What would I expect for a 302 swap?

Hey everyone. I'm gonna swap a 302 into a 67 mustang because I thought it would give the best opportunity for performance, while salvaging what I could out of the gas mileage (I wanna try to get 15mpg city if possible.) I was wondering what actual gas mileage I would get and what kinda power/ quarter mile times I could get with mods like swapping the heads and exhaust, exhaust headers and so forth (Maybe even getting really serious and porting/polishing and balancing) Thanks for your help.

Do you have a 289 in the car now or is it a 6 banger

Do you have a 289 in the car now or is it a 6 banger

Its a 289, and I was told the engine mounts are the same and it would match up.

yeah they do. I had a 67 also that I bought from my cousin. It had a 600 cfm holley Double pumper, edelbrock single plane intake, 280H Comp Cam, TRW pistons, and full exhaust. I never got a chance to run it myself, but my cousin said he ran 14.2's. It had a C4 w/shift kit. I'm not sure what tires he was running. He also ran nitrous for awhile a got a best of 12.63. This was a crappy set up though. It only got 10 mpg. You could spend more money and get a better setup with more power and mpg. The big cam sounded sweet at idle though.

If your up for the challenge you could swap in a 5.0 HO EFI engine. More money, but it's smoother and gets better gas milage.

If your up for the challenge you could swap in a 5.0 HO EFI engine. More money, but it's smoother and gets better gas milage.

Yeah I was thinking in the future of maybe going the fuel injected route, but I like the smell of fuel the carbuertated car gives off. And it would be a much easier swap with a much older engine. A lot less parts to worry about. Im thinking about easiest power and everything for the money now. In the future when I get more money saved it might be different.

ive seen guys go with the late 80's early 90's motors because they are dirt cheap, convert them to carbuerated and proceed to spray the living shit out of them. they usually slid a cam in and degree it to four degrees advanced. depending on the cam. most are four degrees for optimal performance. then put a holley 600 w/ vacume secondaries. then your good to go. fill up the bottle. sure the motor would only last about 6- 8 months depending how many bottles that you put through it but if you get to know the guys at the local junkyard they can usually hook you up.

ive seen guys go with the late 80's early 90's motors because they are dirt cheap, convert them to carbuerated and proceed to spray the living shit out of them. they usually slid a cam in and degree it to four degrees advanced. depending on the cam. most are four degrees for optimal performance. then put a holley 600 w/ vacume secondaries. then your good to go. fill up the bottle. sure the motor would only last about 6- 8 months depending how many bottles that you put through it but if you get to know the guys at the local junkyard they can usually hook you up.


Well does anyone know what it would take to put a fuel injected 302 into an old 67? Or to convert it to carbeurated?

Well does anyone know what it would take to put a fuel injected 302 into an old 67? Or to convert it to carbeurated?

I have done it.
You can bolt a carb intake right onto the engine, which is what I have done. I run mid 12's on an Explorer engine with only a cam change TFS Stage-1 straight up), and a valvetrain upgrade. I have run 11.36@120with a little N2O.
You should be able to get at least upper teens for mileage with a mild cam and a carb in your 67.

The issues are :

1. 50oz imbalance vs 24oz in your 289 (different dampener and flywheel)
2. No place to screw in a clutch pivot point on the block (buy the bracket)
3. Timing pointer is in different spot on the 302. (new dampener or late model accessory brackets)
4. Different headers needed if using GT-40P heads.

If you really want to sav some money keep the 289 and bore it. A 302 is nothing more then a bored 289. then you wouldnt have to worry about getting a flywheel with the same # of teeth and what not. I would be alot easer I think. If I where you I'd go with a Edelbrock Performer or Torker Cam & Intake combo. They are making hydro roller cams for them now too. That would give you a little more power and a little better mpg due to less engine drag. Stroke it if you like. With the Torker you will have a higher torque rating at a lower RPM because the Torker is a low rise intake. With a carb that means more torque, (the lower the intake the more torque with a carb, the higher the intake the more top end hp with a carb). Your engine will run most efficient at peak torque. Dont go fuel injected, old cars with new electronic crap is one thing I do not understand. Why butcher a classic with humiliating new crap when there are plenty of other cars with the shit?

Dont go fuel injected, old cars with new electronic crap is one thing I do not understand. Why butcher a classic with humiliating new crap when there are plenty of other cars with the shit?

Ummmm humiliating new crap? What the hell are you talking about dude. Oh you must mean those newer engines that make more power, get better gas milage, and are more reliable then those great and wonderful engines of 30 to 40 years ago that where feed by a fuel leak that sat on top of the engine. I don't personnally see a whole lot of older mustangs on the road today. Why is that? Maybe because the "new crap" saves money in the long run in milage and you knowing that it's going to start right up on that cold day with ease. Have you even owned a fuel injected sports car? I've owned an old mustang with a old 302 in it and I've owned a 95 Cobra with a new 302 in it. I would take the new engine any day. The modern engine in a older car makes the car a good daily driver canidate too. If you take the time on putting the engine into the old mustang the only way you should know the new engine is there is when you lift the hood.

I don't personnally see a whole lot of older mustangs on the road today. Why is that? Maybe because the "new crap" saves money in the long run in milage and you knowing that it's going to start right up on that cold day with ease.
You'll have me convicned when the modern cars get over 30 years old and have lasted like the version that has already proved itself for that long. Don't get me wrong though, newer engines are good too. The milage isn't that much different like a stated in a thread a few days ago. The older engines are easier to work on when its needed (not as often as some people seem to think).

you got almost 2 grand to dump, get a gear vendors under/overdrive. my father in law has one on his 74 nova. 502 wild cam dart pro heads. 1050 speed demon carb. he runs 10.90s on all motor driving it 30 miles to the track on drag radials. he can run 10.5 trailered with slicks. he has 4.56's and with his gear vendors he gets 12-14 mpg highway.
check out
www.gearvendors.com

[QUOTE=351wStang]If you really want to sav some money keep the 289 and bore it. A 302 is nothing more then a bored 289. then you wouldnt have to worry about getting a flywheel with the same # of teeth and what not. They are making hydro roller cams for them now too. That would give you a little more power and a little better mpg due to less engine drag. . QUOTE]

You can not rebuild a 289 and add a roller cam for what it costs to put a low mileage late model engine in the car, especially an engine with decent heads like the Explorer. It costs a pile of money to get the power out of a factory 289 or even 351W head that the Explorer heads have as delivered on the engines.

Regarding the other posts, there is a big difference in factory late model 302 fuel efficiency vs a factory 289 or early 302 fuel efficiency. Roller cam and low tension rings made a definite difference.
There is no difference in ease of working on the late engines vs the early engines if they both have a carb, except that the late model engines are easier to change the rear main seal as it is one piece and you do not have to drop the pan and putt the rear main cap.

I was refering to all the computer stuff that can and does go wrong. Newer engines don't run carbs normally. What do you consider a big difference? Both types average a little under 20, from what I've experenced.

Define "a little under 20". Most carb 302's will never get close to 20. I have gotten 23 with my '91 Mustang on the highway on a 300 mile trip.

You didn't answer my question. Anyway, 17-19mpg. Its a rare 302 that gets 23mpg, EFI or not. Elivation can effect it though.

5 mpg is a big difference.

True, but my point is the average EFI 5.0 doesn't get 23mpg.

Ug.. time to do some clean up.

Ok first of all you can NOT bore out a 289 to a 302. Infact, a 302 is just a STROKED version of the 289. They share IDENTICAL blocks EXCEPT that the the 289 bore is BIGGER by .001. A 289 has a stroke of 2.87 and a 302 has a strock of 3.

Secondly, why would you even want to change your 289 to a 302? A 289 would make about 5-10hp less than a 302 at around 350hp mark. BUT!! It will out rev a 302 by an ungodly amount. 289s tend to make their power way up on the RPM scale, which is a good thing.

As for the gas problem, 289s are good on gas when you want them to be, but like i said they make their power on the higher RPMs so when you really need to move just downshift and watch that little RPM neddle go.. as well as your gas neddle go down.

EFI will generally get more gas milage than a carb, but NOTHING will beat a carb, its very simple, has no computer, and you can tune it with a screwdriver.

As for the 67, what type is it? I got me a 67 coupe, shes my baby, and she's still in resortion.

yeah thats funny because I would tend to put money on the exact engine the EFI will outperform it then when it's carbed.

[QUOTE=rerun]Ug.. time to do some clean up.

They share IDENTICAL blocks EXCEPT that the the 289 bore is BIGGER by .001.
A 289 would make about 5-10hp less than a 302 at around 350hp mark. BUT!! It will out rev a 302 by an ungodly amount. 289s tend to make their power way up on the RPM scale, which is a good thing.
EFI will generally get more gas milage than a carb, but NOTHING will beat a carb, its very simple, has no computer, and you can tune it with a screwdriver.
QUOTE]

Say what????????

How do you get that there is a 1 thousanths bigger bore with a 289? Are you saying that they run more wall clearance with the pistons?
Ford lists both bores as 4.00. Both will run some amount of wall clearance.

Explain your 5-10hp theory. If they are both making 350HP, they are both making 350HP. If you are saying that the 302 generally makes some amount of more torque due to the longer stroke if the same cam and heads are used, then you would be correct.
Define "ungodly" amount. And "way up" in the RPM scale.
302's are more than equally capable (as 289's) of living at elevated RPM's. With the same cam, and the longer stroke, The 302 should out torque the 289 at any given RPM.
If by "NOTHING will beat a carb", you mean that a carb can generally make more peak power NA for less money than an EFI setup, then you have some merit to your statement.
If you look at area under the curve, and are willing to spend the additional time and money, EFI will look very attractive.
Once you add forced induction, the carb's simplicity is even more it's downfall. Once you have a EFI system properly set up, you do not even need a screwdriver to change the tune. A couple of key strokes, and viola, new tune. You also are not getting fuel on your hands and clothes while you change jets to adjust for changing conditions at the track.

:grinno: time for fun boys...

289 bore= 4.005
302 bore= 4.004

when you bore these blocks out you would just go to 4.02, or 4.03 or what ever you wanted to(you do not get a 4.035 or 4.034).

As for carbs being slower?... uhh.. have you gone to the drags latley?

my 5-10hp "theory" is not a theory; i am just stating the hp diffrence between a 289 and a 302 if the 302 was making around 350hp.

the higher rpm range on a 289 is about 6k on a stock motor, i've seen them making all their hp up to 8k+.. and whens the last time you could bring a 302 up to 8,500rpm on a fairly stock motor.

A 302 will have just a tad more torque than a 289 about 10 more pounds at the same exple of the 302 with 350hp (depending on your set up). After all, the 289 does use longer rods.

Also, if your afraid of a little gas on your hands.. well i think you've picked the wrong way to live..

I'm not against the 302, its a great motor, but i just like the 289 much better.

Any more questions?

I could care less which one heck I have a 4.6(can't be carbed) It just has to be american muscle V8 Ya

289 and 302 have very little differences So it really shouldn't matter in my opinion I'd rather have the 302 just because it is bigger(more fumes)

Don't worry to much about it just pick the one you personally can find the most parts for.

Once you have a EFI system properly set up, you do not even need a screwdriver to change the tune. A couple of key strokes, and viola, new tune. You also are not getting fuel on your hands and clothes while you change jets to adjust for changing conditions at the track.
lol, You talk like its hard to turn a screwdriver.

First there are 302 28oz balance engines. The pre Fuel injected 302 engines are 280z balance. As far as carb vs FI it is this simple carb is cheap and effective but it's worse on gas and sucks in cold weather warm-up. FI has more intial cost and tuning is more complex and cost more $$$ but FI will outperform a carb in any situation no matter what!!!! and gas mileage is better.

Why most guys will swap out the 289 for a 302 in older stangs is because along with a good engine they are getting a T-5 or AOD connected which gives them better gas mileage and everyday drivability.

If you consider transmissions, you can always swap in a T5 or AOD. Heck, I'm doing that to my I6.

"FI will outperform a carb in any situation no matter what!!!!" That is a very strong statement that is proven inconsistent often.

If you consider transmissions, you can always swap in a T5 or AOD. Heck, I'm doing that to my I6.

"FI will outperform a carb in any situation no matter what!!!!" That is a very strong statement that is proven inconsistent often.


No it's not an inconsistent statement at all. IF a carb and a FI are both tuned to perfection on the same motor, the FI set-up will always! always!! outperform the carb. FI has an accuracy carbs could only dream of and is constantly monitoring and adjusting in nanoseconds to what the motor is doing. I'm not saying carbs suck... I like carbs and they have thier place but FI is the superior performer. Argue all ya want the plain fact is you are wrong.

[QUOTE=rerun
289 bore= 4.005
302 bore= 4.004
As for carbs being slower?... uhh.. have you gone to the drags latley?
the higher rpm range on a 289 is about 6k on a stock motor, i've seen them making all their hp up to 8k+.. and whens the last time you could bring a 302 up to 8,500rpm on a fairly stock motor.
A 302 will have just a tad more torque than a 289 about 10 more pounds at the same exple of the 302 with 350hp (depending on your set up). After all, the 289 does use longer rods.
Also, if your afraid of a little gas on your hands.. well i think you've picked the wrong way to live..
I'm not against the 302, its a great motor, but i just like the 289 much better.
Any more questions?[/QUOTE]

That's funny :grinno:
So you are trying to tell me that the factory 289 block runs more wall clearance.............what is your source for this data?
My first question is if you are serious, or you are just pulling my leg.
Stock 289's do not make any power at 6000RPM's.
When was the last time you built ran your fairly stock 289 to 8500 RPM's? Whatever you can do with a 289, you can do with a 302.
Uh........have you been to an all Ford drag race lately? Local Ford days do not count. Check out NMRA or FFW or even just the WFC. What races are you basing your opinion on that EFI can not beat a carb? Stock EFI cars vs a modified carb powered car? Dude......EFI has come a long way.
I don't think you even read all of my post. Let me repeat part of it:

"If by "NOTHING will beat a carb", you mean that a carb can generally make more peak power NA for less money than an EFI setup, then you have some merit to your statement.
If you look at area under the curve, and are willing to spend the additional time and money, EFI will look very attractive.
Once you add forced induction, the carb's simplicity is even more it's downfall."

I currently run a carb on my drag car because it is cheap and easy. I didn't want to spend the time and money to convert my car to EFI. I am not running a carb because it is performance superior. If I were to add a turbo or blower, then I would go back to injection. You have infinite tunability and better control with a computer.
It is great that you like and prefer your 289, but don't try and make it out to be generally superior in performance to a 302 without backing it up with realistic facts.

No it's not an inconsistent statement at all. IF a carb and a FI are both tuned to perfection on the same motor, the FI set-up will always! always!! outperform the carb. FI has an accuracy carbs could only dream of and is constantly monitoring and adjusting in nanoseconds to what the motor is doing. I'm not saying carbs suck... I like carbs and they have thier place but FI is the superior performer. Argue all ya want the plain fact is you are wrong.

Fact is, I used to think like you years ago, but years of experiance, training, and obeservations on the subject tell me you are incorrect. You can not make me change my mind on what years of experiance with both types has proven to me, especially by just saying that its wrong. You can not convince me by just saying that, likewise I can't convince you either. So lets just agree to disagree.

Where do i get my info from? man.. anyone who knows jack about the small block ford v-8 knows about the diffrence between the 289 and 302. The Pistons are both 4inchs though.

Look, I don't really want to get in a big arguement about carb and EFI because we both know this crap will go on forever. but just keep this in mind: theres a reason why the fastest drag cars in the world use carbs. (unless they are pure alky, in which they do need need some sort of fuel injection, because the alky would evaporate to fast in the carb)

ALL of the hipo 289s make their power up at 6,000. and can a fairly stock 289 go up to 8500? Yes it can. Although you must becareful because it will rev itself to death (connecting rod bolts fail).

And man, get over the nothing beats a carb thing, it was a personal statment. i also think that 67 is the best year for the mustang (thus, why i bought a 67).. so if you don't like then leave it alone.

I am not trying to make out that 289s are greatly superior, but i do beleave that they have the possiblity to be. And alll my facts were realistic.

[QUOTE=rerun]Where do i get my info from? man.. anyone who knows jack about the small block ford v-8 knows about the diffrence between the 289 and 302. The Pistons are both 4inchs though.
Look, I don't really want to get in a big arguement about carb and EFI because we both know this crap will go on forever. but just keep this in mind: theres a reason why the fastest drag cars in the world use carbs. (unless they are pure alky, in which they do need need some sort of fuel injection, because the alky would evaporate to fast in the carb)
ALL of the hipo 289s make their power up at 6,000. and can a fairly stock 289 go up to 8500? Yes it can. Although you must becareful because it will rev itself to death (connecting rod bolts fail).
QUOTE]

Ok....I will leave you alone on the "289's are your favorite engine and 67 Mustangs are your favorite Mustang" thing.
Outside of that, you stepped off of the end a bit. Now is not the time to pick up your toys and go home. You want to bench race? Present some facts.
Ford rated the K code 289 at 271 FWHP @ 6000 RPM. The reality is that they made less than that. Even if we pretend that they did, it is peak HP, and the torque curve sucked. You will find very few true K code "HiPo" 289's out there, and any of them (factory configuration) that are, can be spanked by a factory HO 302.
Regarding the bore, where do you get your data about the 4.004 and 4.005 spec?
Define "fairly stock". Neither a stock 302 or a stock 289 or any configuration anywhere near stock will live at 8500RPM's. That is assuming you changed the cams and springs and put a decent pair of heads on them that would allow them to rev that high in a car.
If you are not willing to debate your point, fine........but since you made it, you should be willing to follow it through, and back it up with facts.

If you are so devoted to the 289's then why not just keep yours and forget the 302. About the hipo 289 though. If you are after one have fun over paying for it and being unsatisfied with it. A 289 with newer performance parts will spank the 289 hipo. If you want a better engine than you have now then get the newer 302 HO and carb it. The roller cam helps the performance and milage. Also the 302 has a bigger aftermarket for future upgrades and the engines are more available.

not debating.. i think thats what we were doing in the last few postes :screwy:
Also, granted you are right, the stock 289 heads suck ass, pretty much the worst heads ford has ever come out with. can't make power for crap, nor can tehy rev. the heads are really whats holding back the 289 (on the hipo). You must also remember the hipo was a factory engine.. whats really fun about a factory engine? :biggrin:


flex, i don't mean to sound like the know it all asshole again.. but.. any 289 and any 302 (minus the boss) use the exact same parts (minus crank, and rods). so the aftermarket for a 302 and 289 are the exact same(although it is a bitch to find forged crank and rods for a 289).. theres no real point in buying in an orginal hipo if you intend to rod it out.. just get a 289 2v, you will get the same result

I just think that the newer 5.0 H0 engines would be the best way to go. If I were to do the swap on a budget I would get a explorer 5.0 carb it and cam it. That would be a nice simple swap on a budget.

I just think that the newer 5.0 H0 engines would be the best way to go. If I were to do the swap on a budget I would get a explorer 5.0 carb it and cam it. That would be a nice simple swap on a budget. BTW you don't sound like an asshole I forgot the 302 was basically just the 289 stroked. my bad.

lol, You talk like its hard to turn a screwdriver.

It's just that an EFI car can hot lap with different tunes by just a keystroke, while the carb car is sitting in the pits getting a jet change.


How indepth have you gotten with your EFI cars? Have you just run factory computers/intakes/MAF/MAP/injectors, etc. or have you gotten into aftermarket engine management during your years of experience?

It's just that an EFI car can hot lap with different tunes by just a keystroke, while the carb car is sitting in the pits getting a jet change.


How indepth have you gotten with your EFI cars? Have you just run factory computers/intakes/MAF/MAP/injectors, etc. or have you gotten into aftermarket engine management during your years of experience? Of course, stock doesn't even come close to cutting it. However, I haven't done much with them in the past two years as I've got back to college for a mechanical engineering degree (gave up the job), and my current project is a 200 I6 (looking to do something different). Maybe they have improved them vastly in the last year and a half, but I doubt it.

Of course, stock doesn't even come close to cutting it. However, I haven't done much with them in the past two years as I've got back to college for a mechanical engineering degree (gave up the job), and my current project is a 200 I6 (looking to do something different). Maybe they have improved them vastly in the last year and a half, but I doubt it.


So.........prior to you going to school for the past 2 years, how indepth did you go with the aftermarket?