Posts by bobmannel

On page 5-31, I show a Ford illustration of the 1965 HiPo road draft tube. See page J-55 for road draft tube application.

Ford had largely abandoned the road draft tube at the end of 1963 production for all applications. So, every early 1964 289 had a PCV valve. It was about May 1964 that Ford brought back the road draft tube except for California and New York. Ford was having a lot of clogging problems with its orifice-type PCV valve, so reverting to the road draft tube decreased this problem (which was probably a warranty issue). At the time, Ford had not developed tubes to attach to the valve cover, so reverted to the 1962-63 system. By 1965 production, new tubes were ready. However, I am sure there was a state or two upset about Ford's use of polluting road draft tubes, so they were phased out during March 1965 and early April. PCV valves with a juggle-pin design were now readily available. These valves were self-cleaning and greatly reduced clogging problems.

So, if I was a guessing man, I think the road draft tubes were a quick temporary stop gap solution until better PCV valves were more readily available. If you have ever run a road draft tube engine, you know just how bad they were. I do. With just a little piston ring blow-by pressurizing the crankcase, fumes came out the tube and oil filler cap when you were not moving forward and the smell was not pleasant, not to mention the mess. With a PCV valve, there was always an inflow through the breather and the fumes were being burned in the engine. If there was a lot of blow-by, the draft tube would nearly choke you until you were driving down the road at high speed. Then you just left an obnoxious trail. With a PCV valve, it would not be able to keep up and fumes would come out the breather. But, for just a little blow-by, the jiggle-pin PCV valve was the best system.

The September 64 date is wrong. All 1963-64 Fairlanes were 5-bolt -- without exception. All the 1965 Fairlanes HiPos were 6-bolt -- without exception. Mustangs are a bit more difficult because they ran over the 1964-65 production change. If you have a 64½ Mustang (they began in June 1964 and ran through July), you have a 5-bolt HiPo and a generator. If you have an August 64 or later HiPo, it's a 6-bolt with an alternator. I verified one Mustang that had a scheduled build date of August 10, 1964 and a 289 HiPo assembled on August 4, 1964. It was a 6-bolt 289 with alternator. The transition between generator and alternator was July 31 for the last generator and August 3 for the first alternator. In between (August 1 and 2) was a weekend.

See page J-62. Ford's TSB 5-4-64, Section 12001, Article #19 states in part, "Linen or rayon core wires are scheduled for 1965 to replace steel core wires in the 289-4V and 427-8V high performance engines. Steel core wires will be standard on the 427-4V only and R.P.O. (regular production option) on the other high performance packages."

Keep in mind that Ford regularly sent cars out of the factory with RPOs without the customer asking for them. So, many 65 HiPos could have been delivered with the RPO steel core wires.

The steel core wires have nothing to do with the radio. This was the cold war era and the government did not want ignition wires interferring with radio and TV broadcasts of civil defense instructions. (These were the days we actually practiced getting under our desks at school and covering our heads for a nuclear attack.)

All the 1963-64 Fairlanes came with steel core wires, and almost every one of them had radios.

There is more on wires in the Restoration forum.

A bit more follow-up. When I measured these wires, as best as I can remember, I measured from the end of the wires sticking out of the distributor cap boot to where the wire ended inside the spark plug boot. So, for overall length, one-half inch could be added for including the length of the spark plug boot.

All the boots on these wires were straight. On the 1964 Durability Comet that was in Harrah's Auto Museum at the time I examined it, the HiPo wires all had straight boots. When I looked at some NOS sets of HiPo wires, all had a couple angled boots. So, I believe that there was a difference between production HiPo wire sets and service replacement (NOS) sets. If you have a Mustang HiPo with original wires (not NOS service replacements), it would be good to document the length and type boots (angled or straight) that were used. In 1963 and 1964, I believe all original HiPo wires (excluding Ford service replacements) had straight boots. I don't have any evidence for 1965 and later.

Also, the routing of the wires generally followed the following rules:

Passenger's side wires went through both wire separators in a 1,2,3,4 order.

Driver's side wires went through both separators in a 7,5,6,8 order. #7 then went over 5,6 on its way to the spark plug. This routing is supported by vintage magazine pictures, the 1964 & 1965 engine assembly manuals, and my observation of low mileage originals.

I measured a set on a 1964 Fairlane HiPo engine. Should be close. This is a production set, not a service replacement across the parts counter. Results were:

1 - 28-3/4"

2 - 24-1/2"

3 - 26-7/8"

4 - 24-1/8"

5 - 25"

6 - 26-1/2"

7 - 25"

8 - 28"

I will see if I can locate any additional information.

I have pictures of a C5AE-6015-E HiPo block cast on 4G24 and assembled on 4K16. Since 1965 Mustang production began at the start of August, engine blocks would have been cast in July. Some might have even been assembled in very late July 1964.

There are occasionally oddball occurrences in manufacturing, so history of a car is important. If an engine fails its test (already assembled) and is deemed repairable, it can get sidelined for a considerable time before being installed. It is rare, but possible, so should be considered. Check for other evidence such as VIN stampings on the block or other internal components with date codes.

As an illustration, I found a late 1964 Fairlane HiPo rear in my late 1965 Fairlane HiPo (nine months difference). It seemed highly unlikely that another Fairlane HiPo rear would have been installed in my car -- they are just too rare. But, I did not like the date code discrepancy. When I got around to cleaning it, I encountered what I thought was a very resistant clump of dirt or tar. It turned out to be a weld. Further inspection revealed that the stamping of the center section had folded over on itself rather than formed smoothly. The fold cracked. This would have caused a leak. The repair consisted of welding the crack and resurfacing the third-member mating surface at the weld. When the repair was done, the housing was eventually put back into the production flow (my conclusion). The key evidence is that the original crack was definitely a manufacturing defect.

The documentation is on page J-67. It is a Ford TSB #22, Article 429 dated 9-17-65. For those without my book, it states in part. "This change was originally scheduled for all standard 1966 cars and trucks, but was in production for the balance of 1965 vehicles built after the week of July 9, 1965." MCA should accept this information for late 1965 Mustangs (including HiPos) with internal capacitors.

At the time I published the book, CompuServe was a solid company. Then AOL stuck a floppy in every mail box in the country for free. AOL bought CompuServe and swore it would maintain CompuServe. Then came CompuServe 2000, which actually ran on AOLs network under CS. CompuServe Classic continued, but no further updates were under development for the front end (v4.0.2). So, I had to abandon my CompuServe email account to keep up with the times. I can be reached at bobmannel@charter.net.

I hold the 1963-65 Fairlane K-code Registry. This popped up a couple years ago. The VIN is listed as scrapped and that the various pieces with the VIN were being sold without the car. I also keep pictures from ebay. It will not stop someone from making a K-code Fairlane out of a standard one and selling it to someone else who does not know the history, but if I am asked, I do provide info and evidence.

Any 64 car with a road draft tube would have it attached to the rear of the intake manifold. They were the same for Fairlane/Mustang 260/289/289 HiPos. (Falcon/Comet were different.) In Mustangs, these would all be 64½ 5-bolt motors. All 65's had the draft tube attached to the valve cover. There were three -- a 289 non-HiPo, 289 HiPo, and Falcon/Comet tube.

There should be a number stamped on a boss just above where the equalizer bar engine stud is located. The boss is machined flat (vertical) and the number is stamped there. Would appreciate knowing what it is.

What is a pinch weld?

I was not at Columbus, so missed seeing it. There is no explanation that I have for the timing marks. I wonder if it was rebuilt and someone got the outer ring on wrong? In general, I have always considered the C7ZE and C8ZE as service replacement parts. All the 1967 HiPos I have seen or heard about have the C5OE damper. Was there a date code on the C7ZE damper. Happen to get the name of the vendor? Be nice to get some pictures.

Now the question is, can standard arms be modified with the dimple so that a standard pump can be rebuilt as a HiPo pump? Ford serviced the 1963-64 fuel pumps with the HiPo lower spring sometime in 1965. From what I have seen, the HiPo spring was red (Ford books indicated blue). The 1963-64 springs were brown. The good news is that since Ford service the older springs with the HiPo, it also means the older springs are close enough in specs to be used as a HiPo spring. So, if a dimple could be stamped in the arm and a spring from a 1963-64 pump added, you would have a functionally identical fuel pump to the HiPo. It might not be as nice as having an original, but it is the next best thing. Be a good project?

C4AE-6375-B is a 1965 289 2V/4V flex-plate

PCS-Y is a 1966 Mustang 200 6-cylinder C4 automatic tag. The 20006A is actually 200 (6-cylinder) and 06A for January 1966. The 703 is an internal plant code for this transmission (doesn't mean anything outside the plant).

Tom sent me an email on this. It's a first for me. Never seen one. It does look vintage (deteriorating rubber). It does have an oval "Ford" marking. Manufacturer is in stamping and casting (SD). Timing markings are typical of the replacement. Date code is probably C8 (March 1968).

I have never documented the replacement dampers for date codes, so I wonder if the step types have had post-1968 dates. This one suggests that early replacements still might have used the smooth outer ring.

Might want to start looking at date codes of any C8ZE-A damper found.

There is a pink resistance wire between the ignition switch and the firewall plug. This wire should be bypassed. That will provide 12volts to the Ignitor with the Ignition switch in the ON position. In the ACC position, the Ignitor gets no voltage.

There is no practical reason to use the Ignitor 2 system with a standard coil. The Ignitor 2 detects the saturation of the coil by current flow and limits the current flow upon saturation so that a low resistance coil does not overheat at low rpm. There is plenty of resistance in a standard coil that current limiting is not necessary. It won't hurt anything to use it, but the standard Ignitor would do as well. To really capitalize on the Ignitor 2 advantage, a low resistance coils should be used. The only one that looks like the yellow top is the one used with original transistorized ignition in the 1960s. It was about ½" longer, but otherwise appeared the same. It is a super low resistance coil and needs the Ignitor 2's current limiting features. Other than that, you have to tolerate more modern-looking coils.

Gene, I might be able to help if no one else can. I maintain a website for my "Mustang & Ford Small Block V8" book at http://www.fordsmallblock.com. I can create a folder for your use. If you email me the picture as an attachment, I can upload the pictures to that directory. Then you can link from that directory. My space is not limitless, but I have a lot of room. Email me directly at bobmannel@charter.net if you would like to give this a try to see if it would work well. Biggest issue I see is probably a copyright issue with the use of the pictures. Most people will agree if asked.

This is a December 1963 block, which is the earlier part of 1964 production. All confirmed production HiPo blocks have had a sequential number on the boss above the equalizer bar pivot stud.

I have never seen the center bolt on a production 289.

Yes. It is sometimes called a roll pin, or a spring pin, or a split pin.