Posts by bobmannel

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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected].

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.

I do send them there, but it is costly -- $36.90 for Air Mail postage (4-10 days), or $22.75 for surface (4-6 weeks). I encourage the former because 4-6 weeks is a long time. You can order through the website, but make a special note in the comments section that it is for Australia. I then email you with the corrected charges. You are not charged on your card until you approve by retuen email. End of commercial....

When I wrote my book "Mustang & Ford Small Block V8", I encountered many surprises that conflicted with stated Ford sources. I considered one exception sufficient to look for a second. If a second was found, I looked for a third as confirmation. If the third case was found, I considered the information confirmed. Now, I am not talking about butchered up engines that looked like they had been worked over by a teenage hotrodder, but engines that had all the evidence of never being molested. There was a case where I was led astray by a single source that was adamant about a HiPo head marked C5AE-E, so I understand the problem. In my case, I trusted the person providing the info and put the information in my book. When I finally had the chance to examine the heads in question, I was appalled to find they were standard 289 heads, and the adamant opinion became a "well I thought they were." So, caution is wise, but where clear contradictions are found, it is best to address them. In the case here, I pointed out that an August 1965 revision to the Ford Master Parts Catalog did not even include the HEH-BX transmission, nor was a 10-1-64 date mentioned. Considering that this revision is a year after the 10-1-64 date and the date is not mentioned, is significant. When combined with the empirical data that to date no 65 Mustang has had the HEH-BX transmission, it merits mentioning.

When I wrote my book, I knew there would be errors, typos, and new information coming to light. I wanted the book to be a living book. So, I established a "List of Changes" which is posted on my website (http://www.fordsmallblock.com). It is updated as needed and available at any time as a free PDF download. You can then make changes in your book in areas of concern to you. True, not every book buyer knows how to access the information. Although I send a sheet of paper with each book sold telling where to find the changes (along with critical changes listed on the sheet), I am sure not everyone gets the word. But, it is the best I can do.

For the 64½ Mustang, the number would be four digits long. Always possible the stamping was not level, so numbers could be deep on one side and disappear on the other.

To summarize. All 4-speeds listed so far in this forum through August 65 have been HEH-T, all 1965 Mustangs. Earliest HEH-BX listed is 9-18-65, which was a 1966 Mustang. Looking more like the HEH-T was 1965 and HEH-BX was 1966. There could be some sloppy in the transition between 1965 and 1966 production. The 10-1-64 date, if in error and should have been 10-1-65, could represent the HEH-T slipping over into 66 production. What is needed is more data on August and September Mustangs (late 65/early 66). Need just one case of an early (September) 1966 Mustang with the HEH-T. (Or even a late 65 with HEH-BX.)

Yes, Both BR and BT are wide ratios. It was the sequence that was interesting. In and of itself, not important, but as a clue as to the date, possibly. It just fit with the other clues as a possible explanation of HEH-T boxes after 10-1-64. Hopefully, more data will help uncover the mystery.

WOW! This site is blazing. Very enjoyable whipping through the forums. My thanks to the hard workers who made it happen!!

>>What I have found most interesting is how varied and out of sequence the dates on balancers and distibutors have proven to be.<<

Would like to hear more about this...

Is your car an automatic? Ford parts books listed only a 3.50:1 rear with Equa-lock. The 3.50 was generally used with an automatic, although optional with the 4-speed. I don't think Ford trusted the Equa-lock limited-slip behind a high revving high performance engine -- probably anticipated too much warranty work. Torque sensitive locking rears would come out in 1968.

I am not an expert of HiPo trans, but with this discussion about the HEH-T, I thought I would do some checking. Ford listed the HEH-T for 8-20-64 to 10-1-64. (The 8-20-64 date, by the way, is not good. The transition was 8-3-64 [a Monday after the weekend].) The part number for the HEH-T was C5ZZ-7003-C, which has an engineering number of C5ZR-7003-C. The HEH-BX with followed (supposedly after 10-1-64) was C5ZZ-7003-W, with an engineering number of C6ZR-7003-B. I have a Ford Master Parts Catalog dated August 1965. It lists ONLY the HEH-T for the Mustang HiPo. It does list the standard 4-speed toploaders HEH-BR and HEH-BT transition as 2-1-65. Now putting together that the BX would probably be after the BT, the fact that HEH-T 4-speeds are being found after 10-1-64, and the engineering number of the HEH-BX is a 1966 part number, it seems reasonable that there is a good change the 10-1-64 date should have been 10-1-65, which would have been early 1966 production. So, find some early 1966 HiPos and see what the transmission tags have to say. It might help determine if the 10-1-65 date is correct if HEH-T boxes are found in early 66.