I saw these on VMF recently. I know they're OEM but can't tell what the dates are. Maybe Fred can weigh in on the number blocks on the outside? I recall those were added in 1966 in addition to the casting dates on the inside? https://www.vintage-mustang.com/threads/repo-o…/#post-10922644
Posts by 6T09KGT
-
-
I don't recall anyone ever saying no Metuchen blocks were VIN stamped. The discussion has always been that not all were VIN stamped. I happen to have one that isn't stamped and have all records back to day one. I have also seen one on a car built within days that does have a VIN stamp so there is no rhyme or reason other than a human not doing it, like forgetting your fries at a drive thru.
Tony Gregory states in his book "Many, but not all, of the HiPo blocks had the cars VIN stamped into it."
Adding to that, here is a VMF post from 2003 referring to this topic and a quote on the old HiPo Mustang site from Tony before it crashed."OK, here I am. Sorry guys, I don't mean to be elusive... I honestly just never have time for squat anymore. It's taking me three years to complete the convertible I am presently working on. 7 years ago it would have taken me a year to do it. Anyway, I'll always help when I can, I just hardly get time to check message boards. I saw the comment from the fella who said he tried to PM me on the other Mustang site. Sorry, I haven't even been to that site in 3 months! Not even to look around. Anyway, we looked at dozens and dozens of cars when we researched the book. We spoke to a dozen different "experts" too. In the end it boiled down to this... I believe that "Many", possibly even "Most" HiPo's came with a VIN stamped on the block, but not "All." Now, I will explain myself a little. I looked at quite a few original motors that were "unopened/unmolested" and probably 6 or 7 out of 10 had VINS on them, but not all. I guess you had to be there to see these motors, but I was no doubt convinced they were "unopened/unmolested." Also, I have owned more than several of said motors and most of them I rebuilt at one time or another. Some of those "non-vin" motors had the orange daubs, even still on the inside! One car in particular I remember was a 66 fastback that my father bought new in 66. My father was the ONLY OWNER of that car. It DID NOT have a vin stamped on the block. I know, because, I tore the motor apart to take some pictures when I was writing the book! Since I knew personally, without doubt, that that block had NEVER been replaced, I knew it could not be an "ALL" or nothing type answer to this question. HOWEVER, I believe many/most should have it. I DO NOT believe a car is wrong if it does not. However, the block should at least have the correct casting codes as pointed out in the book.
I hope this helps some.
Best to ya'll! Tony "
Of K-codes and stamped VIN#'swww.vintage-mustang.com -
"I have not been able to determine what makes the G2 supposedly better than the Y2"
I seem to recall seeing something in the past that the HiPo radiators had 12 fins/inch and non-HiPo had 10
Mad_goat67, see this for details on the radiator you're looking for 66 K code radiator
-
-
"somebody making exacting statements of production numbers for 1965 and 1966 models and options inaccurate at best"
Couldn't agree more. The registries have always been an honor system. It's not feasible to authenticate every claim online but 20 years ago I floated the idea on the original site to have a network of known members who could verify cars at shows or via paperwork or other means but it didn't go anywhere.
The problem even with known member verification is that it still does not account for exactly the 1965 and 1966 Kars that Ford originally built by quantity and model. It would only help give credence to currently known Kars, although even that would have been helpful.
-Fred-
100% agree we will never know how many were made
-
"somebody making exacting statements of production numbers for 1965 and 1966 models and options inaccurate at best"
Couldn't agree more. The registries have always been an honor system. It's not feasible to authenticate every claim online but 20 years ago I floated the idea on the original site to have a network of known members who could verify cars at shows or via paperwork or other means but it didn't go anywhere.
-
Here is a little tidbit of information that I have from a letter from Ford parts and service division in Dearborn on July 30, 1976 from B. Skowronek / owner relations. He states that there were 7,026 Mustangs with high performance engines produced in model year 1965.
This is the only "official" documentation that I have seen from Ford for either 1965 or 1966.
-Fred-
-
I forgot to mention in the previous post that the statement in Sessler's book that it was mandatory for a GT with a K code to have a 3.89 or 4.11 rearend is not accurate. I have a build sheet for a 66 GT K code with a "25" for the axel code which is the code for a 3.50 rear
-
"Since you remain unsatisfied, I'll leave it to you to make appropriate inquiries of Messrs. Sessler, Smart, Gregory, etc. Do share with us what you learn, as I'm sure we'll all be curious to hear what you find out!"
It's not that I'm unsatisfied, I'm just wondering where those numbers came from. Unfortunately Pete Sessler passed away in 2019 but I did have his High Performance Mustang Guide stashed away and re-read the relevant parts.
- on page 143 he refers to K "Engine" Production by year and not specifically K Mustang production. This is what I mentioned in a previous post so if Pete somehow found engine production records from the engine plant in Cleveland, that could explain where those numbers came from. He also states that it is not known how many of those K motors went into GT's which would imply that he didn't have assembly line records and was instead working from engine plant production records. If that is the source then it would be safe to say those "Engines" found their way into multiple Ford products and not just Mustangs.
- He also states that for a GT with a K motor, it was mandatory to have either a 3.89 or 4.11 rear. Those ratio's are not conducive to cruising on the highway and caused more wear and poor gas mileage. On page 24 he states "For this reason, fewer 271 hp GT's were ordered" I read that statement as he had something to back it up in 1983, possibly sales records, when he wrote the book and was not speculation.
- On page 24, "Similar to the 1965 model, most GT's came with the smaller 225 hp 289 ci engine."
- Based on the above and focused on 1966 with a reported 25,517 GT's made and 5,469 K engines, if 100% of K motors produced went into Mustangs (they didn't) then you can play around with the math like so:
- If 80% of GT's were A code then 20% were K code = 5,104 or 93% or total K engine production
- If 95% of GT's were A code, then 5% were K code = 1,276 or 23% of total K engine production
If the 5,469 engine production is accurate and is not vehicle specific, then when you remove the 2,386 Shelby GT 350 cars for 1966, you're left with 3,083 engines mostly, but not all, targeted for Mustangs.
- Reapplying the math minus the Shelby numbers would look like this
- If 88% of GT's were A code, then 12% were K code = 3,063 or 99% of total K engine production (minus Shelby)
- If 95% of GT's were A code, then 5% were K code = 1,276 or 41% of total K engine production
- If 97% of GT's were A code, then 3% were K code = 766 or 25% of total K engine production
Lots of guess work going on but regardless, vehicle production was low for GT or non-GT
-
I would like to know where Pete got his numbers for GTs. Everyone including Kevin Marti and Ford acknowledges that all 65 and 66 records were destroyed. Tony's breakdown of 7,273 (65) and 5,469 (66) resonates with other numbers I've seen throughout the years but I seem to recall reading somewhere that those were K "engines" manufactured and not necessarily completed Mustangs. I could be wrong but absent any Ford production records as Marti has for 67 and up, it will remain unclear.
-
Okay--- those are two separate questions: Where did I get the 40,596 number for '65-'66 GT's, and where did I get the 12,742 number for '65-'66 K-Codes? If you re-read my posts you will note that I did cite sources in passing, but as you don't appear to be familiar with these, I will give you "chapter and verse", so to speak.
The number of '65-'66 GT's (40,596) comes from Peter Sessler's "Illustrated High-Performance Mustang Guide" (Motorbooks International, 1983). Sessler further breaks it down to 15,079 GT's in 1965, and 25,517 GT's in 1966. Another source, Jim Smart's "1965-1990 Mustang GT/Mach 1 Guide (TAB Books, 1989) has the same number of GT's for 1966 (25,517), but differs slightly for 1965 (15,106), making the total slightly higher than Sessler (40,623 vs. 40,596). Apparently between the publication dates of 1983 to 1989, Jim Smart found another 27 GT Mustangs! Jim Smart, it should be noted, may be best known for authoring (with Jim Haskell) the two-volume "Mustang Production Guide".
As for the 12,742 K-Code Mustangs built in 1965-1966, Peter Sessler gives this number in his book; also Tony Gregory gives the same number in his book, "The 289 High Performance Mustang" (4th Ed., Performance Publications 2006).
Are these numbers accurate? All these authors know far more about early Mustang production than I do, and I trust they did their homework.
Hope that answers your questions!
-
"PRESUMING that the ratio of ALL K-to-A codes is the same (whether GT or non-GT) and 40,596 GT's were built, then about (15.3% X 40,596) GT's were K-Code cars, or 6,211 cars."
Where did that 40,596 GT number come from?
I recall years ago that there were K "motor" production numbers somewhere around 7,000ish. Those found there way into production Mustangs, Shelby's, Cobras and service replacements. I haven't tracked it too closely over the years but 12,742 is a fairly precise number so I have to question where did that come from?
-
Welcome and nice car.
I would caution against using Wikipedia as a source for how many GTs were produced. The records as you know do not exist, Ford destroyed them all. No doubt that you have a rare car but I also wouldn't assume even distribution of K codes across body styles either.
One tip, the washers on the front of your strut rods are installed backwards. They should cup the rubber bushing. I believe one of the remanufactures started the backward trend with incorrectly printed instructions.
Enjoy
-
I agree, that VIN stamp looks suspicious and the fact that the block with the same VIN was cast about 6 weeks after the car was scheduled to be built is equally suspicious. Lots of other things don't add up including the no rust comments when pitting can clearly be seen under freshly applied primer.
-
Red oxide epoxy is what was used. Nothing special for exports or K codes
-
"1 of 5,469 Mustangs with K-code engine for 1966"
I would like to know where that number came from
-
Display More
Mine is a Metucheon car. The date code on the door data plate is 15 M.
The heads have a 5L5 date code. The intake has a 5H27 date code and the engine assembly stamp is 5M21d. I lost my picture of the engine block casting date. It it too hot right now to get under there and take the starter off.
The transmission case has an L-8 date code. The casting code on the transmission case is C5AR-7006-D W-2. The tailshaft has C4ZR-7A048-A and date J22.
The diff cover has what looks like 5M10 date code.
So it is established that this happened more often at Metucheon? Do you know if they marked replacement engine blocks any different than the original blocks anywhere?
Yes, it's been reported for at least the past 20-30 years that it is more common for Metuchen cars to not have a VIN stamp than Dearborn or San Jose cars. As Fred mentioned, date codes cast into the block and transmission can help validate originality. I'm a 2nd owner with all date correct parts and still in contact with the original owner who reconfirmed that the engine and trans were never replaced and neither have a VIN stamp.
-
October 29, 1964 production date is too early for a GT or pony interior. Appears to have a T10 transmission and should be a toploader. Should have an Arvinode exhaust. Has no stars in the VIN stamp. This Kar definitely needs to have a prepurchase inspection done. Possibly the sellers' description will reflect some of this when they add it to the auction.
-Fred-
Not only is the VIN missing stars, the spacing between characters in my opinion is too tight and the individual character stampings themselves look like they were done one at time instead of with a gang stamp. Pretty sure the door tag is a repop as compared to known originals, some of the character fonts are different.
-
^ What Dan said ^ especially the part about bigger is not always better.
I’ve always found it best to do some 1/4 mile runs with various carbs or if you have access to a dyno, that works too. This makes it obvious which carb is working best for your setup.
-
You realize there are a lot of original K codes that did not have a VIN code stamped on engine or trans.
You are speculating unless you have any original source documents from Ford saying K-code engines were not stamped. I'd recommend not perpetuating something that you cannot prove, although I acknowledge it is likely true but I never claim it to be fact. Do you have a mismatched vin you'd like to enter, warwick?
For those of us who have been in this hobby for multiple decades, this topic has been discussed over and over and over. Personally I know 20 years I commented on the original HiPo site where the conclusion was (and has not changed) that it was more common to have a VIN stamp on a San Jose car than Dearborn or Metuchen. There are many examples of documented to day 1 cars without a VIN stamp (I happen to have one of those) and have spoken with some VERY WELL RESPECTED people on this site who have owned K cars with AND without VIN stamps. Furthermore, my beef going back to the 90’s and original HiPo site was always how do you authenticate someone randomly entering a VIN in a database...either the HiPo site or Tony Gregory or any other sites out there?
To prove my point, you can add these VINs to your database (don’t), 6T07K123456 and 6F08K123456 and 6R09K123456 and without someone inspecting any of these ghost cars, you have zero proof that they are authentic.
It is also a known fact that people can and have fraudulently added VINs to fender aprons AND drivetrains so the words “buyer beware” are always appropriate with these and other high dollar muscle cars
