Ford Forums banner

Windsor engine no./id question.

6K views 37 replies 10 participants last post by  Stu289 
#1 ·
I'm looking at building an engine starting from a 289 block because NSW engineering rules will not let me go past 299.8x ci in the vehicle receiving the engine.

Even though I could use stroker internals to get capacity without changing external appearance, I don't think I'll be too tempted to do so as the car in question is quite light.

So, what I need to know is, are 289 blocks stamped with codes that will enable them to be differentiated from 302 blocks??? Something said in another thread on these forums has cast some doubt on my previous assumption that codes would tell the blocks apart.

If anyone can shed some light that'd be great.

By the way... I'm specifically referring to the block because I won't be running factory heads or manifolds.
 
#2 ·
Stu289 said:
I'm looking at building an engine starting from a 289 block because NSW engineering rules will not let me go past 299.8x ci in the vehicle receiving the engine.

Even though I could use stroker internals to get capacity without changing external appearance, I don't think I'll be too tempted to do so as the car in question is quite light.

So, what I need to know is, are 289 blocks stamped with codes that will enable them to be differentiated from 302 blocks??? Something said in another thread on these forums has cast some doubt on my previous assumption that codes would tell the blocks apart.

If anyone can shed some light that'd be great.

By the way... I'm specifically referring to the block because I won't be running factory heads or manifolds.
have you seen the rule and why ?
what sort of car.
 
#3 ·
atec77 said:
have you seen the rule and why ?
what sort of car.
Yes, I have seen the rule... if you mean the rule regarding maximum capacity. There are light vehicle modification factsheets you can download from the RTA website. The one in question is titled "Guidlines for light vehicle modifications." There you'll find the currently applicable formulas to calculate the maximum replacement engine capacity that can be certified for various types of car. I don't know what you mean by "... and why?"

The car in question is a Datsun 240z.

RTA records say the 240z (HS30 chassis) weighs in at 1020kg. The relevant multiplier is the one for vehicles with a tare mass over 1100kg, and/OR with engines having more than 4 cylinders: Original tare mass in kg x .294 = allowable capacity in ci. As I said above, the capacity limit comes to 299.88ci.

Does that info help you help me??

Again, to avoid getting sidetracked, I'm hoping someone can tell me whether 289 blocks are externally distinguishable from 302 blocks, ie, by stamping/codes. I'd really appreciate the help.
 
#4 ·
I have no idea about the rule you refer to, but thats not imorptant.
The only difference between 289 and 302 blocks will be the casting number, and this is partly covered by the starter motor. (there may be other changes I'm not aware off, others will help.)
The 302 is just a stroked 289, no differenec in bore at all. Something else to remember is that most 289's running around today were built using 302 blocks. :shh:, but with the old crankshaft they are still a 289. :hy:
 
#6 ·
A good resource is "How to re-build Small Block Ford engines". by Tom Monroe, published by HPBooks.
Honestly mate no RTA bloke is going to pick any external difference. A trick is to make sure your inlet manifold is aftermarket, or genuine Ford 289 as it is cast into the manifold as 302 or 289, but this could always be argued.

Come on Windsorphiles any othe differences?
nassi
 
#7 ·
In the lifter valley the block will have 289 or 302 cast into it.

Now here is a rarely known fact. In 1968 there are some 289's that have 302 cast into the lifter valley because some 302 blocks were cast at the windsor plant to be built into 302's but never were and instead were sent to the Cleveland plant where the 302's were being built. SOME of these blocks were built into 302's and some were built into 289's as Cleveland ran out of 289 blocks. I have one of these blocks and that is how I learned about it. Also this site was a huge help.

http://www.classicmustang.com/casting_numbers.htm

You should find everything you need there.

Steve
 
#8 ·
This is all good info and true, but rego guys dont lift the inlet manifold/ valley cover or the rocker covers for inspection. So ensure the outside is right and no probs. Have you thought about a 347 :priest: , will look the same so who's to know :shh:
nassi
 
#9 ·
Stu289 said:
Thanks Nassi. Could you (or anyone) suggest a resource for early windsor engine codes so that I can i.d a 289 block?
you are right on power to "factory weight" rule. have you added in the weight of the heaviest car in your model as this can increase your capacity legally somewhat.
as for your engine prefix/numbers for a 289. dont just rely on that i am not sure of the windsors interchangeability. because if it is a 289 block you have got and it was previously registered in n.s.w as a 302 it will now be logged on the data base as such even if it is or was a 289. and you wont comply. this happens and is upsetting when you have rebuilt it. what i would do is find a block you intend on using and check the numbers out with the rta first if you do not know the history. as these have been in and out of the system for quite some time now.
if the block is a import you have nothing to worry about.
as for stroking it this would not be a problem as there is no way they can tell. as long as the block is the std configuration your free to do as you like
 
#10 ·
Stu289 said:
Yes, I have seen the rule... if you mean the rule regarding maximum capacity. There are light vehicle modification factsheets you can download from the RTA website. The one in question is titled "Guidlines for light vehicle modifications." There you'll find the currently applicable formulas to calculate the maximum replacement engine capacity that can be certified for various types of car. I don't know what you mean by "... and why?"

The car in question is a Datsun 240z.

RTA records say the 240z (HS30 chassis) weighs in at 1020kg. The relevant multiplier is the one for vehicles with a tare mass over 1100kg, and/OR with engines having more than 4 cylinders: Original tare mass in kg x .294 = allowable capacity in ci. As I said above, the capacity limit comes to 299.88ci.

Does that info help you help me??

Again, to avoid getting sidetracked, I'm hoping someone can tell me whether 289 blocks are externally distinguishable from 302 blocks, ie, by stamping/codes. I'd really appreciate the help.
If you check the actual rule it mentions a model series , so go look for the heaviest car in that model , maybe a wagon or something as thats the weight you can atribute to the car and if its enough will be able to run a 302 legally .
I am repeating what an engineer in NSW quoted
hope it helps
I suggest you could also consider a jap 8 may be a better fit .
 
#13 ·
reece1 said:
ok cool the 351 windsor is not interchangeable either is it with the 302 is this right??? dependable lukey knows his models well
The 351 Windsors are a bigger engine,and have a differant block in comparisson to all other Windsors.I think they are a taller block and are wider?Early 351 Windsor Heads will fit onto 221-302 Windsors...but water passages are completely differant.I think some late 351 Windsor Heads can be used on other Windsors if correct Inlet Manifold is used? No 351 Windsor Intake will fit any smaller Windsors.Rocker Covers for all Windsors are interchangeable.Another good idea is to use a 351 Windsor Camshaft in a 221-302 Windsor to gain some performance...they fit straight in,but your Firing Order requires altering to 351 Windsor Firing Order if you do so.
 
#14 ·
I had a 302 crank in 289 years ago but it had longer rods...From memory 5.315"..
 
#15 ·
lukeh said:
Windsor 302 Crank and Rod's won't go into a 289 Block,as the bores are shorter in a 289 Block.
Ford might be interested to know that, cause Im sure thats what they did for years. The 302 is a stroked 289, is it not? :hy:
I think you will find 289 and 302 bores are the same, BUT 351 bores a about an inch longer.
 
#18 ·
I would guess you could id a 289 block if its casting code was C5 or C7 which would have been cast before 302's existed or a C3 ,C4 block with the 5 bolt bell housing which would make it a pita for transmission choice .The last 2 could also be a 221-260w with 3.50" ,3.80" bores instead of the 4.00" bore 289 and 302 windsors have
Ive also heard they made 289's with 302 blocks as Ohio Xb said,
I'm guessing they must of run out 289 blocks before they ran out of 289 cranks/rods.
 
#20 ·
Ohio XB said:
The only way to truely verify if you have a 302 or 289 is to pull the pan and look at the ID marks on the crank. 1M is 289, 2M is 302.

Steve

221,260, 289 all use the 2.87" stroke 1M crank and 5.135 C3AE rods
So if you use these with 289 pistons in a 302 block you have a 289 as long as its a std bore.

Stu289 - Your best bet would be to speak with the relevent authorities or engineer and ask what they need as proof of engine displacement as you could legaly have a 302 block with 289 internals .
 
#21 ·
nassi said:
Ford might be interested to know that, cause Im sure thats what they did for years. The 302 is a stroked 289, is it not? :hy:
I think you will find 289 and 302 bores are the same, BUT 351 bores a about an inch longer.
A friend who know's alot about Windsor's told me that 302 Windsor Block's have longer bores than 289 Windsors...so I will have to verify this again with him,and check some of his blocks?
 
#22 ·
Yes my friend say's that 289 Windsor Blocks have shorter bores than 302 Windsors.I forget by how much that he told me,but it was by either about 1/4 inch or 1/8 inch? I forget which one.He say's that the 302 Windsor Crank and rods can be fitted to a 289 block,but piston skirts will likely end up breaking or something.
 
#24 ·
Ok... have read through the replies and thanks for some well-reasoned suggestions.

The best of them was probably to consult an engineer and ask what proof of engine capacity they would require.

Thanks also for a number of pointers as to where i.d and casting numbers are found.

Whoever asked if I'd considered a 347... yes, I've been wondering what rod/crank/piston combo I might like to get into the lil' windsor block... I don't need so much torque that I really want to tread into questionable or costly territory with piston pin location - 331 is a possibility, as are a number of longer-rod combos from 289 up... at this point I'm having to reconsider diff/halfshaft joint options to cope with the torque.

I have also considered a Jap V8. The Lexus 1UZFE is the other engine I may use for the project but I would feel compelled to use forced induction in that case... I'm kinda wanting the project to have an old-school racer feel to it like the V8 installs into 240Zs which happened soon after they were released.

Finally, regarding the curveball-highjack... a lot of people have put 302 cranks and rods into 289 blocks, as well as other 'stroker' combinations generally advertised as 'for 302', because they're basically the same block and have the same deck height... the 351 is a physically taller block capable of housing much more capacity.
 
#25 ·
Stu289 said:
Ok... have read through the replies and thanks for some well-reasoned suggestions.

The best of them was probably to consult an engineer and ask what proof of engine capacity they would require.

Thanks also for a number of pointers as to where i.d and casting numbers are found.

Whoever asked if I'd considered a 347... yes, I've been wondering what rod/crank/piston combo I might like to get into the lil' windsor block... I don't need so much torque that I really want to tread into questionable or costly territory with piston pin location - 331 is a possibility, as are a number of longer-rod combos from 289 up... at this point I'm having to reconsider diff/halfshaft joint options to cope with the torque.

I have also considered a Jap V8. The Lexus 1UZFE is the other engine I may use for the project but I would feel compelled to use forced induction in that case... I'm kinda wanting the project to have an old-school racer feel to it like the V8 installs into 240Zs which happened soon after they were released.

Finally, regarding the curveball-highjack... a lot of people have put 302 cranks and rods into 289 blocks, as well as other 'stroker' combinations generally advertised as 'for 302', because they're basically the same block and have the same deck height... the 351 is a physically taller block capable of housing much more capacity.
Yes stu289...but it is the bore length that I was saying was apparently the differance between 289 and 302 Windsor blocks,not external dimensions or deck heights.This likely may also be why you see stroker combinations advertised for 302 Windsor engines,and not 289?.You should consider doing a 289 Windsor with something like...mechanical lift camshaft,electronic ignition,balanced bottom end with shot peened standard rod's and ARP rod bolt's,600-700 cfm carburettor,extractors and good mufflers,and say a edelbrock performer rpm intake amongst a few other modifications.If you want to get extravagent go for some alloy heads even.An engine like this can be done on a reasonable budget,and may even surprise you with performance.All the best and goodluck!!
 
#26 ·
hi
I got caught out many years ago with an 289 in an XP sedan, i was told i could have the 289ci, later I wore out the 289 so figured Id stick in a 302, so built a 302 then transfered all the good bits from the 289 onto it.
Being a good lad i presented myself to the RTA (Perth) and found "sorry thats a 302 and your permit is void" i asked how can you tell, by the engine number silly, weve got all the details and can tell the age and model of the engine number of the block.Casting numbers have NOTHING to do with it.
My advise is to get a 289 block, there isnt any difference to my knowledge, and use that to make up what ci you like, as the engine number on the blocck will show early 66-67 model which means 289ci to them.
A7M
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top