Trashed 289 - now what?

J.Bart · Mar 9, 2008

the purpose of stroking an engine, in my book, isn't to get cubic inch, it is for torque.
a short stroke will get you horse power at massive rpms, a long stroke will get you torque at lower rpms, hence: mileage with the right cam and rear end gears

robert campbell · Mar 9, 2008

More cubes almost always mean more available torque. So a 427 windsor or 427 FE will always make more torque than a 289. so will a 393 windsor based on a 351 block. 347 from a 302/289 block will make more torque than a 289 in similar cam tune and much lower in the RPM band. Simple physics.

Budget drives all as Neil says. But a mild built 85 and newer 302 block (readily available) with a 347 stroker kit is what I would do today if I was building. Tons of power and torque under 6,000 rpm. Add a set of edlebrock aluminums or a set of ported iron and off you go. Even with a non-roller cam.

Exactly what Casey did. A huge kick in the butt and he even got a warranty!

Rob

Midnight Special · Mar 9, 2008

robert campbell said:
More cubes almost always mean more available torque...
Rob

...Okay... so here's my solution ;-)

P.S. Don't laugh - it's been done before!

joedls · Mar 9, 2008

@Holmes said:
Hey Joe Whatup?
Premature lobe wear results from improper instalation. They gernerate the same amount of hp tq. Now if I were going to build a motor that generates big rpm's then I would go with a roller but here were only talking about a economical 289 2V upgrade with a net rpm of 4000 max. A roller cam set cost 600+.

My apologies. I didn't realize you were discussing a low revving 289. I thought you were discussing either a high revving 289 or a 347 stroker. If you're talking about an engine that isn't going to rev above 4K, I wouldn't waste my money on a roller cam either. But why not choose a cam that will rev to at least 6K?

robert campbell · Mar 10, 2008

I agree with Joe. Even a stock 289 will live all day at 6,000 RPM. A cam can be set up with max HP at 5,500 to 6,000 and still make good low end torque. Why limit yourself? A 289 with a cam that ends at 4,000 for both HP and torque is limiting itself. Let it go and be what it can be. RPM means HP.

Rob

J.Bart · Mar 11, 2008

when i say high rpms, i'm talking above 6000 rpm.
if your going to stroke a 302,( if your not tryng to keep stock appearance) why not go with a 351w or 351c?
they have stoker kits for 351c over 4 inch
a 360, or 352 stroked with a 428 crank gives you 410 ci and much more torque, than boreing the 360 to 400 ci.

Mosesatm · Mar 11, 2008

Not to be a total wet blanket, but how you are going to drive the car should also come into play. I drive mine nearly 10K per year so I'm leaning a little more towards decent mileage. Summer is on its way and when it gets here gas will probably be pushing $4.00 per gallon. Just something to consider.

Midnight Special · Mar 11, 2008

...Well, he said he wants it to have "kick in the pants". And the engine experts here are generously providing excellent tips for maximizing hp, yet stock appearance... My problem is that I'm always "testing" to make sure performance is optimum with sprints up the highway and 0-60 from stoplights etc... hence, horrible gas mileage. But my stock 289 2v - I don't push and get a reliable 18/ 20 MPG.

Indeed, the long term $$ you'll pay for gas will add to & compound investment in performance mods.

Wearing "unleaded boots" will help, but I for one am not that disciplined ;-)

joedls · Mar 11, 2008

Midnight Special said:
Wearing "unleaded boots" will help, but I for one am not that disciplined ;-)

Don't own any of these. Wouldn't know where to get them. And furthermore, wouldn't wanna know where to get them.

Mosesatm · Mar 11, 2008

Midnight Special said:
...Well, he said he wants it to have "kick in the pants". And the engine experts here are generously providing excellent tips for maximizing hp, yet stock appearance... My problem is that I'm always "testing" to make sure performance is optimum with sprints up the highway and 0-60 from stoplights etc... hence, horrible gas mileage. But my stock 289 2v - I don't push and get a reliable 18/ 20 MPG.

Indeed, the long term $$ you'll pay for gas will add to & compound investment in performance mods.

Wearing "unleaded boots" will help, but I for one am not that disciplined ;-)

I'm just trying to point out that there may be a slight difference in gas mileage (and possibly reliability) between a bored 289 with a moderate cam and a 351 punched and stroked to a 427.

joedls · Mar 11, 2008

Mosesatm said:
I'm just trying to point out that there may be a slight difference in gas mileage (and possibly reliability) between a bored 289 with a moderate cam and a 351 punched and stroked to a 427.

I think we can now crown Arlie the "King of the Understatement". :grin:

heliaster · Mar 11, 2008

Good call Arlie. I'm definitely trying to keep mileage within reason. I don't want to have to rely on the car for a daily driver but after spending all this time and money I'm sure as hell going to want to drive it all the time! I picked up a tanked and magged 302 (1971) block with 2V heads and new-in-the-box Keith Black pistons for $200 so I figure I'm on the way towards a mildly built 302 at a reasonable investment. I want it to hit 5500-6000 rpm without worrying about the engine, but don't need to go crazy. At this point I'm looking to invest another $1500 max, which would be on the low end of a stroker kit from what I've seen or a solid rebuild (I have most of the parts for a non-stroker already) with some head work, which I'm leaning towards.

Also my transmission trip was a success, so I have my drivetrain all lined up. Wide-ratio toploader paired with a 3.00 equa-lock rear end.

davidathans · Mar 11, 2008

dont buy a cheap stroker kit...summit 347 kit with keith black hypereutectic pistons for $1479.99 is a really bad idea...i know first hand

Mosesatm · Mar 11, 2008

davidathans said:
dont buy a cheap stroker kit...summit 347 kit with keith black hypereutectic pistons for $1479.99 is a really bad idea...i know first hand

What in the world are hypereutectic pistons???

@Holmes · Mar 11, 2008

If you are going with a stock look and want a roller I would sugest the following. They require a 351 firing order-
lope - simi rough idel:
http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?part=CCA-K35-426-8&autoview=sku
but I would perfer this cam with youir 4spd god vac and idel - no lope
http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?part=CCA-K35-413-8&autoview=sku

davidathans · Mar 11, 2008

Mosesatm said:
What in the world are hypereutectic pistons???

cheap shitty pistons that break into a million pieces

no seriously...a hypereutectic alloy has a certain percentage of silicon that is over the eutectic level....i forget all the details ...look at this link if you want to find out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypereutectic_piston

i strongly recommend forged steel over hypereutectic pistons because i destroyed ALL of the ones i had

Mustanger · Mar 12, 2008

davidathans said:
cheap shitty pistons that break into a million pieces

no seriously...a hypereutectic alloy has a certain percentage of silicon that is over the eutectic level....i forget all the details ...look at this link if you want to find out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypereutectic_piston

i strongly recommend forged steel over hypereutectic pistons because i destroyed ALL of the ones i had

... wikipedia has some cool stuff ... thanks Dave for the link, now I'm a little bit more dangerous because I now know a little bit more (lol) ... :thumb:

joedls · Mar 12, 2008

davidathans said:
i strongly recommend forged steel over hypereutectic pistons because i destroyed ALL of the ones i had

I'd recommend forged aluminum :wink: for high compression or boosted applications, but for low compression N/A applications, hypereutectic pistons should be just fine.

davidathans · Mar 12, 2008

joedls said:
I'd recommend forged aluminum :wink: for high compression or boosted applications, but for low compression N/A applications, hypereutectic pistons should be just fine.

not if you are detonating with 11.0:1 compression with cast heads...i dont consider 11:1 low compression, but its not that high...and hypereutectic pistons suck haha...well maybe i wouldnt have destroyed them all if i was running 100 octane gas or had aluminum heads...but with CA 91 i broke all of them...its worth the extra money to get forged...no problem with cold starts in California...
the car still made 250 HP at the wheels in this condition and 275 torque, and ran low 14s at 93mph

joedls · Mar 12, 2008

davidathans said:
not if you are detonating with 11.0:1 compression with cast heads...but with CA 91

Definitely a bad combination for hypereutectic pistons. But when I wrote that these pistons are OK for low compression engines, I was thinking more along the lines of 9.5:1 or lower. Maybe a little higher with aluminum heads and the right cam. I would consider 11:1 a high compression street engine, especially with iron heads on CA pump gas.

Trashed 289 - now what?

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Similar threads