289 engine block

[Wayne M.]

The very early 289s had the 5 bolt bellhousing bolt pattern like the 260s. I think about mid 1965 is when they went to the 6 bolt pattern commonly used and then switched to the 302 in 1968. I wouldnt be surprised if some of the very early 302s were built using 289 blocks.

[Doug Sainlar]

Originally Posted by Paul Bearman

Oh dear, d'ya get the feeling I've made a big mistake!? Must have a chat with the guy who reccomended the 351M/400.

IMHO, Paul, you would be making a mistake with the 351M/400. The 4 wheel drive guys love them, as they can be made up as torque monsters, but the aftermarket parts are pretty expensive and there isn't much available.

The bigger problem is the value of your finished 40--there's a reason nobody builds these projects with this motor--too tall, raises the center of gravity, not to mention the difficulty finding a way to adapt/mount to the transaxles commonly used.

It would make a good motor for the truck you would use to trailer your 40, but (again, IMHO) not for the 40, itself (I hate to have to say that, as I'm a true believer in the canted valve Cleveland design heads, but if I were going to do a Cleveland style motor in one of these, and it has been done, I'd go with the 351 Cleveland--lower deck height, better availability of aftermarket parts, same bellhousing pattern as the SBF).

Give the 289 a better look; you'll be happier with the results.

Doug

[Gary Kadrmas]

Doug,

The 351/400M engines are no where near a good engine in a towing vehicle. For that, you need big cubic inches or a diesel. My 400M broke big time, and I replaced it with a 460/365HP engine from a Thunderbird (1971/72). Has enough Ooomph to smoke 33" traction tires at all four corners-something I found out pulling out a friends row of hedges he wanted to get rid of. Wish I had a picture of that!!!

I do agree that the mating of a 351/400M to a transaxle set up will be a project that will take some engineering (spelled $$$$). I also agree that the 289 route is more user friendly, and the options for aftermarket are much more available.

This thread has the energy to keep going on and on, but it will boil down to what an individual wants to do.

Paul, make sure you check out the details of the points brought up my other memebers regarding the challenges that you will be up against. Then go for it.

[Paul Bearman]

Spoke to my friend who reccomended the 351/400 block & he is as surprised as I was that this type of block is u/s, however, he's adamant that we can prevail.
The block will fit into the chassis design & lowering the engine mount to achieve reasonable Cof G & bodywork clearances is OK. Adaptor plate for the 351/400 bolt pattern to the 930 'box wasn't too difficult to achieve although it doesn't look pretty.
Finally after some careful consideration & following all your helpful suggestions I think I will go with the 289, for now. So, if anyone needs a good boat anchor then give me a call!

[Jac Mac]

Paul, the only parts that are of any use from the 351m/400c are the conrods if you happen to decide on a 351w. At 6.58" c to c, with the pistons from a 3.25" stroker kit (302SBF) and the 351w crank in a late (9.500") 351w block they give 0.005" deck clearance.Then you fit your favourite Windsor heads on & use a couple of FE styled windsor rocker covers to get your near as dammit FE 427 look'a'like.

Jack Mac ( Oh, BTW- to make the SBF pin fit the 351/400 rod you use the small end bush from an old 272/292/312 Y-block, presses straight in and then requires hone to size. BE of rod needs to be narrowed to fit 351w crank rod journal, that an easy one with a lathe, ARP wave-loc* rod bolts & your done ) Tough old rods, I had one guy run them up to 8k in shotpeened form on a 4" crank in 351w block , rods never gave a problem but block cried enough after about a years club racing)