[Woodchuck]

I'm just guessing here, but you think that walk out could be a sign of starter kickback? As in the bendix is pushing the gear too far forward into the flexplate (hence the shiming) that the engine is starting before the gear retracts, kicking the starter? Unsure, but I'd be looking at installing a new starter anyways.

Ford starters don't have a Bendix. The starter drive gear is shoved out by the lever alone, the action easily checked by pulling the tin cover and working the lever. The starter drive simply has a one-way clutch inside to allow it to "overrun". There is no "spiral" groove to make it spin out to the ring gear. The bushing wasn't properly staked in place and shouldn't protrude from either side of the nose.

 

[dm289]

Hi All,

I have a '66 A code coupe that had a November '65 scheduled build date, and just pulled the starter off to replace the oil pan (scope creep - replacing front suspension...), and was a bit surprised to see what I think is a '68 part number on my block (see photo), C80E-6015A. Date stamp shows 7F14 (June 14, 1967?).

I'm not surprised its not original. So the question is, what have a got? Pretty sure its a 289 as I've had the valve covers off and saw "289" cast into them.

I know '68 was a transition year from 289s to 302s. My sense is this was an early '68 production year block that could have been used for either 289s or 302s. My dad retired from the Cleveland engine plant, and bought a 302 powered Montego back then because he liked what he was seeing at the plant. I wonder if this is a Cleveland block? I'm certain the heads are from Windsor. View attachment 853817

Also, in pulling the starter I see some shavings, but the flywheel and starter gear look fine. Is this a concern? And, should I replace that old, heavy and slow turning starter for something new?

View attachment 853818

A 68 casting block should have been made in Brookpark. A C with an F over it would be on the block somewhere.. June 14 67 makes sense for a 68 Engine, it had to be cast, machined, assembled and then shipped to an assembly plant for August… the heads should have a date code in them along with 2V or 4V…

 

[Ed_Negron]

A 68 casting block should have been made in Brookpark. A C with an F over it would be on the block somewhere.. June 14 67 makes sense for a 68 Engine, it had to be cast, machined, assembled and then shipped to an assembly plant for August… the heads should have a date code in them along with 2V or 4V…

Makes sense. Haven't dug too deeply into it, but the exhaust and I believe Intake have Cleveland foundry marks.

This engine is clearly a mix-master job. Pulling the rocker covers a year or so ago revealed the heads are definitely Windsor foundry - and not even made in the same ; one made June 9 of '66 (date code 6E9), the other made in late '67 (date code 7L16). Fasteners are a similar, and more sad story...

Going to search locally for a starter today, though it seems the engine will not be the long term mill in the car.

 

[MidnightExpress]

though it seems the engine will not be the long term mill in the car.

What are your plans for the long term engine? Finding something more correct, building something for performance or crate engine, modern swap or just an engine that's not so mix-match? Just curious.

A C with an F over it would be on the block somewhere

The casting mark on the block is generally in the lifter valley.

 

[Ed_Negron]

What are your plans for the long term engine? Finding something more correct, building something for performance or crate engine, modern swap or just an engine that's not so mix-match? Just curious.


The casting mark on the block is generally in the lifter valley.

I'd like something more correct, late '65 build. and well running. This thing has been a pain to tune, and I think may have an imbalanced rotating assembly. Check out what a previous owner used for a connecting rod bolt (photo).

Or, just button this thing up and sell it.

 

[Woodchuck]

I'd like something more correct, late '65 build. and well running. This thing has been a pain to tune, and I think may have an imbalanced rotating assembly. Check out what a previous owner used for a connecting rod bolt (photo).
Or, just button this thing up and sell it.

That's not a connecting rod. That's a main bearing cap and that bolt is used with a rear sump oil pickup to attach its bracket. It's perfectly fine there, other than looking out of place.

 

[1968KR]

1968 production blocks were NOT cast in June of 1967. Statements to the contrary lack a fundamental misunderstanding of factory procedures

 

[MidnightExpress]

1968 production blocks were NOT cast in June of 1967. Statements to the contrary lack a fundamental misunderstanding of factory procedures

View attachment 854253

So you're saying this block is a late '67 production 289 with a '68 302 casting number for use in a '67 vehicle correct? With that information that seems to make sense to me. I guess either way we were correct in it being a '67 289, not a '68 302.

 

[Ed_Negron]

So you're saying this block is a late '67 production 289 with a '68 302 casting number for use in a '67 vehicle correct? With that information that seems to make sense to me. I guess either way we were correct in it being a '67 289, not a '68 302.

My sense from post #5 was that this was a Cleveland block.

 

[MidnightExpress]

My sense from post #5 was that this was a Cleveland block.

As @1968KR stated in post #9 I think, due to the casting date, it is the new 302 block casting number, but the crank and rods are 289 (shorter stroke and longer rods) you say there is 1M on your crank, which indicates a 289 crank. Able to see a number on the rods?

 

[1968KR]

So you're saying this block is a late '67 production 289 with a '68 302 casting number for use in a '67 vehicle correct?

Exactly 😉

 

[daves67ss]

So you're saying this block is a late '67 production 289 with a '68 302 casting number for use in a '67 vehicle correct? With that information that seems to make sense to me. I guess either way we were correct in it being a '67 289, not a '68 302.

I have a June 67 289 and it has a 302 cast in the lifter valley. It caused me a bit of consternation when I found it, but I know it's the original engine.

 

[Ed_Negron]

I have a June 67 289 and it has a 302 cast in the lifter valley. It caused me a bit of consternation when I found it, but I know it's the original engine.
View attachment 854326

Is your part number on the bottom of thee block also C80E-6015A?

 

[Woodchuck]

Yep. Cleveland foundry started casting new C8 blocks early.... during the '67 MY production run, and used 1M cranks and C3 rods to produce 289's. Really the only major difference between the 289 and 302 block is the inside cylinder wall extends downward about 1/16" to account for the longer stroke (but shorter rod) of the 302.

 

[Ed_Negron]

Yep. Cleveland foundry started casting new C8 blocks early.... during the '67 MY production run, and used 1M cranks and C3 rods to produce 289's. Really the only major difference between the 289 and 302 block is the inside cylinder wall extends downward about 1/16" to account for the longer stroke (but shorter rod) of the 302.

So, in therory, if I got together a crank, rods, heads and pistons and such, I could build this into a 302?

 

[MidnightExpress]

So, in therory, if I got together a crank, rods, heads and pistons and such, I could build this into a 302?

Any reason you would want to? In my opinion the 289 revs better with its long rod/short stroke. If you're going to bother with sourcing parts, a stroker kit would gain more.

 

[Woodchuck]

So, in therory, if I got together a crank, rods, heads and pistons and such, I could build this into a 302?

All you need is a 302 crank and rods. Pistons are the same. Of course, if you're doing a rebuild why not go 347?

 

[MidnightExpress]

All you need is a 302 crank and rods. Pistons are the same. Of course, if you're doing a rebuild why not go 347?

And the balance items to go with it.

 

[Woodchuck]

And the balance items to go with it.

Both the 289 and 302 are 28.2 oz/in imbalance.

 

[MidnightExpress]

Both the 289 and 302 are 28.2 oz/in imbalance.

Ah, must be the 351 I'm confused with? And the hi-po different too, correct?