Posts by bobmannel

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.

There was insufficient room inside the engine to put all the counterweighting required to balance the engine. Here is a link to a PDF that will explain it all -- or at least, quite a bit.

http://www.fordsmallblock.com/PDF/SmallBlockV8Balancing.pdf

Sorry for the late weigh-in on this subject. I had an unusal situation where I had a low-mileage HiPo engine, complete except for the flywheel. I plan to use this engine without replacing any of the reciprocating or rotating components. It is also going into a Fairlane K-code automatic. So, I needed a HiPo flex-plate. These are impossible to find. But, I came across an NOS 302 flex-plate stamped C8OP-C and decided it would be a good candidate to have it rebalanced from 28.2 oz.-in. to 30.4 oz.-in. Not only does the NOS flex-plate give me perfect ring-gear teeth, but it will be near perfect in imbalance to add to an already perfectly balanced engine (sans flex-plate).

I talked to John Cavataio at Dynotech Engineering Services in Troy, Michigan (248-362-2777) (http://www.dynotechengineering.com/) about what they could do. He said, “we set the flex-plate up on our STR balance machine and compensate for 28.2 oz-in of imbalance on the machine’s dial plate, neutralizing the existing imbalance. We then add 2.2 oz-in of material 180 degrees from the comp weight to raise the imbalance to 30.4 oz-in.” My cost was $175. Now I have a perfectly functioning HiPo flex-plate to add to my engine assembly. Dynotech's workmanship was first-class as can be seen in the photo below.

[Blocked Image: http://www.fordsmallblock.com/Pictures/flex-plate-HiPo.jpg]

Production cast iron bellhousing were not used until 1965 (6-bolt) and then only on trucks. They carry a C5TA casting number initially. These are used with the big flywheel. Never used on a passenger car near as I can tell. There were some Cobra cast iron bellhousing, but these were special performance items.

The C5AE-6015N block was used for both the 2V 63 Galaxie 289 engine and the HiPo 63 Fairlane engine. On the blueprints for the HiPo block, it will state that it is the same as the standard engine (by listing its engineering number) and requiring it pass a dye pentrant inspection without indications and call for the substitution of the heavy-duty main bearing caps (by engineering number).

A 3D1 block casting is too early for a 5 sequential number. Could be another stamping or numbers missing. What is the assembly date code? It is located on the head surface all the way forward on the driver's side (near the distributor hole). That number will help see where it might fall in assembly, however, the date would not be before 3D1.

It is not uncommon for a crank to have a C3AE number in the casting. It doesn't mean anything special.

The connecting rods were forged. As I recall, the numbers you mention had to do with the forging die identification. They have no meaning for us, nor can we decipher them.

Not sure what you mean. The first smog heads were C7ZE heads, but had the same markings as the C5OE head in the rocker arm areas, with updated date codes.

Anyone who has met Jon knows he is an intense person. I wish I had his energy level. He has done some amazing things, like tune up a 4100 on the spot during a Mustang National show as a seminar. I worked with him in the early days on carburetor identification for small blocks. He was very passionate about carburetors and easy to talk to. With energy can come an intensity about a subject that can frustrate a guy when dealing with differing opinions. Just comes with the territory. Jon knows his carburetors. He can be trusted to do his best, and make things right if he makes a mistake. Hard to ask for more....

The same flywheel casting was used on the 1963 221 and 260 V8. To tell the difference between the 221 and 260 you have to look for a circle letter along the outer perimeter on the trapezoid side of the flywheel. Circle E was the 221. Circle G was the 260. The difference was in the imbalance. The 221 was 23.1 oz. in. The 260 was 24.5 oz. in.

At one time I painstakingly added up all the sources for 289 HiPo engines -- all the Cobras, Shelbys, Fairlanes, etc. Using the stats for Mustangs, I came up with about 24,000. Problem is, HOTROD magazine quoted a number of 17,000 for HiPo production in a 1971 article. I would presume that the author got that number from Ford, since it was only a few years after 289 HiPo production ended. So, either this number is wrong, or the stats on Mustangs are wrong. I tried a couple times to find out where the Mustang stats came from by writing to the author of the book I found them in, but he did not answer my letters. Through Kevin Marti I got the stats on the 1967 Mustangs and they were close but not an exact match to the stat that was published for 1967. So, I remain suspicious of the numbers given for 1965-66 Mustang HiPos.