mechanic/machine shop to do the really intense stuff
No real advantage to a 302, it's the same engine as a 289. 85 and later 5.0 (302) engines had roller cams from the factory, which is an advantage, if you feel the need for a roller cam. But even now, the 302 is basically a 289. The difference was the stroke was 1/8" longer.
3) buying a 302 crate motor thats ready to drop in
I dont want to have to go the crate motor route because most people that i have talked to say that almost any affordable crate motor is garbage and i would just be throwing my money away. Do you all agree? If not, do you know of any quality crate motor manufacturers that you would be willing to use in your mustang?
Define "affordable".
My hesitation with building up a 302 is that i am worried about encountering problems that i am unable to handle myself causing the build to become expensive and lengthy. However, i do feel confident that with all the books, internet research, and help of my very mechanically inclined friend (built a '32 ford from the ground up) i would be able to get it done eventually as long as i dont stumble into any catastrophic problems.
I just feel that a 289 wont get as good gas mileage or horsepower as a newer 302.
I covered this, it's practically the same engine. Get 'feeling' out of it. A 1994 5.0 swapped into your car would look so much like the original engine you'd have trouble telling the difference.
I also feel that if i do build the motor that goes into this vehicle myself i will be able to handle any and all maintenance as well as knowing that it was done with quality parts and care resulting in (hopefully) a very nice motor that will hold up for a long time.
Then do the 289.
What are your thoughts? Am i stark raving mad? Am i on the totally wrong track? Roast if necessary, but include answers!
I should boiler-plate this. Magazines extol the virtues of their advertisers' products to the point that people think they have to drop a ton of money into a car to get performance.
A guy near here followed this advice, and ended up with 323 hp on the dyno.
• Edelbrock Performer RPM intake manifold
• Edelbrock (or Summit ) 600 cfm carb
• 289HP air cleaner
• Stock distributor recurved to BOSS 302 specs
• C9OZ-6250-C hydraulic version of the 289HP cam
• Stock iron heads port-matched to the exhaust
289/302 Cylinder Head Port Matching
To this you might add screw-in rocker studs and performance valve springs.
Cost would be roughly $1000. Notice I haven't mentioned exotic ignition upgrades. Dollar-for-dollar, they give the least horsepower of anything you can do. Leave that for a later day when you have money burning a hole in your pocket.
Understandable
I am looking into picking up a 1965 mustang coupe with an unmodified 289 and an automatic transmission (ugh!)
Before completing that thought, this car has a C4:
this weekend, but i am concerned about the power output of such an engine. Now, before i begin i would like to say that i am not at all concerned with keeping the mustang "original", matching #s, etc. I am after a nice looking mustang that performs well solely for my own enjoyment as a daily driver (with some umph, of course).
I dont know the exact mileage on it, but it seems to me that an older motor like that will need to be rebuilt at the very least. However, would a rebuild of a 289 net a comparable amount of hp at the rear wheels to a newer, say 1980-1995, 302 built up from a block?
Yeah, this 289 looks really pokey. Anything you do to a 302 applies equally to a 289.
I know some people seem say that a smaller yet older v8 will push just as much if not more hp than a newer one due to smog and emissions constraints.
Yet, where i live there are no emissions tests and i could realistically drive it down the road with no cats or any other emissions control devices of any kind and nobody would say a word to me about it, so that may shift the balance in favor of a 302, yes?
That has nothing to do with it. Cars can pass "smog" tests and still do burnouts, it's not either/or.
The three options i am entertaining at the moment are:
1) rebuild the 289 it has with good quality parts in hopes of ending with a motor that offers a good bit of power without throwing my gas mileage in front of the bus
You can do mid-teens mpg with over 300 hp, easily.
2) build up a 302 from a block this summer (already have the space set aside just in case) with only minor experience with my 86 f150s 302 (been doing my homework though!), allowing a mechanic/machine shop to do the really intense stuff
No real advantage to a 302, it's the same engine as a 289. 85 and later 5.0 (302) engines had roller cams from the factory, which is an advantage, if you feel the need for a roller cam. But even now, the 302 is basically a 289. The difference was the stroke was 1/8" longer.
3) buying a 302 crate motor thats ready to drop in
I dont want to have to go the crate motor route because most people that i have talked to say that almost any affordable crate motor is garbage and i would just be throwing my money away. Do you all agree? If not, do you know of any quality crate motor manufacturers that you would be willing to use in your mustang?
Define "affordable".
My hesitation with building up a 302 is that i am worried about encountering problems that i am unable to handle myself causing the build to become expensive and lengthy. However, i do feel confident that with all the books, internet research, and help of my very mechanically inclined friend (built a '32 ford from the ground up) i would be able to get it done eventually as long as i dont stumble into any catastrophic problems.
I just feel that a 289 wont get as good gas mileage or horsepower as a newer 302.
I covered this, it's practically the same engine. Get 'feeling' out of it. A 1994 5.0 swapped into your car would look so much like the original engine you'd have trouble telling the difference.
I also feel that if i do build the motor that goes into this vehicle myself i will be able to handle any and all maintenance as well as knowing that it was done with quality parts and care resulting in (hopefully) a very nice motor that will hold up for a long time.
Then do the 289.
What are your thoughts? Am i stark raving mad? Am i on the totally wrong track? Roast if necessary, but include answers!
I should boiler-plate this. Magazines extol the virtues of their advertisers' products to the point that people think they have to drop a ton of money into a car to get performance.
A guy near here followed this advice, and ended up with 323 hp on the dyno.
• Edelbrock Performer RPM intake manifold
• Edelbrock (or Summit ) 600 cfm carb
• 289HP air cleaner
• Stock distributor recurved to BOSS 302 specs
• C9OZ-6250-C hydraulic version of the 289HP cam
• Stock iron heads port-matched to the exhaust
289/302 Cylinder Head Port Matching
To this you might add screw-in rocker studs and performance valve springs.
Cost would be roughly $1000. Notice I haven't mentioned exotic ignition upgrades. Dollar-for-dollar, they give the least horsepower of anything you can do. Leave that for a later day when you have money burning a hole in your pocket.
05-07-2011, 11:59 AM
#7
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posts: 6,417
what work was done to bottom end? i guess you'd have to put in at least ARP rod bolts, otherwise you couldn't spin that past 5500, and I guess that 300+ HP was probably at 6500 rpm-ish
05-08-2011, 01:51 PM
#8
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Smyrna, TN
Posts: 678
As mentioned you can get the same HP/TQ out of either 289/302, it's a 13ci. difference, nothing major. From all the reading I've done I've seen numbers from 5-15hp difference between a hydraulic flat tappet 289 block and a roller 302 due to the roller freeing up a little hp eliminating friction. I did this comparison before my build and if you replace any of the roller parts - cam/ lifters, etc. they are 2X the cost of hydraulic parts. Many just keep the stock cam/lifters that are in the used 302 roller they bought but I wasn't comfortable with that idea myself.
As metioned with the same accessories - heads, intake, carb. you'll get the same exterior appearance and performance/mpg out of each engine. Cost for me was greater with the roller as i would have replaced all the parts I replaceId on the 289. I chose to keep my stock 289 and stroke it to 333ci for a mix of performance/ longevity. After speaking with my engine builder we picked a cam that would fit my use - DD and weekend fun/track car. I would have come out close to the same $ wise if I went with a short block crate or my original rebuild and I liked the idea of keeping the stock block in the car.
Jon
As metioned with the same accessories - heads, intake, carb. you'll get the same exterior appearance and performance/mpg out of each engine. Cost for me was greater with the roller as i would have replaced all the parts I replaceId on the 289. I chose to keep my stock 289 and stroke it to 333ci for a mix of performance/ longevity. After speaking with my engine builder we picked a cam that would fit my use - DD and weekend fun/track car. I would have come out close to the same $ wise if I went with a short block crate or my original rebuild and I liked the idea of keeping the stock block in the car.
Jon
05-08-2011, 03:03 PM
#9
Yukon Cornelius
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: deep in the heart of dixie GEORGIA
Posts: 11,808
go to the junkyard and buy an explorer 5.0 add a new cam to it and a 4v intake and get a dizzy with the proper cam gear for the roller cam add some roller rockers and youll have 300hp easy
05-08-2011, 03:06 PM
#10
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: U.S.
Posts: 216
I believe there is an 11 hp difference in the 302 with the same build as the 289. There should be a slightly better torque rating for the 302 as well.
Everything depends on your budget. Some 289's have a 5 bolt bell housing, 302's have a 6 bolt. If you do a 5 speed conversion and you have a 289 bell housing then you will have to have an adapter plate.
You are doing the right thing by asking a lot of questions. One thing I have learned from my conversion is that you must have everything well planned before you start putting it all together.
Everything depends on your budget. Some 289's have a 5 bolt bell housing, 302's have a 6 bolt. If you do a 5 speed conversion and you have a 289 bell housing then you will have to have an adapter plate.
You are doing the right thing by asking a lot of questions. One thing I have learned from my conversion is that you must have everything well planned before you start putting it all together.