In a message dated 01/22/2000 11:39:51 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Laifman@Flash.Net writes:
<< Now, he does NOT say a 302 can't be used in a 289, but deck clearances and
deck
height are different after the '72 302, which is block related, and not all
due to
the change in rod length AFTER the '72 302. But he does caution that the sum
of
the crank throw, rod length, piston compression height, and deck clearance
must
not exceed the block's deck height. >>
Now I am confused, I was certain that the 260/289/302 motors all had the same
deck height. When I installed my late-model, roller cam 302 in my Tiger, the
exhaust ports were exactly in the same position as the replaced 260, which,
unless the dimensions of the heads differs, would lead to the assumption that
the deck heights were equal. I know the 351W deck height is significantly
higher.
The 289 block/302 crank combo is pretty common among those building
motors.With a .030 overbore it results in a 306 cid motor. Also, the early
289 block is desireable for a stroker build, as the casting in the bottom end
has more "beef" than the late model 302s.
I am not sure the 302 crank/260 block combo wouldn't work, if rod and rod
journal dimensions etc. are the same.
Mike
|