customtouch
Active member
Does the early model 302 and 289 share the same crank and if so does it take the same harmonic balancer?
Question for the Ford Guys
- Thread starter customtouch
- Start date
Gold Member
New member
Not the same crank. 289 is 2.870 stroke and the 302 is 3.00. They are both 4.00 bore.
duanehydro
Active member
also the 302 uses a 5.090" rod, 289- 5.155".....both will be 28ounce balance...
customtouch
Active member
Thanks for the info guys. My main concern was if it was the same balancer for both because I am considering changing it. I am doing some work on my brothers 69 Bronco and he has an engine in it that he had built 15-20 yrs ago but has very few miles on it and I am trying to figure out what the guy did. From what I have found out from the engine numbers so far it could be either one. I am not very familiar with Fords but there are lots of little things that don't seem quite right to me. Anyone know what the plug gap should be set at when running a Jacobs ignition. They were all set somewhere between .060-.065 which seems a little excessive to me unless the Jacobs system put out one hell of a spark. I haven't found much info on them yet either.
HellinnFrnt
New member
Finally someone says Fords are not quite right.
duanehydro
Active member
If built 20 years ago, it could still be a late model 5.0, which uses a 50 ounce imbalance. It's easy to tell, the weight is twice the size on the flywheel and balancer.
Devilman
Well-known member
customtouch said:
I've got Jacobs Ignition stuff on my Lightning, when putting it on there it was in the instructions to open the gap up from stock, up to .055 - .060... something like that. Wasn't happy with their wires though, they came apart like a cheap suit. In their defense, they did offer replacements at no charge.
customtouch
Active member
Patchman said:
These are all the numbers I have found C80E-6015-A 9814 and 4172077 stamped on top rear. (PS) I had a helper retrieve them for me so they may not be 100% accurate.
customtouch
Active member
Duanehydro said:
It may be normal for a Ford but there seems to be a slight side wobble in the balancer at an idle. There is no apparent vibration in the engine and it straightens out at higher rpm. (Never seen this much in a Chevy) Again, I am not used to Fords and I just want to be sure it is the correct balancer or it is not going bad.
duanehydro
Active member
If it were the wrong balance, you woouldn't be able to sit in the seat....lol :smile26: when they are wrong, you know it, right off.
customtouch
Active member
Duanehydro said:
So I guess the low rpm wobble in the balancer is not unusual for a Ford?
customtouch
Active member
Devilman said:
After a little research I found a lot of people with the Jacobs have been setting their plugs around .055 and some at .060. I have already put new plugs in it and set them at .045 and it runs better but I guess I will pull them out and go with .055. I think that the .065 was just a little too much to jump.
blazeracer
New member
customtouch said:
The numbers look to be right. 68/69 302 out of a Mustang. SHOULD have 302 cast into the lifter valley although may have a 289 marking. It was still a 302 and NOT a Boss. That would read C9ZE
customtouch
Active member
blazeracer said:
Thanks for the info Blaze. It is nice to know it really is a 302 but I think he was crazy for trading the original 302 from the Bronco for it. He is the second owner of the 69 Bronco and he has had it since 72. It would be worth a lot more with the original motor but who am I to cast stones, I have done my share of killing the value of a lot of nice cars. LOL!! With a little tuning it seems to be running a lot better but I still need to put a good timing light on it to check the total advance. I just have a standard cheapy Sears light but it gets you in the ball park. It is a fun little truck to drive though!
duanehydro
Active member
I've found my cheapy little craftsman light to be more accurate than my snap-on $350 light... :smile16: