Another Connecting Rod ???

[ThunderStruck]

I have a set of new 5.0 CE-A connecting rods and have a question on them.
The boss 302 rod is based on the 289 HO rod C3AE with 3/8" bolts, also the rod is longer (5.155).
Since I have new rods CE (5.09), would they stronger then longer C3AE (5.155) also, both fitted with ARP 3/8" bolts?
Is the 289 rods extra beefy?

[brianj]

The biggest problem you might run into with the 289 rods is keeping the compression down to something usable with the longer stroke.you'll wind up with stock 302 pistons .050-.060 out of the hole. Not a huge problem, just something to consider. I'm not aware 289 rods are any stronger, but I could be mistaken.

[ashley roachclip]

The stroke is in the crank , not the rods .
I have had a to e od 289 and 302 engines apart ,and most , if not all had the same rods .

[1Quik85GT]

he is right...289 and 302 are the same length and same durability!! the stroke is shorter on the 289 crank

[Walking-Tall]

^ ^ False. 289 (and BOSS 302) rods are 5.155" center-to-center, and 302 rods are 5.090" center-to-center... a 0.065" diff. Each's pistons are the same compression distance, at 1.605". 289 rods installed in a 302 with factory block/crank/pistons would put the pistons 0.014" above the block deck. The only 289 HIPO (and BOSS 302) difference from regular 289 rods are the bigger 3/8 rod bolts, requiring different balancing, and required different machining for those bolt heads, not necessarily making 'em stronger in the rod itself...

https://performanceparts.ford.com/do...Dimensions.pdf

[xctasy]

The stroke is in the crank , not the rods .
I have had a to e od 289 and 302 engines apart ,and most , if not all had the same rods .

The 1968 J code and F code 302 was a stoker version of the stock non HP block, with 65 thou shorter 5.090" con rods, not the same ans any 5.155" 289 rod.

The 290 hp Q code 302's and earlier 240 hp Dual Quad 302 Tunnel Ports had the 5.155" HP 289 rods, 65 thou longer than basic garden variety 302.

Basically, even if you find them in prefect shape, mangnafluxed, and machined by a guru with the best 11/32 or ARP rod bolts, you've still got a beam thickness thats marginal, and an issue with deck to piston clearnace as well.


A set of I or H section US made rods are hard to beat. But even stock Carrilos sometimes break. Anyway. Here's the best advice I could find.



The C3AE aren't all HP, and are 55 or so years old and the C3AE-D weren't able to be reworked for better reliablity than some good I or H beams. Same with people liking the 2.3 liter Lima 5.2" rod swap. A production rod isn't what you should be looking for.


http://www.boss302.com/smf/index.php?topic=61451.0

There was a recent article in Mustang Monthly on the 289 Hi Performance Mustang and it was stated that the 289 HiPo rod used the same size forging as the regular rod, but additional material was left when the rod was machined to take into account the larger 3/8" bolt. Although the 289 HiPo and Boss 302 rods are the same with the exception of the rod bolt head and part number, the C3AE-D rod is for the 289 HiPo:

http://www.mustangtek.com/rod/C3AE-D.html

The Boss 302 rod is C3AE:

http://www.mustangtek.com/rod/C3AEBoss302rod.html

Here's Connecting rod 101, don't compromise or save too much money cobbling together an odd set of bits to make a set of rods. Too many people spend money on a super trick pair of heads to make horsepower, only to leave the barn door open going too cheap on the bottom end. Then all the horses escape and run out of the holes in the pan. And sometimes the windows in the block. Make sure you have a good balanceable set before wasting money with Frankenrods.

The Hi Performance rod is of exceptional quality. Ford started making great conrods when the British and Amercians used Ford engines in Formula class racing and in AC Cobras and Sports Car Club of America-run Trans Am racing. The 105E based factory connecting rod for Ford Kent 1600 were of exceptional quality too.

The Boss Mustang's used of those conrods and the 289 HP block with a front cover modified back to the non HP289 timing gear to a beafed up 302 timing chain front end. Ford used what it had forged or cast. Using the same block as the ill fated 1968 Tunnel Port 302 and the heads off a late 1969 351C 4V was no co-incidence. It used stock parts, and the way Ford treated them, made them a sucess. If you wanna do this, your call.

Good fortune with the build.

[mcfairmont]

With a good selection of economical, readily available aftermarket connecting ods on the market, I see no good reason to spend (waste?) money on 35 year old(or more!) stock connecting rods. For many years, I had factory connecting rods reworked and fitted with ARP bolts, but after having a few stock rods break, and all the subsequent damage that was caused by it (bent valves, smashed combustion chambers, broken cylinder walls), I broke down, held my nose, and bought the offshore connecting rods that I always hated. My 331 SBF has been running low 10s for about 6 years with a set of cheap 3/8" capscrew Eagle connecting rods, hitting 7200 RPM, with no issues. I have a pricey set of Crower rods in my 427 FE, and a set of Scat rods on the shelf for my next 428 Cobra Jet build. The old stock rods were pretty good for many years, but decades of use and abuse make them too questionable for me to ever trust them again.

[cb84capri]

Does Eagle make a SBF connecting rod without a Chevy journal size? I put Scat standard 302 journal I beams in my 347, also offshore. Scat I beam rods run around $300 new.

Cale