289 HiPo technical

Dangerous Doug · #1 (**permalink**) 05-06-2005, 08:58 AM

I read in George Reid's Ford Part Interchange book that there is no difference whatsoever between a 289 block and a 289 HiPo block. I assume this means no heavier castings around the main bearings, et cetera. BUT, the 289 HiPo block comes with heavier main bearing caps.

From a block perspective, is that correct?

This implies to me the plausibility of either adding heavier caps to a standard 289, or adding a main bearing girdle (plate that ties all of the main bearings together) to meet or beat the strength capacity of the 289 HiPo.

Am I an engine builder? Nope. Would I like to hear from some engine builders? Absolutely.

Am I way off or on track?

blykins · #2 (**permalink**) 05-06-2005, 09:16 AM

I think the Hipo block has screw in freeze plugs.

As for strength, you could have some 4 bolt main caps made....or use a main girdle like I did.

Ron61 · #3 (**permalink**) 05-06-2005, 09:44 AM

Doug,

Here is what my Ford Performance book says about the 289 HiPo. "The 289 HiPo was not just a dual exhaust/cam/four barrel advertising ploy. It consisted of a stouter block, a high RPM balanced nodular iron crankshaft, forged steel rods with 3/8" bolts, a solid cam with a healthy profile, and screw in rocker studs in the heads. It also had streamllined exhaust manifolds and a dual point distributor." It also says that only 17,000 were produced, but mainly the biggest difference is in the stouter block.
Hope this helps.

Ron

dwdshelby · #4 (**permalink**) 05-06-2005, 10:44 AM

DD, there was a very good article in Mustang Monthly I believe in the April edition detailing the difference between the regular 289 block and the HiPo.

I believe the only difference in the block itself, independent of the rods, crank, dampner, alternator pulley size, carb and heads, is the heavier main bearing caps. The hipo has press in freeze plugs like the ordinary 289 block.

So your analysis is pretty much correct.

Dave

Dangerous Doug · #5 (**permalink**) 05-06-2005, 11:15 AM

Interesting. I'm beginning to research building a 289 stroker (to what, 331 ci?) so I figure the block will probably be the only thing that remains from a "vintage" motor. Meaning the crank, rods, pistons, cam, et cetera will all change.

I want to use a vintage block for CA emissions---I need to research further, but I think the engine is evaluated by the date casting on the block itself.

I'm also thinking of doing the work myself, though I have never rebuilt an engine. I'd do the assembly, but farm out the machine work locally.

Anyone know of a good manual on how to build a 289 stroker?

wcampbell · #6 (**permalink**) 05-06-2005, 11:49 AM

HIPO's block is the same as a standard 289. Has C5AE-6015-E casting. Only difference in the thicker main caps added when the block was line bored.

Rick Parker · #7 (**permalink**) 05-06-2005, 04:16 PM

I am in agreement that the 289 block itself is the same, apart from the main caps. I believe the oil galley plugs were screw in rather than press in. The freeze plugs are the standard fare press in type. You can convert them to screw in type (like the Boss 302). Also the bottoms of the cylinder bores are not as long as the 302 block and in a stroker application will not support the skirts of the pistons as well as the 302 block. There were a batch of 289 blocks cast which had 4 bolt mains, the block evolved into what became the Boss 302 block. A well built 289 is bullit proof!

Rick

blykins · #8 (**permalink**) 05-06-2005, 04:28 PM

I don't think it's very wise to stroke a 289. They don't have the same cylinder dimensions as a 302....and you may find the piston not being stable in the bore....I have read many articles against stroking that engine.

G.R. · #9 (**permalink**) 05-06-2005, 10:20 PM

I have a late '66/ early '67 Hi-Po 289. It has screw in freeze plugs.
Stroking a 289 is "NOT" recommended, Unless it is for a "one time" race shot.

The 289 Block is strong but not enough for "stroking", with proper "tweaking" it should run like a bat out of he$$. If you need more "OOMPAH" get a 302 or a 351. Just info I've gleaned from articles about S/B Fords, FWIW

Dangerous Doug · #10 (**permalink**) 05-07-2005, 10:26 PM

Well, good thing I asked...

Any rebuild/performance tips for a 289 build up? I will be a first-time builder and can use suggestions from the cam to the intake.

Regards,
Doug

G.R. · #11 (**permalink**) 05-09-2005, 02:15 AM

I'm in the process of rebuilding my top end. I floated an intake valve due to a broken retainer. Luckily the valve just"kissed "the piston, no damage) and there was no damage to the lower end.

I have the 289 HI-Po heads with screw in studs and damper valve springs. These were a weak link ,corrected in the Boss 302, in the 289 due to the guide design and one piece retainer on the valve springs. Over revving and high Rpm were the weak link destroying many an engine.

I'm going with Edlebrock Aluminum heads to match the RPM performer manifold. Still haven't decided on a cam

427sharpe · #12 (**permalink**) 05-09-2005, 08:18 AM

If you want a stroker, look for a Mexican 302 block. They have the heavy main caps and were cast in the same plant as the HiPo 289's (Hermisillo, Mx). Easy to ID, as they say "Hecho En Mexico" in the lifter valley, and have the thick main caps. Stroking a 289 is not a good idea, as it was a stroked 221 to begin with. To build a solid performing 289, I recc'd the Sealed Power forged pistons, ARP bolts everywhere (including the rods). In the cam, I like a solid lifter (as the HiPo came originally) and there are plenty of choices...I like Comp Cams Magnum 280 and 292. Get one with a split duration, as the Fords need a little help breathing on the exhaust side. On the heads, standard port and polish and away you go. I have kept the HiPo 289 in my GT350 nearly stock, and have always been pleased with it's power and reliability. Remember that all the great aluminum heads out here will work too....just check for piston interference. Oh...and run a windage tray! I use the Boss 302 tray, and they are still available.

Dangerous Doug · #13 (**permalink**) 05-09-2005, 08:59 AM

G.R. : I'm thinking Edelbrock for heads, manifold and cam---"dynotuned to matched" sounds good. Any particular reason for you not going Edelbrock on the cam?

427sharpe: Thanks for the build tips. The 302 came out in '67, or '68? I need to double-check, but for CA emission I think I need a pre-1968 block.

cobraownr · #14 (**permalink**) 05-09-2005, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rick Parker

I am in agreement that the 289 block itself is the same, apart from the main caps. I believe the oil galley plugs were screw in rather than press in. The freeze plugs are the standard fare press in type. You can convert them to screw in type (like the Boss 302). Also the bottoms of the cylinder bores are not as long as the 302 block and in a stroker application will not support the skirts of the pistons as well as the 302 block. There were a batch of 289 blocks cast which had 4 bolt mains, the block evolved into what became the Boss 302 block. A well built 289 is bullit proof!

Rick

Does anyone know how a "C6FE" 289 block differs from a Hi-Po? Is a "C6FE" the Hi-Po with 4-bolt mains? "C6FE" blocks and heads were used in 1966 on competition GT40s and probably some race Cobras and GT350s too. I have seen an article on the "C6FE" heads, but what makes the "C6FE" block different or special I haven't found out yet. On stroking a 289, Ford contracted Holman-Moody to build 25 325CID stroker motors for the GT40 program in 1966. I don't have the specs with me, so perhaps there was an overbore in addition to stroking to get up to 325CID. The motors were not successful, having head sealing and block flex problems, so that engine program never went anywhere. I have one of those original 325 motors and am hoping that with almost 40-years advances in technology, we can get it to last as long as the revs are kept in check.

Goober · #15 (**permalink**) 05-09-2005, 02:03 PM

From previous threads and some experience, the main reason the 289 blocks are not good stroker candidates is the short skirt issue. Really has nothing to do with block strength. The 302 however has longer skirts and stroking is not a big issue.
The old 289 block is super strong, especially if you use the heavy main caps and they do like to rev if you have the top end set up right.
Just my 2 cents

Mark

64Pelican · #16 (**permalink**) 05-20-2005, 11:04 AM

The 289 will be fine for a 331 ci stroker, and most likely a 347. I bought a block from a guy who was putting a Mickey Thompson forged crank into a 289 to make a 360. That was about 15 years ago and before any "kits" were available.

How many of these posters has actually measured various 289's and 302's cyl depths? A poster on FordMuscle.com claimed to have measured at least 5 of each and determined that the 302's average no more than 1/16th of an inch deeper.

Do a search online for 289 stroker and you'll eventually find a guy who had a 347 ci 289 that he raced over and over with no ill effects.

I have a std bore 289 hipo cast in 64 that will be built into a stroker.