289 to 302 conversion. Good bad or indiferent idea?

Starting to put some planning into a 302 for the P1800. I has always been going to be a Ford 302 V8 with alloy heads.

Yesterday, the option of building off a 1960's 289 block was presented. The thought process was that in Ontario, the emissions laws as they apply to Hot Rods are neither clear nor worded such that they can be misinterpreted by the inspector.

In theory, if I use a 302 block, I need to run cats and a closed loop fuel system. With a vintage block, I could run a draft tube and open air filter if I choose. And Cats be dammed.

So, the thought is to use the early block with a 331 stroker kit and appropriate cam so that the engine thinks it is a 302.

Is there a downside to this that I am missing? Early blocks made from inferior steel or bad oiling?

Early blocks would need a bit of work to run a roller cam. I'm not sure what would need to be done to run a modern crank made for a 1 piece rear main in an old block made for a 2 piece rear main.

Some people will say that the 289 has shorter bores than the 302. I've never measured a difference.

The only thing you really need to pay attention to is if it's a mid-65 or older block. The bellhousing pattern changed sometime in '65 and the older ones can be a challenge to get a transmission behind.

Personally, I say keep it a 289, because engine numbers that end in 9 are cool. 289, 389, 429...

NOHOME... I wasn't aware that our older cars (older than 1987) in Ontario were subject to emissions testiing.... If the car is registered as a 1970’s or whatever vehicle since when do we need an e-test? I have not received any info from MTO telling me otherwise.
Thanks

ggarrard wrote: NOHOME... I wasn't aware that our older cars (older than 1987) in Ontario were subject to emissions testiing.... If the car is registered as a 1970’s or whatever vehicle since when do we need an e-test? I have not received any info from MTO telling me otherwise. Thanks

The car is not subject to e-testing due to age. However, there are emissions rules for engine swaps and I have been to a few events where the Cops have formed a gauntlet leaving a Rod run to find people who were running late model engines without the emissions stuff in place. It' is not something you want to get caught at since I believe the fines are large.With our governments becoming more and more predatory due to a need for cash, I would rather not be prey.

Emission Control Equipment for Kit Cars, Rebuilt Cars and Hot Rods

1. (1) A kit car or a rebuilt car that receives its first permit under the Highway Traffic Act on or after January 1, 1999, shall include, as part of a system to prevent or lessen the emission of contaminants, all of the original pollution control systems and components, or equivalent replacements, included or usually included with the motor of the rebuilt car or kit car by the manufacturer of the motor. O. Reg. 361/98, s. 4 (1); O. Reg. 86/99, s. 3.

(2) A hot rod that receives a motor replacement on or after January 1, 1999, shall receive a motor designed to meet emission standards at least as stringent as those achieved by the original motor with all its original emission control equipment attached and functioning, and the replacement motor shall have the original catalytic converter and all the original emission control equipment, or equivalent replacements, included or usually included with the replacement motor by the manufacturer of the motor. O. Reg. 361/98, s. 4 (2); O. Reg. 86/99, s. 3.

You're wedging a what into a P1800 and don't have space for cats and a PCV system? Can you run a 49-state legal exhaust or is this like California where you need a CARB-certified exhaust system?

So why couldn't you use a 302? Just get one with a casting date before 1973 model year. Then all you have to worry about is having a PCV system.

What are they going to do? Run the casting numbers? I'm pretty sure the two are externally identical.

Would canadian mounties even know the difference between a 302 and other SBF engines?

The mounties don't do the check. But I've had emission testers that couldn't tell that my Chevy Sprint was a 3-cylinder.

the 302 came out in 1968, i believe. as far as i know, there is nothing really different between an old 302 block and an old 289 block and i've seen instructions on how to run factory roller cam stuff in an older block: all you gotta do is tap some holes in the lifter valley for the spider.

i believe all the Windsor cranks are interchangeable, with the only change for the later one piece rear main seal being in the block itself.

so i'd say to use a 289 block with the later roller cam stuff in it. the only thing you are giving up compared to a later block is the one piece rear main seal.. of course i'd do a little bit more research and maybe talk to a few local machine shops to verify the stuff i just posted, since i'm a Chevy guy and as far as you know just some idiot on the other side of the internet..

pres589 wrote: You're wedging a what into a P1800 and don't have space for cats and a PCV system? Can you run a 49-state legal exhaust or is this like California where you need a CARB-certified exhaust system?

Did I mention that the undersides of this particualr P1800 are not quite stock? That said, cats should not be a problem since the Miata guys manage to run them.

This is just me being paranoid of Gov intentions. I do live by the mantra that "They ARE out to get you".

If I can get a 302 casting with the early numbers that might be a better way to go. I don't know why, but when I hear "two piece rear seal" I visualize "No way to stop leaks". I own an MGB, I have the oil puddle already checked off.

If there is no actual test, just use gutted cats. Bore is the same (4") for 289 and 302. Only difference is stroke, (3" vs. 2.875") but 302s came with a ton of roller cam block options. Rollers not only take a ton of stress off with today's oil, but the ramp profiles are so much more aggressive. The streetable power potential from a roller block (along with reliability of the cam) means that I would personally do a 302 with roller.

No one will be able to tell really, but if you're afraid they will, just gut a couple 3" cats from a Camaro and put them in. To the gestapo, they're cats. To you, they're resonators.

curtis73 wrote: If there is no actual test, just use gutted cats. Bore is the same (4") for 289 and 302. Only difference is stroke, (3" vs. 2.875") but 302s came with a ton of roller cam block options. Rollers not only take a ton of stress off with today's oil, but the ramp profiles are so much more aggressive. The streetable power potential from a roller block (along with reliability of the cam) means that I would personally do a 302 with roller. No one will be able to tell really, but if you're afraid they will, just gut a couple 3" cats from a Camaro and put them in. To the gestapo, they're cats. To you, they're resonators.

Curtis:

The gauntlets they set up outside of car shows are not trivial. They shoot the cat with an IR thermometer to make sure they are lit. If they take a dislike to you for any reason, you get sent to "The Lanes" for a more thorough inspection.

NOHOME wrote:

pres589 wrote: You're wedging a what into a P1800 and don't have space for cats and a PCV system? Can you run a 49-state legal exhaust or is this like California where you need a CARB-certified exhaust system?

Did I mention that the undersides of this particualr P1800 are not quite stock? That said, cats should not be a problem since the Miata guys manage to run them. This is just me being paranoid of Gov intentions. I do live by the mantra that "They ARE out to get you". If I can get a 302 casting with the early numbers that might be a better way to go. I don't know why, but when I hear "two piece rear seal" I visualize "No way to stop leaks". I own an MGB, I have the oil puddle already checked off.

if you put in a good name brand seal and make sure you put a little dab of silicone on the ends of the seal and on the mounting surface of the main cap, they are likely to not ever leak.. and if they do, you don't have to pull the motor or drop the trans to fix it: just drop the oil pan and rear main cap and slide a new seal in..

regarding converting an old block to rollers to get the benefits of modern stuff without the need to worry about the green gestapo, this popped up in a quick google search:

http://www.fordmuscleforums.com/stroker-engines/478322-possible-convert-non-roller-roller.html

the idea of getting the lifter bores sleeved to allow the use of all oem roller stuff (cams, lifters, etc.) seems pretty enticing depending on how much it costs compared to just getting lifters with link bars..

Back when I ran a 289 in '65 I always wanted a newer roller block. The improved rear main seal plus the factory roller setup seems worth it. FWIW I've heard the older blocks are more stout (and heavier) due to thicker castings but I've never verified that.

NOHOME wrote: The gauntlets they set up outside of car shows are not trivial. They shoot the cat with an IR thermometer to make sure they are lit.

Well, shoot, that's EASY to cheat. Extra layer of exhaust piping in the inlet should make the outlet read hotter. Or so I hear.

how would they tell the age of the block if it had no casting numbers?

MrChaos wrote: how would they tell the age of the block if it had no casting numbers?

They'd probably say it's stolen and nail you for that..

Does SEMA have a Canuckistani branch?

Is it that hard to run cats? Sounds like a lot of work for little gain.

Nathan JansenvanDoorn wrote: Is it that hard to run cats? Sounds like a lot of work for little gain.

And hence the crux of the matter.

The reason for the early block is that I am paranoid that the green Nazis are looking to get me. Since I am not a lawyer and not able to fully comprehend the rules that they put forth, I could just side step the issue, tell them to go berkeley themselves and drive away in a haze of over-rich carb created emissions if I want to go with the early engine.

Yes, I would prefer to do the right thing by running clean, but if there is any chance that I will get penalized for trying, then why bother?

Nathan JansenvanDoorn wrote: Is it that hard to run cats? Sounds like a lot of work for little gain.

Cats are evil.. why run one if you don't have to?

Just skip to the Mexican 302 block and really confuse the inspector!

Why not? They are relatively cheap, make a huge difference in emissions, and make it harder to smell a car from 300ft away.

If you can't fit one, that one thing, but I can't imagine gutting a functional cat on a street car.

novaderrik wrote:

Nathan JansenvanDoorn wrote: Is it that hard to run cats? Sounds like a lot of work for little gain.

Cats are evil.. why run one if you don't have to?

Nathan JansenvanDoorn wrote: Why not? They are relatively cheap, make a huge difference in emissions, and make it harder to smell a car from 300ft away. If you can't fit one, that one thing, but I can't imagine gutting a functional cat on a street car.

novaderrik wrote:

Nathan JansenvanDoorn wrote: Is it that hard to run cats? Sounds like a lot of work for little gain.

Cats are evil.. why run one if you don't have to?

they are just another thing to cause a problem... they are a source of heat that radiates to the interior... they kill at least a little bit of the efficiency of the engine... tune the engine right and you don't notice that they aren't there.