That's cuz people ran FEs in Mavs in the Pro Stock days and other classes after Pro Stock turned into Funny Car again. They were pretty much no shock tower/straight front axle cars. 289/302? Not enough difference to worry about, except for 5 bolt bellhousings and such. A 302 and 289 built the same would not result in the 302 "crushing" the 289. 15-20hp difference max.
I don't know about that. There was a stock tower Mav on eBay recently with a 428 FE and headers. I have seen pics of the swap headers, and they are pretty much long tube block hugging type. Very much like the Cleveland headers for a Maverick. Edit: I found the pics... The black set is FE Maverick w/2" tubes, the silver set is Cleveland Maverick big tubes. They are both clearly for a towered car... If you don't have towers, then there is no need to run the headers so tight and under the car. Straight axle cars usually have free flowing fenderwell exit headers.
I contemplated this 289/302 debate before I put my build together. I was leaning heavily towards the 289, then decided to go with the 302. I wanted the Maverick to be on the wild side. I will build teh 289 balanced blueprinted etc. for a nice little driver in my Mustang. They both are really good motors and I still sometime wish I would have gone with the 289. The good thing though is that I still have it to use at any time.
If you're comparing a 68 289 to a 68 302, there ain't a dime's worth of difference in output. Compare a 66 289 to a roller 302? Now there's a difference.
according to a couple of drag racing buds, the late model 302 crank and block is weaker, as well as a large portion of the difference is hydraulic roller lifters, which don't like to be spun high. I may be mistaken, but I'll stick with pre-bean-counter Ford parts any day for a racing car. Daily driver, I'm looking at the 5.0 roller. Check Moneymaker @ mustangsandmore.com for 9000 RPM runs on a stock (but balanced) 289 cast iron crank.
The early 50 oz 5.0 cranks are weaker, but from the late 80's til the end of production, the casting quality improved vastly. They're so good, they look like a forging. I've spun a factory reman crank, rods and hypereutectics to 7500 with ARP rods bolts as the only upgrade. As for the blocks, they're fine to the 450 horse level, depending on what rotating assembly you put in it. It's the rotating mass plus the rpm's that kill a block. And the hyd rollers? Use better lifters and they're also good for 7500 rpms. The stock lifters bounce off the cam at 6000-6500. Crane and others make better hyd roller lifters that are replacements for the stock style lifters. Your drag racing buds need to do their homework.
Interesting. The exits of those look kinda crude. Looks like they would hit all kinds on steering linkages and stuff on a conventional front suspension set up in a Mav. I would like to see them installed in a car. I am amazed any of these were still around. I can easily see the difference in the width of engine bays between Mustangs and Mavs, and my 428cj Mach had headers, and they touched the shock towers out of the ports on both sides. A 351w pretty much touches the towers on Mavs, and there is plenty of room on Mustangs, so an FE motor in a Mav would at least have to have SOME shock tower mods, to be sure. Pretty extensive ones, from what I have seen.
A 302 and 289 built the same would not result in the 302 "crushing" the 289. 15-20hp difference max.[/quote] Most streetable combos will produce about 1.2 x CID. That equates to about 360hp for the 302 and 345hp for the 289 at the flywheel. All the other discussions are simply "bench racing".
Speaking from bench racing and experience, build a 289 and a 302 the same, the 302 has better low RPM torque, the 289 tends to have less overall torque, but usually the same HP at a higher RPM. Torque gets you moving, but horsepower wins the race. The difference between the 289 and the 302 can come down to nothing more than the quality of workmanship done in the build. A tight 302 can be outrun by a loose 289 built to otherwise the same specifications. On a performance build, you can gain 10-15hp with looser clearances to give less rotating friction. Same reason engines gain milage after several thousand miles. They've worn their groove, less friction from the mains and rods... Just the difference between two identical engines is probably 10-15hp. Its hard to build two completely identical engines and have the exact same output. Even a complete rebuild of the same engine, same components, has different characteristics.
Can't forget the 289's awesome rod ratio. The 289 is a real screamer. Get the RPMs up to the moon and she'll GO. 302s love to rev too, don't get me wrong... but the 289 defines high revving power.
Cubic inches is the foundation of all torque. Horsepower is just torque per second. A 289 and 302 turning the same RPM, with the same specs is just a race between cubic inches. The 302 has 4.4% more cubic inches and will have about that much more torque and horsepower with the same specs at the same rpm. BTW;The 302 has a higher rod length to stroke ratio than the difference in stroke would imply because the shorter compression height of the 302 piston. Thats why the pistons are not interchageable. What it boils down to is that the 302 will always give you more hp for the rpm than the 289. Both engines will turn high RPMs - Both engines respond to aftermarket build-up. As always cu" wins the torque race.
No Paul... The 302 has a longer stroke with shorter rods. That is a double whammy on the rod ratio of the 302. The pistons are absolutely interchangeable. The 289 has longer rods, that is why the pistons are the same. The 289 has a very high rod ratio compared to most production engines. As a side note, the 351w has an excellent rod ratio too. Mainly due to the tall block.
I caught that too. Some of the 60's 289/302 pistons weren't interchangeable but those are long since history.
