Posts by bobmannel

    Whenever you see a suffix after the last letter of the engineering number, such as A1 and A2, it means two different vendors are supplying a part under the same part number. The appearance of the part between A1 and A2 can be quite different. On rare occasions, the A and A1 on the part number might occur, but I have not seen it listed this way in the MPC, only on the actual box of the part. There are also occasions where instead of the A1 and A2 on the engineering number, it will have a different letter, such as A, B, and C. For example, C5AZ-6A666-A could be marked C5AE-6A666-A or C5AE-6A666-B. C5AZ-6A666-A1 could be marked C5AE-6A666-A, C5AE-6A666-B, or C5AE-6A666-C.


    And it gets more fun. C6AZ-6A666-A was marked C6AE-6A666-B. But, it was for the big blocks in 1966, not the 289. Then in 9-67 (near 1968 production), the C6AZ-6A666-A part number replaced C5AZ-6A666-A. Since these valves were supposed to be replaced every 12,000 miles, the C6AE-6A666-B valves were getting installed on the earlier 289s. And, although Ford did not show different engineering numbers under the C6AZ-6A666-A part number, there were at least two I found -- C6AE-6A666-B1 and C6AE-6A666-B2. Both were different designs, each from a different company.


    So, what should you use? You are safe with a C5AE-6A666-A, C5AE-6A666-B, or C5AE-6A666-C marked valve.

    Fred, You are correct. C5AE-E was what I meant.

    I started this project in 1981 after returning from an overseas tour of duty. The book was published in 1997. Work on the PDF version began a few years later and was released this past May. It continues to be an ongoing project. We never stop learning or hearing about new information.

    The book no longer comes with a correction sheet because the PDF Edition serves that purpose. We all like a paper copy for reference, but as a practical matter, it is cost-prohibitive to publish revised editions. The PDF Edition allows the information to remain up-to-date and expanded at will. Plus, if anyone has used the PDF Edition, they probably have really enjoyed how rapidly the book can be navigated with the provided links.

    Bob

    The is only one edition of the book. Yes, there are mistakes in the book. Nothing too serious, but bothersome. For example, HiPo cranks were not stamped with hardness markings. They were visually inspected for nodularity -- hence the polished area on the early HiPo cranks. Also, C3AE-E heads are not HiPo heads. The PDF Edition has all the corrections incorporated. Plus, if new errors are discovered, new PDFs are posted, which anyone who has purchased the PDF Edition can download and replace that file for free. Details are on the website.

    For those who do not know, a little over 6 months ago I came out with a new PDF Edition of my book "Mustang and Ford Small Block V8, 1962-1969". PDF has all the corrections to the book and supplemental info for all chapters. Appendices have been expanded. Full parts listing and illustrations of engine parts and accessories, including obsolete numbers. High Performance appendix very much expanded. PDF Edition is not a copy of an updated book, but one designed for rapid navigation with thousands of links. For details, go to my brand new website at www.fordsmallblock.com. If you own a copy of the book already, email be at bobmannel@charter.net and I will give you a coupon code to reduce the price by $14 of the "PDF only" purchase. When you order, you will create an account on the website which will allow you to receive free updates to the PDF Edition when they occur. Bob Mannel

    C4OE-8505-A for generator (starting in June 1964)


    C5AE-8505-C for alternator until around June 1965


    C5OE-8505-B from June 1965 or a month or two (cast iron)


    C6OE-A late 1965 production and all of 1966-67 production

    All small-block starter motors from 1962-64 are the same. In 1965 Ford introduced the large flywheel which took a different starter motor (shorter nose). Only certain models received this new flywheel in 1965 -- namely Galaxies and Fairlanes. All others continued to use the older starter -- namely Falcons, Mustangs, and Comets. There was one exception -- the 1965 Comet 289 HiPo used the larger flywheel. But, all Mustangs, including the HiPo used the smaller flywheel and older starter. Automatics from 1965 all used the older starter, including the small-blocks with the larger (168/164-tooth) flex-plate. Only the Galaxie used this large flex-plate. All others used the smaller 160/157-tooth flex-plate.




    So, the only cars to use the short-nose starter were M/T-equipped 1965/67 Galaxies, 1965/68 Fairlanes, 1966/68 Comets, 1967/68 Cougars, and 1967/68 Falcons with 2V. All Mustangs used the normal one.




    For Mustangers, ask for a Mustang automatic starter and you should get the correct one. If you ask for a manual trans starter, its a crap-shoot as to whether they will get it right because it "depends" on too many little known factors.

    Bill, Did you know any of the fellows that might have worked in the engine plant while the K-code engines were being assembled? There are a lot of questions about the start of the 289 HiPo production, and about when sequence numbers -- and later VIN numbers -- were stamped on the engine.

    The only thing that matters is that no casting date code on any part of the engine is after the engine's assembly date code. As to how far in advance, it could literally be on the same day or any day prior. Within a couple weeks is nice, but could be anything. Engine parts could be delayed for any number of reasons (repair, for example) before showing up in the parts bins.




    The engine assembly date could can also be after the car's door tag date code. The latter is a scheduled date and cars could easily miss the scheduled date. On my 63 Fairlane, the engine assembly date code and the car's date code were the same.

    I have looked very carefully at some old locking tabs I have for standard engines. It is my conclusion that the locking tabs got painted when the engine was painted. This is based on looking at dozens of locking tabs and finding no paint under the bolt head area or on the inside surface of the bolt holes. The bolts fit fairly loosely through the holes, so if they had been painted there, it would not have been scraped off. It was also a very well protected area where I would expect the paint to survive, particularly on those tabs that still had significant paint still remaining. I would have also expected to see some remnants of paint under where the bolt head was. I could find not the least trace of paint on any of the tabs. There was also no evidence of any dipping. There were no runs or streaks indicating a draining pattern. In short, I could find no concrete evidence the tab was definitely painted apart from the engine.




    But, there is good evidence to suggest the locking tabs were painted with the engine. I have a few pictures of a low-mileage 1966 Mustang 289-2V that I took many years ago. I took some pictures around the exhaust manifolds. The overspray around the exhaust manifold attachment area is clearly evident. I believe that the overspray was far more significant than it might first appear. What is left on the manifolds is what has not burned away after thousands of miles. But much more was likely there when the engines were first painted. Note in the pictures how heavily the one exhaust bolt is painted blue. Ford did not paint hardware. Hardware got painted with other items (like the lower head bolts getting painted). You can even see on the close-up how the tab shielded the lower bolt from paint and evidence of some rust under the tab on the bolt head.




    Evidence suggests that the engine was well painted around the exhaust manifolds and during that time the locking tabs and bolt heads were well covered -- probably not in all cases, but most. As a result the tabs were painted black on 1962-65 engines and blue on 1966 and later engines.




    In looking at the tabs, they appear to be a natural steel. There is no indication there is any coating on them. They appear to have been stamped cut items. There are shear markings on all edges. Probably stamped into the desired S-bend after cutting.




    Anyway, that is what the evidence suggests -- no special coating, just plain steel; not dipped, but installed bare; then painted with the engine.




    [Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/exhaust-paint-1.jpg]




    [Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/exhaust-paint-2.jpg]

    The rod is C4RA-9A701-B in both cases. The C5ZZ-9B843-A kit was for M/T and C5ZZ-9B843-B was for A/T. The only difference in kits was the latter added the A/T bellcrank, which had to be altered in its mounting for the (3)x2V intake. But, the rod is the same for both. The illustration you have is essentially the same with the bellcrank deleted.




    The picture I took was not of a proper installation.

    Measure the thickness of the flywheel edge. It should be .85" when new. You can cut up to .045", so minimum thickness should be .805". The ring gear is .14" below the clutch surface, so even at max wear there sould be .095" clearance.

    My article was on the Fairlane linkage and not the Mustang, which was different. It is similar to a standard Mustang rod, but I have never come across a known original to document. I have an illustration of what it looks like and I did capture a picture of one about 10 years ago in a Mustang.




    [Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/Tri-power-Mustang.jpg]




    [Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/Tri-power-Mustang-2.jpg]

    No. Because of the difference in boss heights, they are different. The lower boss height is close to the standard manifold, but the taller boss is about 1/4" taller on the HiPo than the standard manifold. So, the locking tabs for the HiPo have a larger spread.

    According to an old Ford MPC, Ford made no distinction about the metal shield and specific engines. Ford listed the "260,289". The only restriction was that the shield was not used with extra cooling (X/C) and A/C. The reason for this restriction is that X/C and A/C used two belts over the generator pulley, and running an inner belt was not compatible with the shield. So, technically, any "260,289" except with X/C and A/C could get the shield (including the HiPo). Ford also listed the rubber boot for the "260,289", without any restrictions.




    Having said all that, I check what few pictures I have of original 1964 Fairlane K-codes and they all had the rubber boot, including a 4F16 assembled engine which was very original. So, I would suggest that until a confirmed case is found, use the rubber boot.