Posts by bobmannel

Thanks for the info. Do you have any nice pictures of the stampings (faded is understandable)?

Lots on ink stampings, but were they put on by the factory when the alternators were produced? That is the question. The service replacements from 1966 and on were, both those with pulleys (10300) and those without (10346). This would include those marked for 1965. But, for those originals that were on the 1965 cars as they left the factory, were they stamped? That is the question. Mercury says they started stamping them for the 1966 cars. In my years of goig through junkyards, I never found an original 65 alternator stamped. Not saying they were or were not. Really trying to find a case of a absolutely known example of a factory original 65 alternator (not a service replacement for 65) with a stamping.

The generator number was specific to the installed pulley. A C3OF-10000-B generator number would have come with the C3OF-10130-B pulley. There were two styles of pulleys used in 1963 and 1964. One was stamped C3OF-10130-B and the other C3OF-B.

Stamp placement varies, but the attached PDF file will help you place it in the right area. Also, the included graphic is an accuracy redition of the stamping.

[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/gen-64-HiPo.jpg]

http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/GeneratorMarkings.pdf

Edited by - bobmannel on 02/25/2010 21:06:30

I searched but did not see a topic on this. The question is, did factory original 1965 alternators come with ink stampings. Mercury stated in a 1966 TSB that all 1966 cars would have color ink stampings on the alternators. I know that service replacement alternators of 1966 and later also had the stampings for 1965 applications. The base number might be 10300 (with pulley) or 10346 (without pulley). But, the question is, when the cars left the factory in 1965 with their original alternators, did they carry colored ink stampings? Does anyone have a picture of a known-to-be-original, factory-installed 65 alternator on a 65 car with an original ink stamping? Every 65 I have come across that is low-mileage and unmolested, I have not found an ink stamping.

Generator were stamped. The 64½ Mustang would have carried the number C3OF-10000-B. Generator numbers were always specific to the installed the pulley.

5R42K168959 was found on a 289 HiPo block -- a 1965 Fairlane 500 4-door sedan.

Probably a stupid question, but I seem to be under the impression that the 289 HiPo option in 1967 production was available only in the Mustang GT. Is that true?

So, as I understand it, your C6ZE-6380-A, 6J21, C7ZE-B flywheel has a Brinell marking. The C7ZE-B identifies it as a standard 289.

In investigating 63-64 flywheels, I have not yet found any consistency in hardness testing. I have found a few flywheels with what looked like a possible Rockwell hardness test with a cone impression, but it could be a casting flaw. At any rate, I found the same mark on both a HiPo and 260 flywheel (both C3OE-6380-B castings), so it is not germane to the 289 HiPo distinction.

The C3OE-6375-C print calls for identication by painted part number or equivalent marking in the area at the The only difference is in the imbalance. The C6ZE-6375-A print calls for a steel stamp prefix and suffix of the flywheel assembly number in .18" size letters to a .02" max depth in the area of the outer perimeter. Neither print mentions instructions for performing any hardness testing on the casting of the flywheel. Both do mention the cast iron is to have a Brinell hardness between 179 and 235.

Please keep collecting information. So far, it seems that the C6ZE-6380-A castings for HiPos will be stamped C6ZE-A or C7ZE-A. The Brinell hardness test might be incidental. Info I received from someone who talked to persons in the engine plant at the time indicated that the casting material for flywheels was the same for 289 HiPos and standard 289s. The print agrees.

For the C3OE-6380-B casting, it would appear the primary identifier was the color of the paint. If so, need to determine the color for standard 289 flywheels. I have confirmed circled C markings on 63 HiPo flywheels, and circle A on 64 260 flywheels. But, on standard 289 in 64 and 65, I have not found circled letters nor hardness markings. Need lots more additional information on any C3OE-6380-B casting for 63-66 production 289s. Specifically, I have yet to see a standard 63 389 flywheel (only found on 63 Galaxies late in the year); or a 64 289 HiPo flywheel. Need more data on 65 289 and HiPo flywheels as well.

If you can get a hold of my book called "Mustang & Ford Small Block V8, 1962-1969" you would see pictures of each type and the identifcation markings for each. The book will probably answer a few more questions you didn't even know to ask:-)

But, so that you know this is not a shameless commercial plug, here are the pictures:

[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/HiPo-Gen-Pulley-stamped-typ.jpg]

[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/HiPo-Gen-Pulley-stamped-number.jpg]

[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/HiPo-Gen-Pulley-machined-type.jpg]

[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/HiPo-Gen-Pulley-machined-number.jpg]

To Chuck and all. Yes, I would very much like to get pictures of flywheel markings -- whole flywheel, the close up of casting number/date code, and marking along the perimeter -- in high resolution JPEGs. (My email is bobmannel@charter.net.) For HiPos, there are two castings -- C3OE-6380-B and C6ZE-6380-A. The former will also have a circled C outboard from the counterweight. The latter will have a C7ZE-A stamped into the perimeter. The standard 289 used the same casting -- the earlier one will have no circled letter stamping, the latter one will be stamped C7ZE-B. And, if you find a C3OE-6380-B casting with a circled A, it was used for the 1964 260. Some of this is verified, but I am working on getting a bigger data sampling. It is all about how the flywheels were imbalanced. The 260 was 26.2, 289 was 28.2, and the 289 HiPo was 30.4 ounce-inches.

I am working on a CD version of my book "Mustang & Ford Small Blook V8, 1962-1969". It will incorporate all the corrections and include supplemental information. I did not cover flywheels in the book, but will do so in the CD version. Can't give you a time of availability yet. These things take time.

What casting is your January 66 flywheel -- C3OE or C6ZE? I would like to get a closeup picture of any stampings just outboard from the counterweight, or other identifying marks.

Anyone have a 1965 Ford Fleet Facts booklet? I am actually interested in the Fairlane portion. I would like to see the page/s that lists all the rear axle ratios for the Fairlane (depends on model, engine & transmission).

Info is also in the AMA Specifications for the 1965 Fairlane, if someone happens to have one of those.

I have an April 1965 Ford MPC. It lists the following:

65 F (Special) before 6-1-64. C5ZZ-9700-B. 63.06" long.

65 F (Special) from 6-1-64. C5ZZ-9700-C. 57.62" long - 7/16"-14 thread.

65 B Special. C5OZ-9700-A. 58.00" long - 7/16"-14 thread.

C5ZZ-9700-B was replaced by C5ZZ-9700-C. (There is no C5ZZ-9700-A listing.)

As for brackets, there was a C4ZZ-9A700-A which was interchanged (MW - which I interpreted as "make work") with C5ZZ-9A700-A. Both have the same C4ZB engineering number.

Keep in mine that 6-1-64 is about the date that the 289 HiPo was introduced into the 64½ Mustang, so very few of the -B cables would have been used, although they might have wound up on the assembly manuals, since they were printed earlier. Both the -B and -C part numbers carry a C4ZB engineering number, meaning both were 64½ origin.

Z is an inspector code and means nothing outside the factory.

There is a lot of confusion about wheel cylinders. The sizing is all about balancing front and back. If you have too much braking in the back, the rear tires will lock up first. Putting larger cylinders on the rear can lead to worse braking, not better. Best to stick with what Ford or Shelby did than to assume bigger is better.

554 is a 289 HiPo with manual transmission.

Got any pictures? I would like to document the C7 HiPo manifold without the notches for the smog. My email address is bobmannel@charter.net. Thanks.

15/16" wheel cylinders are easy to find. Go to RockAuto.com and look under 1963 Ford Fairlane. Under wheel cylinders you have your choice between Dorman and Raybestos. Here are the part numbers:

Dorman: W59240 (L.H.), W59241 (R.H.)

Raybestos: WC17509 (L.H.), WC17510 (R.H.)

Cost is less than $7 each. I use these all the time on a 1963 Fairlane station wagon. They are used on the rear of all 1963-69 Fairlane station wagons.

HiPo alternator fans and pulleys closely followed what was happening on non-HiPo cars of the same time period. What I found was that ALMOST all 66 production alternator pulleys and fans were semi-gloss black. In 1967 production there were almost all natural (anti-corrosion finish). There was a transitional phase very late in 1966 production, possibly into very early 67 production. It is probably a case of where the vendor made the transition over night, but the alternators were arriving in batches, so some first-in black pulleys/fans might be last-out going on engines. Hence the mix where you have black, then naturals mixed with blacks, then blacks mixed with naturals, then all naturals. It drives the enthusist nuts trying to figure what is correct at a specific point in time.

Then trying to codify this in a rule book causes its own set of problems. Allowing for either over too broad a time period results real errors. For example, I have never seen a natural pulley/fan on an original 1965 car -- all were black (except for some blue ones, but that's another story).

Don't know what the rule book says, but I believe all HiPo pulleys were steel -- never aluminum.

>>I read in a speed shop catalog that you could replace a standard harmonic balancer with a HiPo one as long as you added the counter weight.<<

Bad information. It throws the engine out of balance by 2.2 ounce-inches (assuming it was in perfect balance to start with). Will it destroy an engine? No. Will it be noticed? Probably not.

If someone has changed the pistons, the engine should be rebalanced as an assembly. The machinist will take care of all balancing issues. That is why I mentioned that if you took all the parts to a machinist for balancing, you could use any of the components mentioned. For example, I used a very nice 221 V8 flywheel and a nice 260 damper on a 289 V8. The machinist had no trouble balancing it all.

But, if the engine is original and there are no changes made to the pistons or rings (still factory weights), and you are replacing just the flywheel/flex-plate, or just the damper, it should be the right one to maintain proper balance.