289 crank in an explorer 302

[Cam Benty]

I came across a 68 Ford 289 Motor a local Gentleman had sitting on an engine stand. I purchased the motor and had an idea I wanted to run by our domestic racers. 

 

I want to put the 289 crank into an Explorer 302 motor. Being the crank is .125 of an inch smaller than a 302 unit I may get another 5 to 8 minutes of track time on an tank of fuel. Just a guess at this point but anything will help. The loss of power is not a concern to us. 

 

No need to get into the differences between the two cranks. Besides the stroke length the 302 and 289 uses the same main and rod bearings. Rod length Between the 302 and 289 is about .025 of an inch longer on the 289 rod. 

 

How should I claim this if I give it a go? I want to use this in our Mustang. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mender]

Shift 300 rpm sooner with the 302 and save yourself a lot of trouble and expense. 

[TiredBirds]

7 hours ago, mender said:

Shift 300 rpm sooner with the 302 and save yourself a lot of trouble and expense. 

easier ways to save fuel than a crank swap. The only reason I would do so is if the 289 crank was steel and the 302 cast.  Port the heads, use headers, try a smaller carb, different cam come to mind and of course drop your rmps a little

[ross2004]

Claim it as a 302. Get protested. Have less cubes/less stroke than advertised. Watch heads explode.

 

-Assuming staff has the ability to check, which they don't.

[Cam Benty]

I like building motors. And have the 289. I will use 302 H.O. firing order. 

Shift at A lower rpm is no fun. Can't use a smaller carb. Went to F.I. over the winter. And cam selection is 50 points. Need those point for other stuff. 

     I am sure it is just a matter of time until the Antifa forum monsters badger our Administration into getting a Whistler. It is better than learning how to drive or work on preparation.  I mean who wants to improve themselves if you can just through a tantrum.

 

I will claim it if I go in that direction.  Just looking for some ideas. 

 

What I would love to do is put an 8k 289 monster in the T bird. But.....then again if I do that the forum Mafia will put a hit on me. They are puppy kickers.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Cam Benty

[TiredBirds]

I'm not sure how  much more mileage changing the crank is going to get you. 

[Black Magic]

From a science point, generally larger stroke engines have better bsfc (lower frictional component), so you are going the wrong way....

 

Would sound fun though.... 

[wd6681]

6 hours ago, Black Magic said:

From a science point, generally larger stroke engines have better bsfc (lower frictional component), so you are going the wrong way....

 

Would sound fun though.... 

The 289 would have lower friction because of a higher rod to stroke ratio. Larger bores are usually less fuel efficient because of flame front control. Furthermore I think large bores are less efficient in low loads beacuse of the diameter of the combustion chamber. In racing we run the motor in high load all the time achieving the highest efficiency.

The only way to make a 302 less thirsty is to produce less power. Other changes will either make it produce more power from the same amount of fuel (better thermal and or mechanical efficiency) or increase air flow which will produce a greater fuel requirement.

 

[Black Magic]

3 minutes ago, wd6681 said:

The 289 would have lower friction because of a higher rod to stroke ratio. Larger bores are usually less fuel efficient because of flame front control. Furthermore I think large bores are less efficient in low loads beacuse of the diameter of the combustion chamber. In racing we run the motor in high load all the time achieving the highest efficiency.

The only way to make a 302 less thirsty is to produce less power. Other changes will either make it produce more power from the same amount of fuel (better thermal and or mechanical efficiency) or increase air flow which will produce a greater fuel requirement.

 

 

Remember every part in the engine will have to turn faster to produce same power as the bigger engine. Double the stroke and the rod ratio\piston speed goes to poop, but arguably less drag than engine turning all parts 2x faster for sake of lower peak piston speed\ ratio (provided it lives) Plus the big engine has time to capture the heat...

 

I doubt at .125" you would know. 

[wd6681]

Still disagree. Efficient engines are not a product of their slow engine speed. Slow engine speed is a typical byproduct of an efficient engine. Egreed the the small difference in displacement will make a difference. 

[enginerd]

Your CR will go way down with a shorter stroke which would certainly reduce the BSFC. As others have said... shift at a lower RPM.

Edited April 18, 2018 by enginerd

[Cam Benty]

Hmm. Shift at A lower RPM. Go slower. Change cam. All good ideas but not an option and be competitive.

     I am trying to make 1:50 on 17.5 gallon at  a pace to be more than a road block. We will just try to attend 7 HR races.

  A 4.7 instead of 5 litre with modern F.I. And H.O. firing order has it's merits. I was testing the waters actually on how fellow racers would react to a 289 Explorer motor. That is what initially brought me to this series. Think outside the box. 

 It may be a waste of time.   Then again it might be a formidable combination. The real issue is what would my competitors have to say about It? 

 

We have a habit of squashing  anybody who is innovative or tries something different. 

[ABR-Glen]

Maybe a 289 crank in your car would be great and not upset the apple cart, but there is no points value for changing a crank currently and if that option gets opened up maybe BMW guys start running stroker engines that just end up making you less competitive overall than you are now and we all have to deal with more speed creep. Rule changes meant to help out one team that then get used to bigger advantage by other teams are what got us into this mess, we need to be careful and consider all the consequences even if it squashes creativity. An 8K RPM V8 sounds like a blast, run it in EC (or just finish 6th or lower )

Edited April 18, 2018 by ABR-Glen

[JDChristianson]

6 minutes ago, ABR-Glen said:

start running stroker engines

or stop hiding them...................... ;0

 

[Black Magic]

For any of the nerds in the room who like this stuff like i do.

 

http://www.motorship.com/news101/engines-and-propulsion/ultra-long-stroke-engine-assists-higher-ship-efficiency

 

Boats also gain from slower prop speed, but the engine could use a reduction box for that....the fixed engine world is looking at stroke increase\changes.

 

The t bird is a bit of a boat.... Joking aside what are your afr targets? Have you tuned this thing? What does afr look like vs engine speed? I ask because the neon for example is 12:1 at the limit. At low speeds it runs 13:3 to 13.5. It doesn't need the extra fuel up top, but the stock tuning does it to save the end user. 

 

The most simple economy might come from not using extra fuel, and making sure your spark timing is actually close to the engine needs.  Going from 12:1 to 13:1 is nearly 10% more range.....

[Cam Benty]

A 6500 rpm 350 in a Camaro created a head banging party of biblical proportions. And that was with Hydraulic lifters. No thank you. That motor was not an expensive or serious build. A very mild build. And the forum boneheads lost there minds. An 8k 289?! With solid lifters!  Are you serious? If any domestic V8 would turn those numbers our No fun Nazis would hemorrhage a 3 footballs. 

 

  As far as the BMW guys I could care less what they do. That is a good platform. With good drivers they are a worthy opponent. With the 2017 rule change domestic cars are in need of fuel. That is why I am building a TBird. It will NOT have a 289. No worries there.

 

  Just throwing stuff out to see what happens. 

 

 

 

  

Edited April 18, 2018 by Cam Benty

[Cam Benty]

TBird. A bit of a boat? Really. Race wt is similar to an E46 with more hp.  You may want to re-evaluate. Compared to your Neon pretty much anything is a “boat”. Neons are so good they are outlawed from our local short tracks in FRD street stock class.

 

  Our AFR. was 13.8 with a carb. We now have F.I. With a chip and 3 tunes. AFR is from 12.5 to 14.7. Depends on witch tune we have. With 17.5 gallons it will not do 1:40 with any of the 3 tunes. A custom economy tune. A custom street tune and a full on race tune. Total hp difference between the 3 tunes? 12 hp. 

 

And our Mustang is 2560lbs wet. That’s with 17 gallons of fuel. So....... trying to figure out what to do about the Mustang. 

 

The TBird build has 24 gallons of fuel and a race wt ALOT lighter than you think. I had some set backs( many ) with rule changes. Have not finished it yet. Have all the parts. After 2 years of research it will have brakes as good as any car in the series. ( yes this includes the KSR gang. That was a shout out to Mr. Snorman. He is quite the snob ) It remains to be seen if it will be competitive. If I can put together the drivers I want we will be competitive. With good drivers AND enough fuel I believe we can give the Lexus a battle at the bigger tracks. 

 

  I can only hope the Forum Mafia does not hold a gun to the head of our rules makers and squash what work I have done so far.

 

  

 

 

Edited April 18, 2018 by Cam Benty

[Black Magic]

Cam i confused your cars. 

 

I think either way both the t bird and mustang will be competitive platforms, assuming rules get sorted. Until then i would wait on the mustang investments and see if the fuel rules bring parity to you... 

 

If you want i can share more detailed fuel saving strategy, but the all involve rolling out of the gas at some point. No fun. 

[Cam Benty]

I do not think the rules committee will touch the fuel issue. No chance. It will open up a tsunami of issues and witching. It would be nice but.......

 

 

11 minutes ago, Black Magic said:

Cam i confused your cars. 

 

I think either way both the t bird and mustang will be competitive platforms, assuming rules get sorted. Until then i would wait on the mustang investments and see if the fuel rules bring parity to you... 

 

If you want i can share more detailed fuel saving strategy, but the all involve rolling out of the gas at some point. No fun. 

 

[ABR-Glen]

33 minutes ago, Cam Benty said:

And our Mustang is 2560lbs wet. That’s with 17 gallons of fuel. So....... trying to figure out what to do about the Mustang. 

 

Basically the same weight and fuel as an E36 and 300 points to spend on suspension, why do you need more power than they have?

[mender]

10 minutes ago, ABR-Glen said:

Basically the same weight and fuel as an E36 and 300 points to spend on suspension, why do you need more power than they have?

Yeah; they both have four wheels and a steering wheel so there can't be anything that extra points can't solve, right?

 

I'm going to take a break from harping on the fuel issue and start addressing the lack of logic behind claiming that every car can be competitive if their VPi is low enough. 

[Black Magic]

6 minutes ago, ABR-Glen said:

Basically the same weight and fuel as an E36 and 300 points to spend on suspension, why do you need more power than they have?

 

That is his capacity with cell, 

 

E36 16.4 gal tank, chump weight 2797 170 lbs per gal.

 

Mustang 15 gal tank 2772 184 lbs per gal

 

He might only need the extra gal or two...i would argue the e36 is not as good as e30 or others in fuel capacity per weight 

[TiredBirds]

19 minutes ago, mender said:

Yeah; they both have four wheels and a steering wheel so there can't be anything that extra points can't solve, right?

 

I'm going to take a break from harping on the fuel issue and start addressing the lack of logic behind claiming that every car can be competitive if their VPi is low enough. 

If I were to do it over again and not be worried about LeMons I/we'd be in a Gen II f-body and it would be DOM-OH-NAY-TING. With 350 points to burn and a TON go aftermarket parts (most cheap) it could compete with anything. That or I'd just build a 68-72 B-Body Mopar because they are cool

[enginerd]

11 hours ago, Cam Benty said:

Hmm. Shift at A lower RPM. Go slower. Change cam. All good ideas but not an option and be competitive.

     I am trying to make 1:50 on 17.5 gallon at  a pace to be more than a road block. We will just try to attend 7 HR races.

  A 4.7 instead of 5 litre with modern F.I. And H.O. firing order has it's merits. I was testing the waters actually on how fellow racers would react to a 289 Explorer motor. That is what initially brought me to this series. Think outside the box. 

 It may be a waste of time.   Then again it might be a formidable combination. The real issue is what would my competitors have to say about It? 

 

We have a habit of squashing  anybody who is innovative or tries something different. 

You could always swap to a 4 cylinder honda engine instead of one of those V8s... They have models up to around 200 hp (I think) and use less fuel (especially in the partial throttle sections of the track). They also weigh less and rev to the moon.

[TiredBirds]

13 minutes ago, enginerd said:

You could always swap to a 4 cylinder honda engine instead of one of those V8s... They have models up to around 200 hp (I think) and use less fuel (especially in the partial throttle sections of the track). They also weigh less and rev to the moon.

and have zero foot lbs of torque...