Bronco Forum - Full Size Ford Bronco Forum banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hello to all. I was wandering if anyone out there has ever swaped a 302 for a 289? I have an 84 full size bronco that has a tired 302 and also have a 289 from a 67 mustang with less thatn 1000 miles I would like to replace it with.
My main question is if there is going to be any major problems with changing over the accesory brackerts and so on? A friend of mine recently swaped a car 5.0 into a 93 truck and ran into a lot of problems with brackets,timing cover and other things. Any help would be appreciated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
it is pointless the 289 is a pony car motor not a bronco motor you will be wasting that motor in the bronco leave it in the mustang were it belongs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Personally, I've never ever heard of a 289 going in a truck. I dunno how it would feel to drive, but I'm guessing not that good....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
648 Posts
I'm tired of my big penis and would like to swap to a smaller one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
211 Posts
You might have some problems, i'm not sure. I wish I could tell you for sure. If its not your daily driver you could pull the brackets and such off the truck and fab everything up onto the 289 before you stuck it in. You might have to use the pan and timing cover off the 302??? Maybe somebody will come along with some definite and helpfull answers for you unlike the 3 before me. That 289 should run better than the 302 does.

1984 302 [email protected] 250ft.lbs.torque @2000

3 different 289's for 67'. Weakest is:

1967 289 [email protected] 282ft.lbs.torque @2400

Thats according to these websites:

http://www.carmemories.com/cgi-bin/viewexperience.cgi?experience_id=131

http://www3.telus.net/cbradley/Engine_Specifications.html

Good luck with your project.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
471 Posts
The numbers on a 289 and 302 are very close as far as HP and Torque, the 302 will provide around 15lbs more torque simply due to the stroke being .13 inches longer. Also you can easily crank a 302 up to 300+ hp, and parts are a dime a dozen. The 65 289 was the creme of the crop for 289's and it peaked out at stock for 225hp, the 302 ran 210-230 hp depending on the carb used.

I trip over 302's all day long at Junk yards. The 289 parts are going to run you more money and you are almost entirely dependent on after-market manufacturers for parts.

If I had a 289 on my hands, I'd trade it out for a 302 + cash or upgrades. No reason to not make a profit off of the rareness of the 289!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
472 Posts
Stuff I remember about 289 engines;

Very early 289's used a small bell housing pattern with one less bolt than later SB Ford's had. I think(?) that particular change came about in mid-'65.
Exactly NO 289's used a 1-PC rear seal, which means that a 289 crank will NOT mate to our newer-style flywheels and to make it worse, I don't know of a 289 factory-flexplate that will mate to a newer style torque converter.
Aint no reverse-flow 289 water pumps, newer 302/351 pumps will not work on a 289 timing cover and not all SB Ford drive pulleys interchange. So if you gots a serpintine belt drive, do not expect it to work on a 289 engine.
By '67 all SB fords had been changed-over to a rediculas "rail rocker" which used an extended valve tip and pair of rails on the rocker nose to maintane alignment. That design was notorious for wearing out valve guides.
Without some rather expensive mods, 289 heads are not compatable with unleaded gas because their softer exhaust seats will literaly sink into the head.
Weren't any 289 smog motors, so to keep a newer vehicle legal, you'll need an EGR equiped 302 intake and a 302 carb that has the provision for hooking-up the vapor canister.
All 289's used breaker-point ignitions. You can upgrade that by using a Duraspark dist from a later 302, or convert your original to accept a Duraspark trigger, rotor and cap.

Aint saying a 289 can't be made to work in a Bronco. Just saying that it won't work as-is, so it aint a drop in.

DGW
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top