289 compared to a 351W
289 compared to a 351W
(OP)
Anyone know the physical size difference between a 289 and 351W? Any idea if the engine mounts are close enough so a 351W can be swapped? Must I use an adaptor plate between a 351W and a c4 transmission? Thanks.





RE: 289 compared to a 351W
Cleavland blocks are completely different to Windsor blocks, even if they have the same stroke.
Regards
eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: 289 compared to a 351W
RE: 289 compared to a 351W
Regards,
Ray
RE: 289 compared to a 351W
Depending where in the world you are buying a 347ci kit would be a better option and allow you to retain most of what you already have. Designed for putting in a 302 I can't see any reason it won't go in a 289. The 289 is supposed to have bores that don't extend down into the crankcase as far as a 302, but with the 5.4" rod kit that still places the piston .110" higher in the bore at BDC anyway.
The kit's reasnoably priced if you're in the states, but costly outside.
The Cleveland shares ALL the critical dims with the later Windsors (mounts & B/housing), being Windsor derived. It has a 9.2" deck height and a cast extension on the front.
Hope this helps, John.
"It's not always a case of learning more, but often of forgetting less"