I was reviewing threads about the 289 HiPo crankshaft. Some information was quoted from my list of changes which I maintain at my website (http://www.fordsmallblock.com). From my reading, I can see the conversations were lively. At the risk of flaring up emotions, I thought I would share a more indepth comment on my source at the foundry.
He was an engineer. His initials were B.H. He was not some person I heard about. He stopped by my booth at a Columbus, Ohio, swap meet and introduced himself. He gave me information he could not have known outside of Ford. By that I mean his explanations matched what I had observed, but had not reported in my book. Specifically, he was telling me that the info I had printed in my book on HiPo crankshaft hardness testing was not correct. The information I had printed was from people insisting that there were hardness marking on the crankshafts. He said he was not intimate with every detail of HiPo production, but he was in and out of the foundry at the time. So his comments were his recollections. I found no documents to help verify his account. But, they did seem to match the evidence.
His recollection was that when the HiPo cranks were to be poured, the foundry people added a couple shovel fulls of nickel and manganese to the molten metal. As he recalled, it was not a very "scientific" method -- just "some" to add to the strength of the metal. He said the same molds were used for both standard and HiPo castings. He further said that the polished area on the crank was done so that they could "see" the grain boundaries under a microscope -- actually, more like a super magnifier (not like a lab microscope). He also could not recall the grain-count that had to be achieved in the inspection -- just some number had to be equalled or exceeded.
Before I knew any of this, I looked all over my crank (from a K-code 63 Fairlane that had never had the engine apart) for the hardness test I was told would be there. I couldn't find it. Currently I have a second crank from a HiPo engine and it did not have any hardness marks either. But both had the polished area on the rear counterweight. I have seen a few other HiPo cranks from engines I knew were original and they had the same characteristics as mine. I can't speak for other HiPo cranks.
The engineering drawing show two differences between standard (C3AE-6303-N) and HiPo cranks (C3OE-6303-C). One is the material. Standard cranks call for Nodular Iron ESE-M1A147-A. The HiPo calls for Nodular Iron ESE M1A172-A. The other difference was in machining. The journal radii spec tolerances were tighter and the #3 bearing thrust surfaces had a finer micro finish -- in short, the machining was more precise.
I did find it interesting that when Ford came out with the C8OE-6303-A 302 crank for 1968, the material was Nodular Iron ESE M1A172-A -- same as the 289 HiPo.
I know the discussion of HiPo crankshafts will go on as I cannot provide documents. It is "recall" evidence and info from people who were able to view Ford sources. But, it all fits with the evidence of 1M markings on both standard and HiPo cranks, the polished area, lack of hardness markings in this area, and difference material specifications. In summary, the HiPo cranks were made using standard molds but with a different metal content. The rear counterweight was polished for microscope inspection for grain count and machined with closer precision in the journal radii and thrust surface finish, then marked with orange paint. Service replacements were boxed with a unique C3OZ-6303-B part number.
Edited by - bobmannel on 06/06/2007 21:21:19