NZXD 2,328 Posted September 13, 2020 I saw a 221 windsor for sale today i wonder how high that th8ng will revSent from my SM-G570Y using TapatalkSame 2.87 inch stroke as the 289 but with a 3.5 inch bore...better to start with the 289. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 CHESTNUTXE and Thom reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CHESTNUTXE 7,299 Posted September 13, 2020 Same 2.87 inch stroke as the 289 but with a 3.5 inch bore...better to start with the 289. Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkIsnt there a 260 windsor as wellSent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk 1 NZXD reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NZXD 2,328 Posted September 13, 2020 Isnt there a 260 windsor as wellSent from my SM-G570Y using TapatalkAnd a 255 (3.68 bore)260 (3.8 bore)Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 3 Thom, CHESTNUTXE and gerg reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gerg 10,871 Posted September 13, 2020 I saw a 221 windsor for sale today i wonder how high that th8ng will revSent from my SM-G570Y using TapatalkNo better than a 289 in theory, both have same stroke. 221 has tiny pistons, sort of like what a 253 is to a 308Sent from my CPH1920 using Tapatalk 2 Thom and CHESTNUTXE reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thom 6,650 Posted September 13, 2020 221 260 and 289 all share the same stroke, the biggest problem with 221's and 260's is the small bore size doesn't let you get a decent size valve without being shrouded/running into the bore, the other problem with 221's and 260's is most them are of the 5 bolt bellhousing variety 2 gerg and CHESTNUTXE reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gerg 10,871 Posted September 13, 2020 And a 255 (3.68 bore)260 (3.8 bore)Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThe 255 has a 3" stroke like the 302 but the crank is a lot lighter, the crank pins are semi-hollow and the counterweights are smaller. Racers in speedway stock classes used to hunt around wreckers for these cranks because they had a lower rotating mass. They could break more easily too but racing is about breaking stuff to winSent from my CPH1920 using Tapatalk 2 Thom and CHESTNUTXE reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thom 6,650 Posted September 13, 2020 And a 255 (3.68 bore)260 (3.8 bore)Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk255 was a smog era us engine, I'd be surprised if there was any over here, apparently there's not a lot of parts interchangeability with regular 8.2 deck Windsors, but I've only ever read about those 2 gerg and CHESTNUTXE reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CHESTNUTXE 7,299 Posted September 13, 2020 221 260 and 289 all share the same stroke, the biggest problem with 221's and 260's is the small bore size doesn't let you get a decent size valve without being shrouded/running into the bore, the other problem with 221's and 260's is most them are of the 5 bolt bellhousing variety On u tube there is a 283 chev that revs to 12000rpm i was just wondering if any of these smaller c.i. windsors would be a high revverSent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thom 6,650 Posted September 13, 2020 On u tube there is a 283 chev that revs to 12000rpm i was just wondering if any of these smaller c.i. windsors would be a high revverSent from my SM-G570Y using TapatalkOther than the 289 not really 1 CHESTNUTXE reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gerg 10,871 Posted September 13, 2020 The first Windsor blocks (221/260/289) can theoretically be stroked with the 2M crank from the 302 but the pistons will stick out the bottom of the bores slightly at BDC. Hardly worth worrying about that minor issue but also hardly worth bothering with as Thom said, pre-65 blocks are 5-bolt and rare as anyway. On the subject of the 255, they only made them for 2 miserable years in the 80s (I think 81-82) then they gave up on that dead-end. I think they were good for something like 120 HP. But GM were doing the same thing with the SBC so Ford can't cop too much flak from it. This short production run makes them extremely rare, and pretty much irrelevant now. Sent from my CPH1920 using Tapatalk    2 Thom and CHESTNUTXE reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FORD_MAN 1,026 Posted September 13, 2020 block only needs a bit of notching, I could clearance it with a burr, or just get it milled it while machining the rest of the engine, 347W also saw this while I looked up stroker clearance  1 1 CHESTNUTXE and bear351c reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boingk 862 Posted September 17, 2020 Just make a nice streetable 302. Â http://www.mustangandfords.com/how-to/engine/28898-400-hp-302-small-block/ 1 1 CHESTNUTXE and bear351c reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CHESTNUTXE 7,299 Posted November 6, 2020 Just make a nice streetable 302. Â http://www.mustangandfords.com/how-to/engine/28898-400-hp-302-small-block/Would the recent 331 stroker kit be ok on a 289 block as i have a chance to grab it,or would the pistons still stick out the btdc of block or cause its a stroker the piston might be shorter ? The block is out of a aussie 68 galaxy rhd and needs 1 sleeve apparently althou it does come with 289 crank n rods ect even small chamber headsSent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thom 6,650 Posted November 6, 2020 Would the recent 331 stroker kit be ok on a 289 block as i have a chance to grab it,or would the pistons still stick out the btdc of block or cause its a stroker the piston might be shorter ? The block is out of a aussie 68 galaxy rhd and needs 1 sleeve apparently althou it does come with 289 crank n rods ect even small chamber headsSent from my SM-G570Y using TapatalkDepends on which 289 block, some 289 blocks the bottom of the bore that protrudes into the crankcase is shorter than in a 302 block, those blocks with the shorter bores putting a 302 crank in them is a bad idea let alone a 331 crank 1 CHESTNUTXE reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CHESTNUTXE 7,299 Posted November 7, 2020 Depends on which 289 block, some 289 blocks the bottom of the bore that protrudes into the crankcase is shorter than in a 302 block, those blocks with the shorter bores putting a 302 crank in them is a bad idea let alone a 331 crank So how would you tell thom im pretty sure its a 6 boltSent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thom 6,650 Posted November 7, 2020 So how would you tell thom im pretty sure its a 6 boltSent from my SM-G570Y using TapatalkYou'd have to measure the length of the bore in a 302 and make sure the 289 had the same length Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boingk 862 Posted November 7, 2020 Just pick up an AU block if you can. I got two for $300 the pair. One was trashed, the other has been done up and traded for Suzuki 1250 Bandit. 1 CHESTNUTXE reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CHESTNUTXE 7,299 Posted November 7, 2020 Just pick up an AU block if you can. I got two for $300 the pair. One was trashed, the other has been done up and traded for Suzuki 1250 Bandit.I rebuilt 2 5lt inj motors on this thread 1 eb 1 au only reason for interest was the fact the 289 block was aus delivery engine and ol school but it seems it aint that special and au roller block would be better for allround sake,but what about putting the 289 crank n rods in a 302 block ? Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk 1 Boingk reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gerg 10,871 Posted November 8, 2020 I rebuilt 2 5lt inj motors on this thread 1 eb 1 au only reason for interest was the fact the 289 block was aus delivery engine and ol school but it seems it aint that special and au roller block would be better for allround sake,but what about putting the 289 crank n rods in a 302 block ? Sent from my SM-G570Y using TapatalkThere should be no issue with that except that there's not much point. Stroke is free torque. The later 50oz balance cranks are lighter too (vs 28oz), as they have less internal counter-weighting and more external.Sent from my CPH1920 using Tapatalk 2 CHESTNUTXE and Boingk reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boingk 862 Posted November 8, 2020 4 minutes ago, CHESTNUTXE said: what about putting the 289 crank n rods in a 302 block ? Â Don't think there would be any issue there. You'll probably lose about 15hp on top vs a similar spec 289 but whos counting? Only other thing would be keeping compression up with available heads. 2 gerg and CHESTNUTXE reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FORD_MAN 1,026 Posted December 6, 2020 Got my bros EF 5.0lt & BTR off him, I'll have a think on plans for it & what to put it in, probably have my built C4 auto behind it, 3 1 deankxf, gerg, Boingk and 1 other reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CHESTNUTXE 7,299 Posted December 24, 2020 old  1 deankxf reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CHESTNUTXE 7,299 Posted April 28, 2021 old  Saw an interesting video on the tunnel port 302 last night but ford canned it because not reliable and came up with a better idea for can am racing in 69 with the boss 302 engine and in 1970 it made its name in racing but by 71 the boss package was mooved over to the 351c probly the most sought after ford engine .Sent from my SM-G610Y using Tapatalk 2 gerg and bear351c reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gerg 10,871 Posted April 28, 2021 Saw an interesting video on the tunnel port 302 last night but ford canned it because not reliable and came up with a better idea for can am racing in 69 with the boss 302 engine and in 1970 it made its name in racing but by 71 the boss package was mooved over to the 351c probly the most sought after ford engine .Sent from my SM-G610Y using TapatalkYeah I saw one like that too, might be the same video. The tunnel port was a disaster as they just went "bigger is better" without any smart design on the port itself, and with that big pushrod tube right down the middle, it was a dog's breakfast. It made some good figures at peak rpm (8000) but the engines didn't last because they had to sit at those rpm all the time. When they made the Boss, not only did they properly shape and tune the 4V port for the intended rpm range, but they tested the bottom end to 9600rpm to make sure that it would hold together no matter what.Sent from my CPH1920 using Tapatalk 2 CHESTNUTXE and bear351c reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CHESTNUTXE 7,299 Posted April 28, 2021 Yeah I saw one like that too, might be the same video. The tunnel port was a disaster as they just went "bigger is better" without any smart design on the port itself, and with that big pushrod tube right down the middle, it was a dog's breakfast. It made some good figures at peak rpm (8000) but the engines didn't last because they had to sit at those rpm all the time. When they made the Boss, not only did they properly shape and tune the 4V port for the intended rpm range, but they tested the bottom end to 9600rpm to make sure that it would hold together no matter what.Sent from my CPH1920 using TapatalkYes thats the video 9600 rpm ouchSent from my SM-G610Y using Tapatalk 1 gerg reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites