Posts by bobmannel

The connecting rod casting number markings on my two 289 HiPo motors is C3AE-D. Has anyone seen any different numbers?

There is more to this head than meets the eye. The casting number is C2OE-G, the casting date code is 3A23, it is cast with a 289 marking, and it does not have the valve spring recess seats. Everything is wrong, which often means it is a prototype. The jury is still out, but it might be a prototype to the late 1964 289 head.

Edited by - bobmannel on 08/09/2007 19:45:08

There is no PCB-BA tag. The 1966 Mustang 289 HiPo tag was PCW-BA. The date is August 10, 1965, which is very early 1966 production, so if the tag is PCW-BA, the answer would be "yes".

Need to see some pictures

What is the specific date? Alternators are August and later cars. For early 65, alternator brackets are semi-gloss black. Large horns on frame rails are 64½. Small horns are 65. Someone else will have to answer the gas pedal, but the ones I saw in junkyards were natural.

1964½ Mustangs have 1964 production engines that were coded:

U - 170 6-cylinder

F - 260 V8

D - 289 regular-fueled 4V

K - 289 HiPo

1965 Mustangs have 1965 production engines that were coded:

T - 200 6-cylinder

C - 289 2V

A - 289 premium-fueled 4V

K - 289 HiPo

U, F, D were used with generators. F & D were 5-bolt (bellhousing bolt pattern) small block V8s. T, C, A were used with alternators. C & A were 6-bolt small block V8s.

Only the K-code was used in both years. 64½ K-code is a 5-bolt with generator. The 65 K-code is a 6-bolt with alternator. July 31, 1964 was a Friday and appears to be the last day of 64½ Mustang production at Dearborn and San Rose. When they came back to work on Monday, August 3, they began 65 Mustang production. Ford used the date 8/22/64 or 8/17/64 as the transition date in its literature, but it would be better to use a 8/1/64 scheduled build date as the transition.

The two marks (triangles with 42 and 65) shown in my book were off standard crankshafts. I still don't know their meaning or if they are hardness tests.

I did come across a prototype 289 HiPo and each of the main bearing caps were hardness tested in two places.

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

The Brinell hardness test uses a 10mm ball as an indenter. These are too small for that, so I suspect it was a Rockwell hardness test. If the crankshaft was checked with a hardness test, there has to be an indenter mark somewhere on the crankshaft. If it was not in the polished area, then there is no need for the polished area. And if it was in the polished area, I sure can't find it.

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

C4OF-AT would be a 64 Fairlane HiPo automatic with PCV valve

There have been C5OF tagged carbs that were stamped on the base with C4OF-AL. Nothing was wasted at Ford, so some C4OF carbs went into 1965 cars. Other than the tag date code preceeding the engine assembly date, almost anything could happen. Hard to argue with a C5OF carb, but C4OF could be correct as well.

The one you see for the 1964-65 Fairlane is made by Don's Custom Exhaust in Paris, Ohio (330-862-2096). He sells this set for $500, so there is a bit of a markup going on here. This is an "approximation" of the Arvinode system. It is not intended to be an exact reproduction. I have worked with Don on getting "approximations" made of the Fairlane dual exhaust systems. The idea is to have something better than what a muffler shop might make from scratch and with no idea of what the original pipes looked like. I provided Don with a nice original Fairlane HiPo Arvinode pipe so he could figure out the pipe bends on his bending machine. He also contracted with a muffler company to custom-make the muffler (glass-pack), and rear resonator. The original muffler and resonator were 2¾" diameter. The "approximations" are 3". There is no indentation in the mufflers for the seat belt anchor, nor is one needed. (Ford required all exhaust components maintain a 1" clearance.)

So, bottom line is that what you see is not for concours restorations, but to give the Fairlane guys a system close to the original. It is not an Arvinode system, just an approximation.

I bought an Arvinode system in 1972 and installed it on my 1962 Fairlane. It was not a "quiet" system. You could not comfortably listen to the radio. But, its sound was distinctive and said there was something special going on under the hood. We don't know what this new one sounds like yet as it was just made and none have been installed that I know of.

Ford TSB #67, Article 1070, dated 5/5/67, stated that beginning approximately April 5, 1967, the California Mustangs with 289 HiPos would have thermactors. Over a year ago I checked with Kevin Marti of Marti Auto Works (623-935-2558) about the number of K-codes that received the thermactors. The answer was 14. So, if you have one, it is definitely rare.

As to the system, it is just like other 1967 systems, except that the air bypass hose could not run from the bypass valve to the air cleaner, because the low profile air cleaner did not have provisions for it. According to Ford assembly manuals, Ford ran the hose all the way forward to the thermactor air filter where a special lip with a hose fitting was used. The service part number Ford gave was C6AZ-9A492-C, which included a C5AZ-9C639-A cap, which was a rubber cap for a .625" I.D. hose. The cap was not needed in this case.

Details of the thermactor system can be found in the "Mustang & Ford Small Block V8" book on pages 7-26 & 7-27, 6-32 through 6-42, and the "1967 Ford Products Engine Equipment Assembly Manual" by Jim Osborn page 119.

Date code correct means no one can find an inconsistency in the date codes and stampings. That still leaves a large margin for an engine to be date-correct, but not the original. But, the difficulty in getting all the dates correct (within acceptable parameters) is quite high, so non-original engines can often (not not always) be discerned by careful examination of all date codes and stampings.

Having said all that, there will be cases of date codes seeming to be too far off to avoid suspicion, yet still be original. In most cases this will be related to parts with date codes well before what might be expected, or the car being delayed until after its scheduled build date.

For example, I have a 1965 Fairlane K-code built in April 1965. All the date codes on the differential are late 1964 production. It would seem that the differential was incorrect. But, upon disassembly, I found that the axle housing had a factory repair due to a fold-over in the center section stamping that probably caused the housing to leak. The fold-over caused a crack, which had been professionally welded, and then machined. It was likely this housing was pulled from the line during an inspection (when it leaked), repaired, and eventually put back into the production line. It is the professional repair that ties the span of time and makes this housing highly likely to be the car's original. I just can't prove it, but I can live with my explanation with the photo-documentation of the damge and repair.

Some literature suggested the 289 HiPo automatic in the 1964 Fairlane K-code got converters with a higher stall speed. However, all the Ford Master Parts catalogs I have show no special torque converter for either the Fairlane or the Mustang K-codes. When I removed the HiPo automatic from my 1965 Fairlane K-code, the converter was stamped "N", just like the standard ones. However, I cannot verify the converter is the original because I don't know the car's full history, although it probably is since the automatic is original.

It is possible for the C8OE-6015-A block to be used as a late 1967 289 HiPo. I personally have not see one, but with only 489 1967 Mustang HiPos, it might a while before we hear from a late 1967 Mustang HiPo owner to verify the possibility -- or I might say, the probability. The C8OE-A block was a 302 block. It was essentially identical to the 289 C5AE-6015-E block except the cylinder sleeve castings were slightly longer. Ford allowed the C5AE-E block to deplete in late 1967 production and phased in the C8OE-A block in its place. When 1968 production began, the C8OE-A block was used for 302 production. It is during this brief time in late 1967 production that some 289 HiPos might have used this block. Perhaps within this forum we might hear from someone that can verify such a case.

But, to your question, your block was cast in late 1968 production and would not be a factory-production 289 HiPo. And, it would be difficult to verify it as a service replacement because anyone could align-bore a standard block with the HiPo caps.

My email is bobmannel@charter.net. Email me there and give me your email address. Bob Mannel

I bought a pair of each caliper set (1965/66 Raybestos RC4047/RC4048 & 1967 Raybestos RC4171/RC4172) for fit checks on early Fairlanes. I wanted to know the difference between the two sets. The 1965-66 set had the hex-head bolts. The 1967 had the 12-point bolts. According to Ford Master Parts Catalogs, the 1965-66 were supposed to have the 12-points, so that was a little confusing to me. Anyway, the quality was adequate for a driver car. They looked good in appearance, but I was surprised to see evidence of past corrosion on the insides of some of the pistons. I am sure this varies with each individual caliper you get, but it is obvious that pistons are reused if they pass inspection. It just did not raise my confidence level about what I couldn't see when what I could see is not top-notch. I would think the pistons would be replaced as a routine. Also, on at least one 1966/67 caliper, there was some rust in the threads where the hose attaches. Nothing serious, but again made me wonder how good interior areas might be. The sealing surface for the brass hose seal also looked rough like casting. Might have come from the factory this way. If you want, and I have your email, and you can handle a 2MB file, I can send you a PDF of the article I wrote. You can just ignore the Fairlane stuff. I can be reached at bobmannel@charter.net.

Yours is definitely a service replacement block. Do you have a good closeup picture of the casting number with date code? I would like to keep a record of it. Service replacement blocks are rare.

You have set the standard for others to follow! This is excellent documentation. What we need are cars near the end of 65 production and beginning of 1966 production (July 1965 to September 1965).

What is needed is to compile "specific" information. Let's start that here. List the VIN stamped into the transmission, scheduled delivery date listed on the door tag of the car with the same VIN, the transmission code (HEH-T or HEH-BX), and the numbers on the transmission tag (which might be a sequential number). Pictures of door tag, trans tag, and trans VIN stamping highly desireable. Such information will be helpful in presenting the contradictory info about the 10-1-64 code transition date. Max participation will be helpful. We can use this thread to update the data coming in.