Posts by bobmannel

There are two bellhousing for 6-bolt 289s. One had a casting number starting with C5D and the other was C5A. Each takes its own flywheel, indexing plate, and starter motor. Getting the two mixed up can cause the problem you described. The C5D bellhousing takes a flywheel that can mount a 10" or 10.4" clutch (160 or 157 teeth). The starter motor has a longer nose, and the index plate sets the starter closer to the engine's centerline (not much, but significant). The C5A bellhousing takes a larger flywheel (168 or 164 teeth) which can mount and 11" clutch, although most of them were machined for the smaller 10/10.4" clutch. The ring gear was more forward on the flywheel and larger in diameter. So, the indexing plate had to position the starter motor more outboard, and the starter had to be shorter where it goes into the bellhousing.

I emailed them and they said they had them ($. They also have the Autolite Spark Plug decals (curved & straight), and Use Genuine FoMoCo Parts decals. I am asking them now how to order since these decals are not listed on their website.

So, where do we buy these decals?

The picture of the engine is a mockup of the 1965 engine.

The coil was from a 1965 289. What model car I can't remember, but coils were all the same between vehicles.

You are correct. Here is a picture of the proper mounting of the coil in 1965.

And yes, the bracket covered the stamping, and sometimes preserved it rather nicely as in this case of a 5ECB coil.

Sounds like a "put-together" engine. Started with a 1964 289, borrowed a 64½ Mustang intake and a 65 Galaxie carburetor, and a 1968 damper.

Production Mustang HiPos all got the manual choke version. There was at least on pre-production Mustang that was loaned to the media by Ford that did have the automatic choke. But, with the June introduction of the Mustang HiPo, they would have all had manual chokes.

The Fairlane HiPo radiator was a 3-row unit. For a 64 Fairlane, the radiator core to buy is Transpro #122492. Modine has one as well #10503. The HiPo top tank was specially marked with a C4OE number. The top tank cover is the most valuable part. The rest can be replaced. In fact, you can build a HiPo radiator using a standard 62-64 20" Fairlane 2-row frame as a core. The radiator shop will have to make the bottom tank as none are available. A Mustang 3-row 20" core bottom tank would work. But, to get the numbers right, you need the HiPo radiator top cover. Otherwise, almost any 20" core top tank cover from a 2-row radiator will work. But, in this case, you might want the Transpro 128614 core which will mate to the standard top cover better. The Modine number is 10498.

I have three original coils. Two have dimples. One has no marking between the terminals. The other is marked 6B. Nothing left of the ink stamping, but I believe these coils were from the 62-63 time period. The third coil still has a good stamping 4ACC. The marking between the terminals is 5D. It has no dimple. This one came from a 64 289.

In my years of junkyard research, I have found 64 coils without dimples and 65 coils with dimples. But all the 62-63 coils had dimples and all the 66 and later coils did not. So, some time in the 64-65 they must have been mixed, but the direction was for no dimples. The dimple was used to index the coil and bracket for mounting on the intake manifold (62-64 cars). From 65 and on, the dimple was useless in production.

I also found coil brackets of four different configurations. A picture will help...

Only one is compatible with the 62-64 intake manifold mounting with dimpled coil. Another could mount the non-dimpled coil on the 62-64 manifold. All could mount the 65 coil to the head, dimpled or not, because the bracket was below the dimple.

It is possible that the marking between the terminals has more to do with identifying a particular mold for making the top. I would imagine that many coil tops were made at the same time. But, for sure, it is not a date code.

The date on the carburetor is independent of the scheduled build date, but must be before the engine assembly date since the engine is not complete without a carburetor. Your engine date is 6B17, so a 6BC or earlier carb tag could not be questioned. I would use some other date codes around the engine to make a good choice. You can check the block casting date code, the intake manifold, heads, distributor, fan, exhaust manifolds, etc. -- whatever is not too much trouble to see. Then select a week that is not before the earliest casting and not later than the assembly date. Something in the middle if the dates are close. My guess is that a 6BA or 6BB would be fine.

>>all he has here is a set of early model standard heads<<

Not with a 3A23 date code. C2OE heads had long been replaced in production by the 1963 model year, which began in very late August 1962.

Okay, here is what Gino has. The underside has a configuration similar (but not exactly) to the late 64 and later 289 combustion chamber.

Note the C and S markings.

Here is a close-up of the C2OE casting number.

The G is on the end.

Here is the rocker arm side.

It is clearly cast with a 289 marking.

The date code is 3A23, which is pretty late for going to Carroll Shelby because the production 289 HiPos were underway.

The heads do not have the 289 HiPo valve spring seats, which were already in production for the 289 HiPo.

It is possible that these were castings of the Shelby 260 heads, but it makes no sense that they would actually be going to Shelby with a 3A23 date code. Shelby would have wanted the 289 HiPo heads. But, it would make sense if Ford was using these heads as prototypes for the late 64 289. I have seen other cases where prototype heads having a casting number from a previous head, but incorporating new combustion chamber shapes, so this head does fit that pattern. Possibly, this head must have escaped the factory, somehow. Mondello's machine work has complicated the issue. They were obviously setting this head up for some serious speed.

If anyone has any pictures of Shelby's HiPo 260 heads, I would like to see them.

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.

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.

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.

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