5-bolt 289 HiPos are 64 engines and used the screw-together fuel pump. The 289 HiPo and standard 289 used the same pump and it had but one spring. It was stamped 3734S.
6-bolt 289 HiPos used the crimped fuel pump. A unique lever was installed that had a dimple in it so a second spring could be installed in addition to the one under the crimped cap. The stamped number for 1965 was 3939S. Standard fuel pumps with just the one spring under the crimped cap carried the number 3911S for 1965.
I have the 482th 289 HiPo produced and it has the C3OE-B damper. It might be a pre-production item, or maybe just the first few engines got them. I just never rule out anything. There could be one out there. Same for the C7ZE-A. Perhaps 500 HiPo engines were made in 1967. C5OE-A was used in 1967. The C8ZE-B came out in 68. Might be a very small window with just a few engines that got the damper. Never know until one shows up. Could be a long wait, but stranger things pop up from time to time.
Part numbers for dampers are:
C3OZ-6316-A engineer number C3OE-6316-A and C3OE-6316-B (1963-64)
C5OZ-6316-A engineer number C5OE-6316-A (1965-67)
C5OZ-6316-B engineer number C7ZE-6316-A (1967)
C5OZ-6316-C engineer number C8ZE-6316-A (1968)
Engineering numbers are a good indication of when the part was introduced. I have not seen a C3OE-6316-A or C7ZE-6316-A damper, but I would not be surprised if one showed up one day.
Bottom line is that the Ford push rod was designed to withstand rubbing against the slots in the cylinder heads. The same push rod used in the 221 V8 was the same one used in the 289 HiPo. I have looked at a lot of 289 push rods and never saw one that was worn in the area were it rubbed on the cylinder head. After L10, the push rods were used with rail rockers (except 289 HiPo) and did not rub against the cylinder heads. They will bend before breaking, but that usually happens when the valve hits something it is not supposed to.
Except for a brief time in 1966, all push rods were hardened. All service replacements for the 289 are hardened. The reason was simple -- too easy to get a non-hardened push rods into an early engine with disasterous results.
You have the correct water pump for an early 1965 289 HiPo (where production began in late 1964 which is why there is a 64 year marking). The casting number was always C5AE-8505-C. The C5AE-8505-D are later service replacement pumps. The D is generally superimposed over the C. The C5OE number comes from the engineering number which was for the 289 HiPo water pump assembly and not related to the pump housing casting number.
There was a C5OE-8505-B water pump housing which is cast iron and came out in late 1965 production. But, even before the end of 1965 production, the C6OE-A pumps were in production. So, very late 1965 engines could have C6OE-A water pumps from the factory. This is one of the reasons the C5OE-8505-B pumps are so rare -- they were only used for a few months. Both these pump housings were used for standard 289 and 289 HiPo water pumps.
Most water pumps have been rebuilt by now. The only difference between standard 1965 289 water pumps and the HiPo was the impeller. The standard had 8 vanes (four holes) and HiPos had six vanes (three holes). Both were the same diameter at just under 4 inches. When the rebuilder was rebuilding water pumps, he could use any applicable impeller he wanted. Many were rebuilt with the 6 vane impellers. That is why 289 HiPo water pumps show up more often that it seems they should -- they are standard water pumps rebuilt with the six-vane impeller.
The small block water pump was a very efficient pump. I believe that the six-vane impellers were used by some rebuilders to reduce the efficiency and decrease the likeihood of water cavitation. Erosion of the aluminum timing chain cover was a common problem associated with cavitation, particularly if the water was dirty.
But, the relative availability of the six-vane impellers is good news for us 289 HiPo owners. If you get the impeller and the right casting number on the pump, a rebuilder can put the two together for you.
As a side note, the 289 HiPo 6-vane impeller should not be mistaken for the common six-vane impeller used on all 1962-63 small blocks (221, 260, and 289). This impeller measure 4.7" in diameter. On a 289 HiPo, it will produced increased cavitation at high rpm.
Prototype engines were always a mixture of new, old, and one-off pieces. Some pieces are 64 and some 65. Fuel line, bracket, fuel pump, and distributor are 64. Other stuff is 65. Lots of stuff can't be seen.
Ford says to torque the bushings to specs, then seems to forget to mention what that is. The Fairlane/Meteor uses the same bushing and Mercury gave the spec this way:
"Bushing—Front Suspension Upper Arm to Front Suspension Upper Arm Shaft......160-190 (or as required to seat the bushings)"
Now you know why they are so hard to get off. Soaking with WD-40 for 4-days and using an impact wrench should work, or if you are like me, I braced it under the lip around the foundation of my house and used a breakway bar with a long section of pipe. Either it was coming loose or my house was going to be lifted off its foundation! It came loose.
I have attached a PDF that will help. Just ignore the Fairlane-specific stuff. Also, I use a proper spring compressor tool now. The J-hook tools scared me to death!
http://www.fordsmallblock.com/PDF/Upper-Control-Arm-Bushings.pdf
Ford did consider the idea and mocked up an engine in 1964. Note the 64 distributor and fuel line, plus XE numbers. The PS bracket was used with the Ford-Thompson pump, but it has an Eaton here. So, somebody was thinking about it. Never made production, however. But, anything is possible for one-off cars.
[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/HiPo-PS-AC.jpg]
I ran an Arvinode system on an early Fairlane from 1972 through 1977. At the time I had a 1962 Fairlane and wanted dual exhaust, so I went down to my local Ford dealer and bought the 289 HiPo exhaust manifolds, H-pipe, and both Arvinode muffler assemblies brand new from Ford (for $110 -- those were the days when $110 was a lot of money). I know what it sounds like. Few today would find the noise objectionable. A low rumble would best describe it. Noise level at cruise would make listening to the radio a bit strong on bass! My wife always thought it was too loud, but I thought it was about right for projecting what a car with muscle should sound like. I also liked that fact that when you got into the throttle in a big way, the noise level did not become poppy like straight cherry bombs would do. The rumble just got more intense, but stayed low in frequency. I think the rear resonators really helped eliminate the popping and kept the tone mellow. These were the days of leaded gas and for those fondly remembering those high-octane days have probably forgotten how hard it was on the exhaust. In five years the mufflers had rotted from the inside out. When I removed the system, I saved the resonators for a long time, but they rotted out in dry storage. I managed only to save the pipe sections which held up well.
In case you are wondering, I was running the system behind a 289 4V with C9OZ Muscle Parts cam (hydraulic version of the HiPo), special valve springs and hardened retainers, and dual point conversion kit -- all from my local Ford dealer. The rear was a 3.50:1 (8" at the time). I was shifting with a close ratio T-10 with Hurst Competition Plus shifter. Engine was probably putting out about 250-260 hp max at 5500 rpm (estimated, never tested).
Anyway, I can say that having lived with the system in a daily driver for 5 years, the system was awesome-sounding!
I know of the following change levels for 289 HiPos:
1964½ - L1
1965 - L5, L6, L7, L8
1966 - L9
1967 - L13, L14 (thanks, Bob!)
Has anyone seen any other change levels on their engine tags?
Thanks, This is great information. You have a rare machine!
The 1967 production 289 HiPo began with L13 (engine change level). Does anyone have a different change level on their 67 289 HiPo? Does anyone have one of the 14 Mustangs that came with thermactors (California smog control)? I would like to know what the change level was for these HiPos. Might have been L15.
Holman & Moody still grind the original C3OZ camshaft for around $150.
Some of you might enjoy this article. It is a big file (6 MB PDF), but the pictures are very high quality
Only the automatics had the boots. The manuals has a seal with a felt ring incorporated into it.
With all the interest in the crankshaft, here are Darrell's pictures
[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/crank-1.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/crank-2.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/crank-3.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/crank-4.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/crank-5.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/crank-6.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/crank-7.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/crank-8.jpg]
Keep in mind that standard cranks and 289 HiPo cranks came from the same molds, so will have the same markings from those molds. My sources tell me that 289 HiPo cranks were 100% inspected, meaning each one had to be polished on the rear counterweight for inspection under a microscope. I was told that the inspectors were given pictures of what the grain pattern density should look like under the microscope. If what they saw looked close to the picture, it was good. If it looked like another picture, it did not pass. I was also told that cranks that did not pass were scrapped (not used in standard 289s.) I can't confirm any of this. It comes from a guy who has been talking recently to some of the people how were in the foundry/engine plant during this time frame or on the 289 HiPo project. Memories can be weak, but it does fit the evidence. To date I have not heard of a documented unmolested 289 HiPo being taken apart and not having the polished spot on the rear counterweight. There can always be a first time, but I have not heard of it. What I continue to hear from sources closest to the plant is that the 289 HiPo cranks were not hardness tested (only inspected as described). And as far as I know, no Brinell or Rockwell hardness marks have ever been found on a 289 HiPo crank.
Here are the pictures of Darrell's block, connecting rods, and pistons. The crankshaft did not have the polished counterweight.
[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/block-1.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/block-2.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/block-3.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/block-4.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/block-5.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/block-6.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/block-7.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/block-8.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/block-9.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/block-10.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/block-11.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/block-12.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/block-13.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/block-14.jpg]
Parts books illustration point to the distributor body with an asterick for the base number. The asterick says, "SUPPLIED IN 12127 ASSEMBLY ONLY". So, you could not buy a blank distributor body. That's not to say one couldn't slip out the back door....
I have used all the techniques I know, including importing into PhotoShop. Most stuff I can read, but some things are a bit muddy, such as determining if the ply ratings on tires are 6's or 8's. I want to make sure I get everything right rather than guess. I could list the ones I am not sure of, but thought it simpler to just request a higher resolution. Thanks.
