im almost positive that the 300 is an engine option in 71, they always ask me at autozone if its the 300, 200, or 240
I don't actually remember who it was, and honestly searched and couldn't find it. But I remember a thread with a few guys talking about it, some pics of 1 in a maverick (tight fit) and the dimensions and how he put it in. I remember it because I used to have it bookmarked (that pc died) and spent a year and a half planning a build for 1 in my 71 comet, but the cost of building it the way I wanted is more than I can afford. 1 person posted pictures of a 200 250 and 300 side by side and the 300 was barely longer than the 250. I never got around to dry-fitting, the engine I was going to put in wound up not coming into my possession. And a Comet GT with a 302 did... so... Right, it's only around 32" in total length without the fan on the end. 10 seconds of searching on Bing... http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5493782-A-cheap-10-second-300-%284.9%29-inline-six-Ford.-Yes-that-s-the-old-145-hp-van-truck-engine another... http://www.mustangsandmore.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/000457.html
Yep, 289 in 5 bolt configuration first appeared midway through the '63 model year and were used though the '65(64½) Stang... True '65 model & newer 289 were 6 bolt in all car lines...
It's been talked about, and maybe one person actually did it, but not anyone that actually hangs around here. The guy in Car Craft ripped it out, I think, and went to a 460.
Could be the attitude some people have around here. Some people have this attitude like if they haven't done it, or seen it in person, it can't be done. Not trying to call anyone in particular out, but I've experienced it myself a bit. This thread is kind of a good example, the OP states he wants to be different and not do a 302, several other people ignore that desire and basically say he should just be a sheep. Kind of doesn't make sense, because by that token why aren't they just building more mustangs?
thank you Krazy Comet, for answering my last question, we kinda went off on a tangent there, was getting concearned that i wouldnt get an answer. thank you everyone for your help too, youve made this whole prosses alot easier, and saved me a bunch of headache drumgene The engine code on the 1975 Maverick is the 5th digit of the VIN number. T = 200, L = 250 if its truely stock then your golden
Could be, but it is a public forum, and everything is open for discussion. Since quite a few of us have been here for 10+ years, we've experienced a lot, and a lot of us would rather give sound advice, than lead someone down a path that will just frustrate them, and have them bail on their project, it's happened many times. Working on a Maverick or Comet is a challenge in itself, why make it harder.
why would the 289 frustrate me more than a 302? thyou said theyre the same with just different bore/stroke. or were you talking about the 300?
It probably wouldn't, but you'll find a 302 for cheaper, 90% of the people can't tell the difference anyways. But when people start talking 300's and other stuff, that'll do it. I don't know what you know, but if you don't have a lot of experience doing this kinda stuff, make it easy on yourself, and enjoy the car.
I don't disagree with you at all. But I'm never gonna tell a person not to at least explore wether or not they want to take on that frustration. On Topic: a 289 is the same as a 302 for fitment. As I understand it they are essentially the same externally and the same base block.
thats what i thought, yeah i have no intrest in a 300, so no worries there. by that point in size your probably looking at the same weight as a v8, so your not even really saving yourself anything, at that point your just doing it to be different, which i can understand too. and knowing that i have a 289 is worth the couple extra $$ to me, even if no one would know. im paying for it all with student grant money so this build has very little coming out of pocket.
No doubt referring to the 300... While there are some differences in the late 5.0 vs a 60s/70s 289 or 302 they would be small in comparison to trying to shoehorn the big 6 in a Mav/Comet... I appreciate you acknowledging that fact...
