Hi: I have a ‘65 K-code fastback but the stamp on the engine block shows a different K-code VIN which is not in the registry. I’m wondering if this might be a factory warranty replacement as it seems like a long shot to find a spare Hipo 289 to replace one’s original engine. Has anyone run into this before?
Hipo 289 Warranty Replacement?
-
I'm not 100% sure about this, but from what I've read a warranty replacement is unlikely to have been VIN stamped, and if they went to the trouble to stamp it with a true VIN it would be the VIN of the vehicle it was installed in (what other VIN could they/would they use?) There are some k-code engines out there with no VIN stamp, these are assumed to be Ford Service Replacements. So I'm guessing yours is likely to be a swap from another k-code.
-
- Official Post
It is extremely unlikely that a wrongly VIN stamped block would have been a warranty replacement, especially considering the very short 90 day, 4,000 mile warranty. One of my 66 Kars has a 65 VIN stamped engine and I am the one who bought it and installed it a few years back. It does not match for the VIN but at least it is a true Hipo.
-Fred-
-
My car doesn't have the VIN on either the engine or trans but both are definitely hipo. When I rebuilt the engine the original pistons, cam, crank, rods were all there. The heads are hipo as well.
Someone told me that if the VIN stamps are missing it is not the original drivetrain period which I suppose I can't prove otherwise but why would the engine and trans not have the VIN stamp?
I guess the engine could be a replacement block. That would not too hard to believe and if so is there a way to tell replacement blocks? But why would the trans have the correct tag but no VIN stamp? Someone blew the whole drivetrain?
-
- Official Post
My car doesn't have the VIN on either the engine or trans but both are definitely hipo. When I rebuilt the engine the original pistons, cam, crank, rods were all there. The heads are hipo as well.
Someone told me that if the VIN stamps are missing it is not the original drivetrain period which I suppose I can't prove otherwise but why would the engine and trans not have the VIN stamp?
I guess the engine could be a replacement block. That would not too hard to believe and if so is there a way to tell replacement blocks? But why would the trans have the correct tag but no VIN stamp? Someone blew the whole drivetrain?
Is your Kar a Metucheon unit? 38 years ago I had a 66 Metucheon Hipo GT pony interior T5 convertible and it did not have VIN stamps on the engine and transmission and the date code were correct. At this point you need to be looking at date codes on your castings to see if they line up. If not, I have a very logical explanation for replacement engine and transmission. That would be auto theft which happened a lot back in the day. There were many performance cars of all brands stolen for their drive trains.
-Fred-
-
Mine is a Metucheon car. The date code on the door data plate is 15 M.
The heads have a 5L5 date code. The intake has a 5H27 date code and the engine assembly stamp is 5M21d. I lost my picture of the engine block casting date. It it too hot right now to get under there and take the starter off.
The transmission case has an L-8 date code. The casting code on the transmission case is C5AR-7006-D W-2. The tailshaft has C4ZR-7A048-A and date J22.
The diff cover has what looks like 5M10 date code.
So it is established that this happened more often at Metucheon? Do you know if they marked replacement engine blocks any different than the original blocks anywhere?
-
- Official Post
The only thing that throws your dates off for original is that the engine assembly date is 6 days after the Kars projected build date. That is not necessarily an issue as Ford was having a tough time generally keeping up with the demand for any 289 engines. Unlike GM, Ford did not use any identification marks for replacement short blocks. GM did stamp CE numbers on short blocks but not on bare blocks. This was common to Chevrolet but I am unclear if other GM divisions did the same thing.
-Fred-
-
Display More
Mine is a Metucheon car. The date code on the door data plate is 15 M.
The heads have a 5L5 date code. The intake has a 5H27 date code and the engine assembly stamp is 5M21d. I lost my picture of the engine block casting date. It it too hot right now to get under there and take the starter off.
The transmission case has an L-8 date code. The casting code on the transmission case is C5AR-7006-D W-2. The tailshaft has C4ZR-7A048-A and date J22.
The diff cover has what looks like 5M10 date code.
So it is established that this happened more often at Metucheon? Do you know if they marked replacement engine blocks any different than the original blocks anywhere?
Yes, it's been reported for at least the past 20-30 years that it is more common for Metuchen cars to not have a VIN stamp than Dearborn or San Jose cars. As Fred mentioned, date codes cast into the block and transmission can help validate originality. I'm a 2nd owner with all date correct parts and still in contact with the original owner who reconfirmed that the engine and trans were never replaced and neither have a VIN stamp.
Participate now!
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
