Posts by bobmannel

Charles. I would really appreciate it if you could email me a higher resolution copy of the IBM order card. I can read most of the codes, but some are not clear enough to determine (like 6 and 8 in some cases). This is great information and I would like to pass it on to the guys over in the Fairlane Club. My email addres is bobmannel@charter.net. Thanks. Bob

The C7ZE-A head replaced the C5OE-A head when it appeared that the 289 HiPo would no longer be exempt from Califonia smog control. The only difference was a change in the casting for additional material around and in the exhaust port. This extra material allowed the head to be machined for the external air log injection system used on other 289 Cleveland heads. Most of these heads were not machined for the air injection system. However, 14 engines were, and installed in Mustangs build after 5-9-67 going to California -- this information is courtesy of Kevin Marti at MartiAutoWorks. (His licensed access to Ford data lists whether an engine had a thermactor system.) The service replacement C8ZE-B heads were built the same way as the C7ZE-A (just different markings), but the smog machining was always done and injector hole plugs were supplied for use in non-smog applications.

On the 66 order form I noticed that the limited-slip was written on the bottom and not included as an item on the form. This seems to suggest there were more options available to the dealer than were listed on the form. What was the dealer using to write down the additional options at the bottom of the order form? That is what needs to be checked for any options of dual exhaust before the option can be rule available or not.

C5ZZ-5210-A was part of the Cobra kit line of options. There was one for the 63-65 Falcon under the part number C4DZ-5210-A. The Falcon kit was a fairly "cheesy" kit, IMHO, where you had to cut and cap the cross-under pipe. A new pipe bolted to the left exhaust manifold and 4" round Thrusher-type muffler was installed. On the right side the regular muffler was replaced by the 4" round one provided. There was no connection between left and right side.

The 1963-64 Fairlane 289 HiPo before about 4-13-64 had a 2½" diameter single exhaust system. The Y-pipe was 2" diameter from the exhaust manifolds down to the union, where they entered a 3" diameter pipe for about a one foot length before narrowing down to a 2½" outlet. After 4-13-64 the single exhaust system was replaced by the Arvinode dual exhaust system.

You have a K-code. Still got the original rear, original transmission, engine gone, but have an authentic replacement. Car is all there, but the shock towers are cut, cowling needs replacement, there is roof rust around the drain lip, trunk bottom is rusted through, one quarter panel has been cut off and repaired poorly from a parts car, the floor pans are all rusted through, water has rusted through the trunk seal channel. Other stuff like seats, fenders, hood, trunk lid, possibly doors will need replacing. Plus, all the other stuff that normally gets replaced like bumpers, trim, interior, etc.

Next to you is a much better parts car not needing nearly as much metal replacement. Its the same model, but an A-code. You own both cars. You could A) cut up the parts car and patch the K-code as best can be done, or move the K-code stuff into the parts car. In scenario A, you would still have as much of the K-code metal as possible, but many weld seams. In scenario B you would have a cleaner and more solid car.

This happens with many race cars due to wrecks. Just a little of the original remains, with most replaced. So, doors, fenders, quarters, lids, floors can be replaced, but not the unibody?

Disclosure is a good idea, but once the car trades hands, the next person is not obligated to reveal what he knows.

In regards to selling VINs, which is questionable in its legality, how much of a car can be replaced before it is no longer the original car? We all know about just cutting out and welding in serial numbers, and most of us would consider that an attempt to defraud, but suppose the car was in a serious accident -- buckled sub-frame, crushed roof, front and rear damage, etc. -- could the car be repaired? Suppose most of a donor car was required? Where is the line drawn?

In a 1968 Ford Master Parts catalog I have, there is a footnote to both the 1965 and 1966 Mustang GT system which states "Optional on all other body types with 289 engine".

The April 1965 Ford Master Parts catalog was the one that listed a "Performance Image Option". The system listed was the Arvinode system with the regular H-pipe and trumpet tips. I am not sure if this was just an early name for the GT or not. Ford gave a date of 3-22-66 in its parts catalog for elimination of the Arvinode system, but a date of 4-2-65 for Metuchen and Dearborn, and 4-4-65 for San Jose in its Technical Service Bulletin Article #315. After those dates, the Arvinode front glass-pack was replaced with an oval muffler. I have not heard of a GT with the Arvinode system. Maybe someone here has. The elimination of the Arvinode and the introduction of the GT occurred about the same time.

Be that as it may, there were probably few dual exhaust system non-GT/non-HiPo Mustangs. My guess is that the customer would have had to order the system and wait for delivery. Most people buy cars off the lot. So, if Ford did not push the option by delivering Mustangs to the dealers with the option already installed, I doubt we will run across very many of them. But, it was available. Nothing I have seen says it was available only for the A-code. Might have been for the C-code as well, though I couldn't imagine someone ordering a C-code with duals if they were performance oriented. For all practical purposes, it was the GTs and HiPos that got dual exhaust.

What is needed to really clear this up is a dealer options book for 1965 or 66. Must be one somewhere.

According to the Ford parts catalog, there were many Mustang dual exhaust systems. The 289 HiPo was the first with a transverse muffler until October 64. Then the Arvinode system came out for the HiPo. There was also an option (called a "Performance Image Option") for the A-code which was the Arvinode system. The Arvinode system was dumped in favor of oval mufflers in April 1965. The GT came out duals as well. By the end of 1965 you had the 289 HiPo, GT (All A-codes), and optional duals for A-codes. HiPos had the unique H-pipe to connect to the HiPo exhaust manfolds, and the GT had the trumpet tips. Performance Image Option also shows trumpets. Looks pretty similar for 1966.

The Ford wear limit was .015" (.81" to .795"). That is not much wear, but these early rotors were not particularly beefy.

Just suggestions. Do with them as you will.

• 10:1 compression ratio [10.5:1 is wrong. Applies only to the 1963-64 Fairlane with the small-chamber heads, which Mustangs did not get]

• Special cylinder heads with cast recessed springs seats and screw-in rocker arm studs [cast in numbers is meaningless]

• High performance valve train including high-lift mechanical camshaft, dual valve springs, and hardened valve spring retainers. [mechanical cam and solid lifters is redundant]

• Heavy-duty main bearing caps [oversized not the same as heavy-duty]

• Heavy-duty connecting rods and special connecting rod bearings [rods were heavy-duty with special caps and larger bolts/nuts]

• Special high-strength cast aluminum pistons [not mentioned]

• Streamline cast iron headers [they were not very competitive]

• 600 CFM Autolite 4100 4-barrel carburetor [everyone knows the 600 cfm is the big 1.12" venturi]

• Low profile, open-style, high-efficiency air cleaner

• High performance spark plugs [not all HiPos go the solid core wires. Ford moved the solid core wires to the RPO option list starting in 1965.]

• Large 4" alternator pulley [aluminum case 42 amp alternators were on all Mustangs in 1966]

• Special light-weight fan with four aluminum blades [only the blades were aluminum. The important feature was its light weight.]

• Special water pump impeller for high rpm operation [not mentioned. Impeller's reduced number of vanes reduced water cavitation at high rpm.]

• Special fuel pump for high rpm operation [capability was normal. The extra spring helped the lever follow the eccentric at rpm without bouncing.]

• Heavy-duty damper with separate extra counterweight [yes, the damper was thicker, but the timing chain/gears w/hatchet weight is meaningless. They just supported the extra counterweight.]

• Special high nodularity crankshaft [missing. big item.]

Original Ford belt lengths were according to S.A.E. measurements. It requires special equipment to measure the S.A.E. length of a belt. In 1969 Ford went with a circumference measurement. For the 1965-66 289 HiPo (and 1967 289 HiPo without Thermactor smog control), the outside circumference was 41.4". The original bely part number was C5OZ-8620-A and marked C5OE-8620-K. The 1969 Ford replacement was C9PZ-8620-GM and carried a J-number of JB-414.

Just keep in mind that this article is over 7 years old. There is probably a lot less zinc in the oils today. Generally, racing oil and motorcycle oil will still have the zinc needed, particularly if you are breaking in a new cam.

I would say $300-$450 if the differential is in good shape.

The C6ZE-A flywheel has an engineering number of C6ZE-6375-A, which cross-references to C3OZ-6375-D, which has as an application the 1966 Mustang Special from 7-1-66 to 10-1-66. It is supposed to be marked with the letter A and have a 160-tooth ring gear. This info exhausts my knowledge base. (Past experience has led me to make allowances for stamped number formats, such as A or C6ZE-A. Also, dates never give their basis, such as car scheduled date, engine assembly date, or some other benchmark date only know by Ford. I consider all dates as guides and not in concrete. I also don't know the casting number of these flywheel. It could be C3OE-6380-B, but maybe not.)

Yes.

Yes, I have fully documented the differences between the standard C4 and the 289 HiPo C4, and published the results in the Fairlane Club of America bi-monthly magazine. I have a link to the pertinent pages below. This is a high-quality 4.5MB PDF file, so hopefully you have a high-speed internet connection.

This C4 came out of my 1965 Fairlane 289 HiPo automatic. It is the PCW-AF transmission. Other than the manual lever, it is the same internally as the 1966 Mustang HiPo C4. The 1967 C4 differs in the control valve for the 1-2-D pattern, so there are some slightly different changes on that C4. The 1965-66 C4 was a dual-range-drive C4. My transmission was water damaged, but looks rebuildable using parts from a standard 1965 C4. The only stumbling block was that one of the two HiPo-unique internal springs in the control valve was broken into four pieces due to rust. I have been working with a spring company to custom-make this spring, but running into some problems with the specs. Ford called for a spec that said the spring needs to be able to operate in 350°F transmission oil without being damaged. Current carbon spring steel is limited to 250°F. I am looking into other possible materials, like chrome vanadium, chrome silicon, and stainless steel. So far, I have not found the "perfect match" for this spring. I have requests for quotes out to about five companies and am waiting for their responses.

http://www.fordsmallblock.com/PDF/289-HiPo-C4.pdf

The clutch was referred to as 10-1/2", 10.4", or 10-3/8", depending on the source. They are all the same, as the smaller non-HiPo will be a 10".

There are three clutches for the small block: the standard 10", the heavy-duty which was 10½", and the 289 HiPo which was 10½". The HiPo has the strongest gripping power and my foot could definitely tell the difference. I also have used the heavy-duty 10½". It was definitely easier to depress than the 289 HiPo. But for pure pleasure in driving with light foot work, the standard 10" is a good choice. I installed one of these in my 1963 Fairlane and loved it. It was still plenty strong to spin the wheel in 1st gear, but much easier to depress.

It is somewhat difficult to find Ford remanufactured pressure plates and discs, but they are my only choice for clutches. They wear well and don't chatter.

Valve covers were a gloss, but not like your super high-gloss, ultra smooth finishes today. They were just quickly painted and often not all that well. I have seen runs and uneven coverage. Most restorations have better finishes on the valve covers and air cleaners that Ford ever did. I will show two pictures. One is of an NOS red 63 air cleaner. It will give you an idea of the shine. The second is a close up of the finish on a 1963-64 289 HiPo air cleaner. You can see what I mean by a rather "textured" paint job.

[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/aircleaner63-1.jpg]

[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/289HiPoAirCleaner.jpg]

Please don't ever use gloss black on an engine block. It makes me move on to the next car much too fast....