Posts by bobmannel

All 289's used the 7" spread. You only have to worry about the 6" or 7" spreads on the 221 and 260 V8s.

Bill, Did you know any of the fellows that might have worked in the engine plant while the K-code engines were being assembled? There are a lot of questions about the start of the 289 HiPo production, and about when sequence numbers -- and later VIN numbers -- were stamped on the engine.

The only thing that matters is that no casting date code on any part of the engine is after the engine's assembly date code. As to how far in advance, it could literally be on the same day or any day prior. Within a couple weeks is nice, but could be anything. Engine parts could be delayed for any number of reasons (repair, for example) before showing up in the parts bins.

The engine assembly date could can also be after the car's door tag date code. The latter is a scheduled date and cars could easily miss the scheduled date. On my 63 Fairlane, the engine assembly date code and the car's date code were the same.

It's in The Book....

I have looked very carefully at some old locking tabs I have for standard engines. It is my conclusion that the locking tabs got painted when the engine was painted. This is based on looking at dozens of locking tabs and finding no paint under the bolt head area or on the inside surface of the bolt holes. The bolts fit fairly loosely through the holes, so if they had been painted there, it would not have been scraped off. It was also a very well protected area where I would expect the paint to survive, particularly on those tabs that still had significant paint still remaining. I would have also expected to see some remnants of paint under where the bolt head was. I could find not the least trace of paint on any of the tabs. There was also no evidence of any dipping. There were no runs or streaks indicating a draining pattern. In short, I could find no concrete evidence the tab was definitely painted apart from the engine.

But, there is good evidence to suggest the locking tabs were painted with the engine. I have a few pictures of a low-mileage 1966 Mustang 289-2V that I took many years ago. I took some pictures around the exhaust manifolds. The overspray around the exhaust manifold attachment area is clearly evident. I believe that the overspray was far more significant than it might first appear. What is left on the manifolds is what has not burned away after thousands of miles. But much more was likely there when the engines were first painted. Note in the pictures how heavily the one exhaust bolt is painted blue. Ford did not paint hardware. Hardware got painted with other items (like the lower head bolts getting painted). You can even see on the close-up how the tab shielded the lower bolt from paint and evidence of some rust under the tab on the bolt head.

Evidence suggests that the engine was well painted around the exhaust manifolds and during that time the locking tabs and bolt heads were well covered -- probably not in all cases, but most. As a result the tabs were painted black on 1962-65 engines and blue on 1966 and later engines.

In looking at the tabs, they appear to be a natural steel. There is no indication there is any coating on them. They appear to have been stamped cut items. There are shear markings on all edges. Probably stamped into the desired S-bend after cutting.

Anyway, that is what the evidence suggests -- no special coating, just plain steel; not dipped, but installed bare; then painted with the engine.

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

[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/exhaust-paint-2.jpg]

The rod is C4RA-9A701-B in both cases. The C5ZZ-9B843-A kit was for M/T and C5ZZ-9B843-B was for A/T. The only difference in kits was the latter added the A/T bellcrank, which had to be altered in its mounting for the (3)x2V intake. But, the rod is the same for both. The illustration you have is essentially the same with the bellcrank deleted.

The picture I took was not of a proper installation.

Measure the thickness of the flywheel edge. It should be .85" when new. You can cut up to .045", so minimum thickness should be .805". The ring gear is .14" below the clutch surface, so even at max wear there sould be .095" clearance.

As they say, "It's in THE BOOK".

[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/65-66ReturnSpringBracket.jpg]

My article was on the Fairlane linkage and not the Mustang, which was different. It is similar to a standard Mustang rod, but I have never come across a known original to document. I have an illustration of what it looks like and I did capture a picture of one about 10 years ago in a Mustang.

[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/Tri-power-Mustang.jpg]

[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/Tri-power-Mustang-2.jpg]

No. Because of the difference in boss heights, they are different. The lower boss height is close to the standard manifold, but the taller boss is about 1/4" taller on the HiPo than the standard manifold. So, the locking tabs for the HiPo have a larger spread.

According to an old Ford MPC, Ford made no distinction about the metal shield and specific engines. Ford listed the "260,289". The only restriction was that the shield was not used with extra cooling (X/C) and A/C. The reason for this restriction is that X/C and A/C used two belts over the generator pulley, and running an inner belt was not compatible with the shield. So, technically, any "260,289" except with X/C and A/C could get the shield (including the HiPo). Ford also listed the rubber boot for the "260,289", without any restrictions.

Having said all that, I check what few pictures I have of original 1964 Fairlane K-codes and they all had the rubber boot, including a 4F16 assembled engine which was very original. So, I would suggest that until a confirmed case is found, use the rubber boot.

The problem is, where did these numbers come from? I tried to track down the source, but the source (Peter Sessler) would not return any of my inquiries over the years. HOT ROD said 17,000 engines were produced (said that in 1972), yet my estimates go to about 24,000 when using Sessler's numbers, along with other numbers I have. There are about 4,114 GT-350s, 580 Cobras, and 5,175 Fairlanes. Add in the 13,231 of Sessler's and we get 23,100. There is close to another 1,000 spread out among Griffiths, Comets, and race cars. Anyway, 17,000 seems to be the lower end of the range and 24,000 perhaps the upper range.

The clicking is probably coming from your ignition wires and not the alternator or regulator. Only way to get rid of it is to use radio interference suppression ignition wires, or add a special kit that put suppressors in line with the wires. Either way, you are adding resistance to the ignition wires.

For radio interference suppression, there was a condensor on the alternator (due to brush arcing) AND one for the voltage regulator (due to points arcing). On my original alternator condensor was the end markings of C5TA-18827-A along the perimeter, 913 at the top and FoMoCo oval logo in the center. This number crosses to part number C5AZ-18827-A. Ford listed a C5AZ-18827-A kit for when 1966 radio kits were installed in 1965 vehicles. After 7-9-65, which was essentially the end of 1965 production, the capacitor (condensor) went inside the alternator, whether a radio was installed or not. Changes had to be made to the alternator casing to accommodate the capacitor. Ford indicated all alternators would receive this capacitor since it also acted as a "buffer" to protect the rectifier against voltage spikes which could cause permanent damage to the diodes.

Ford continued using a condensor at the voltage regulator for radio-equipped vehicles because the points were still an arcing problem. My ’65 original was marked on the end with C3SA-18832-A along the perimeter and 648 above that (no logo). There is no cross-reference for this condensor, so it was likely only available as part of radio kits, and it might be part of the C5AZ-18827-A kit. The following year, Ford used the condensor C6OZ-18832-A. It's engineering number and quite probably its stamped number was C6OA-18832-A.

Ford said the external condensor was used until 7/9/65. If you alternator has been replaced, the replacement likely has the internal condensor.

This is all good information and I think shedding some good light on the truth. The C5AF10A352-C pulley was only in service for nine months or so, so seems to have good consistency as to its design. The opposite seems to be true with the C5AF10A352-H, which was in production for many years, then service beyond that for many more. Most of the alternator pulleys in the 1960s were made by two vendors. There seems to be a lot of leadway given by Ford as to how they could be constructed as long as the critical specs of diameter, groove size, and position were correct. But, even if the -H pulley had but one manufacturer, the length of time could have contributed to the variations. Making matters more complex is the number of well made reproductions.

So far, it seems there are two different fonts of stamped numbers. The fonts look almost identical, but there are very slight variations. You can see the slight difference in the length of the top hook on the number "1". This simply means the stamping tools were not the same. There are different positions of the stamping. One is about 5/16" from the recessed hub. Another is about 1/8", yet others are even closer, though the arc indicates it should have been further from the hub. Whether these variations occurred all at the same time, or very sequential remains somewhat a mystery. Only known original cars can unlock those secrets.

And, I think we have confirmed the two differences on the back side of the pulley. One that is flat, and another with a slight recess. The question might be whether the recess is a variation from the beginning, or a change that occurred later.

Close like the following?

[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/Alt-HP-style-two.jpg]

Here is another twist to the C5AF10A352-H pulley. I have come across two that I believe to be original that do not have the recessed area on the back. They are steel and flat across the back until near the raised center which we are calling a spacer. Below are pictures of the pulley (it has been bead-blasted):

Front

[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/Steel-alt-HP-front.jpg]

Back

[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/Steel-alt-HP-back.jpg]

Stamping

[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/Steel-alt-HP-C5AF-H.jpg]

The "spacer" fit completely within the recessed area of the fan and the pulley back was flat to the front of the fan.

As Brent mentioned, I recall that the C5AF10A352-C pulley had a smaller step (spacer) and its back was slightly above the face of the fan.

If others have seen a pulley like the pictures I show, please indicate the car it came off of.

Rubber coming out of a damper is a vague description. The rubber is squeezed quite tightly between the hub and ring. Any rubber protruding out from the two pieces is uncompressed. The stress of this expansion causes the rubber to crack. It is not very attractive, but Ford said it would not affect the performance of the damper. I have seen rubber bits outside of the hub and ring start to fall away. Still does not mean the damper needs rebuilding. The compressed rubber is fine. There is a wavy groove in both the hub and ring surfaces in contact with the rubber. This groove makes it virtually impossible for the outer ring to shift position. It usually requires an engine seizure at high rpm where the hub stops almost instantaneously while the inertial of the outer ring wants to continue rotating to cause the rubber to slip. You can check that by measuring the angle bwteen the woodruff key slot and the TDC marking. It should be 40°.

A bigger reason to rebuild a damper is to have the hub resleeved so you have an ungrooved surface for the front timing chain cover seal to ride on.

You just got to keep everything together as a set. Until about April 1, 1965, the HiPo pulley was C5AF 10A352-C (straight) and was used with the 1/4" spacer and flat-faced fan. From April 1, 1965, the HiPo pulley was C5AF10A352-H (arched) and used the 5/32" spacer and convex center-section fan. As with most Ford dates, that April 1, 1965, should be considered as "about" because we never know if Ford was referring to planning date, actual date, engine assembly date, car scheduled date, or a target date.