Head Choice for 289

Discussion in 'General Ranchero Help' started by colnago, Mar 16, 2019 at 3:58 PM.

  1. colnago

    colnago In Third Gear

    Messages:
    228
    Location:
    Ridgecrest, CA
    Okay, I'm still looking at options for a 289 build. I've been reading how the GT40 and GT40P are great heads, and how E7TE are okay heads, but I assume these are if you're building a 302. So, what if I only want a 289? Should I pass on these heads (any or all), and stick with the C5AE and C6AE heads? Should I simply build a 302 instead? The only "real difference" is crank and connecting rods, right? Or, should I find a block that's been specifically cast for a 302, so the cylinder walls can accommodate the longer stroke?

    This will only be for a daily driver, and maybe to spank the Camaro in the next lane.

    Joseph
     
  2. Dyno

    Dyno In Third Gear

    Messages:
    160
    Location:
    Croydon, Pa
    The Gt 40 heads are ok but watch out for header fitments, raised exhaust ports think more affected on P's but don't remember exact details.
    Look at the offshore heads in my opinion, like powermaxx for the money not a bad head at a decent price.
    289 vs 302 I'd take 289. 302 has longer bores at bottom to stabilize piston at high rpm.
    If you have to buy block go 351W better potential for power easy bolt in. Oh and bonus all bowtie guys will still think it's a 302! Nice for track or street.
     
  3. colnago

    colnago In Third Gear

    Messages:
    228
    Location:
    Ridgecrest, CA
    Is the 351W any bigger, physically? My 'chero is a 1964, and things are a bit snug as it is. If it's any bigger, I'm not sure I can squeeze it into the engine bay.

    My other ride is a 1967 F250. I can sit on the fender, and have my feet inside the engine compartment. Night and day difference!

    Joseph
     
  4. burninbush

    burninbush In Maximum Overdrive

    Messages:
    8,263
    Location:
    near SF
    Yes, it's wider by about 2" or so. (Deck height is 9.5 inches for a 351W vs 8.2 inches for a 302.)
     
    Dyno likes this.
  5. Dyno

    Dyno In Third Gear

    Messages:
    160
    Location:
    Croydon, Pa
    Yep Bb is correct an inch wider per side that's why it takes different headers. Not sure but seem to remember Hedman offering headers for these swaps years ago.
    Tight fit for sure. But $ for $ nice bang for buck.
    Your car do it your way.
     
  6. Doc76251

    Doc76251 In Third Gear

    Messages:
    139
    Location:
    Virginia Beach, VA
    I'm doing similar math right now on my 351W. It's going to be a 408W stroker, my World Jr. Heads while nice are not going to flow enough for the CI's so they will be available when/if the build starts. Take your 289, bore it 30 over and STROKE it baby!

    Cheers,

    Doc
     
    colnago likes this.
  7. colnago

    colnago In Third Gear

    Messages:
    228
    Location:
    Ridgecrest, CA
    Right now, I'm just trying to figure out what options I have for doing it my way. That's one of the benefits, and curses, of the SBF. Everything (to a limit) is mix-n-match. If I do a rebuild, I am almost guaranteed to have a Frankenmotor that works. Or, I can ask a lot of stupid questions, get a little smarter from the forum members' answers, and have a hope of having an engine that performs.

    Joseph
     
  8. Dyno

    Dyno In Third Gear

    Messages:
    160
    Location:
    Croydon, Pa
    Plenty of options. Have you checked how many bell housing bolts you have early 289's only had 5 later stuff has 6 bolts. Could help decision or limit options unless you want to change trans also.
    Not an often remembered spot when starting engine swaps, we all tend to think of common stuff. Recently ran into this on a early mustang had forgotten up to that point.
     
    colnago likes this.
  9. colnago

    colnago In Third Gear

    Messages:
    228
    Location:
    Ridgecrest, CA
    I currently have a 6-bolt housing on a C4. I was hoping to snag an AOD with a 302, but the guy wanted to keep the AOD. Right now, I'm looking at a 289 with a 6-bolt rear, to snug up to the current slushbox. I will probably keep the cartruck as a 289, although I just ran across a 260. I was tempted, but then I would need to find a 5-bolt housing for the C4. Not impossible, but from what I read, I really wanted to stay with the 289.

    It's not like a Ranchero is a desirable platform that commands a premium price (like a @#$%^&* POS Mustang, or (worse) a @#$%^&* POS Chevy), so I don't have to stay original. Like you said, make it my own! I'm just looking at all of the options right now.

    Joseph
     

Share This Page