68 \'289\' rebuild

Looking to rebuild (if able stroker 331) my 289. Is this possible... I've heard negative feedback from "couch mechanics". Cost is issue and would like feedback and kit recommedations.

"Negative feedback" relative to what?

Recommend Brian at www.adperformance.com for kits, pricing, customer service.
[addsig]

That's why they're still COUCH mechanics...

Build it and they will come around! [img]/forums/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
[addsig]

I was told that the rear main bearing requires machining on older blocks?? Newer blocks were better candidates.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2006-04-24 11:02, gdansen wrote:
I was told that the rear main bearing requires machining on older blocks?? Newer blocks were better candidates.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
BS!
[addsig]

Some folks say a later block is more desireable mostly becasue of them being roller cam blocks......

The '68 "289" is a 302 block with 289 recip gear and I understand they are fine for stroking due to the extra clearance designed for the 302 stroke. Stu

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2006-04-26 18:38, CaptVirgilHilts wrote:
The '68 "289" is a 302 block with 289 recip gear and I understand they are fine for stroking due to the extra clearance designed for the 302 stroke. Stu
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
100% Internet Myth....compare a few blocks. 289/302/5.0 blocks all have the same cyl wall length, give or take a little production slop.
[addsig]

Nothing wrong with putting a 3.25 arm crank in a 289 block. Go for it, but if cost is a consideration you might just do a straight rebuild. A decent rotating assy is going to be $1000+. I said decent, not the cheapest eBay thing you can find. Like in one of the sigs above, check with Brian at AD.
[addsig]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2006-04-26 19:37, retroFiveOH wrote:
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2006-04-26 18:38, CaptVirgilHilts wrote:
The '68 "289" is a 302 block with 289 recip gear and I understand they are fine for stroking due to the extra clearance designed for the 302 stroke. Stu
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
100% Internet Myth....compare a few blocks. 289/302/5.0 blocks all have the same cyl wall length, give or take a little production slop.

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

Thanks for clearing that up. I wonder why Ford recast the block in 68? Other than putting 302 in the valley what changes were made? Inquiring minds want to know[img]/forums/images/smiles/icon_spin.gif[/img]!?

Stu[img]/forums/images/smiles/icon_tup.gif[/img]