06/06/2005, 09:16 AM
OK - the drum roll please. I found no VIN number on my 289 block where many on the forum have found theirs - at the back top of the block just rear of the intake manifold (this has been discussed many times in other threads). I am 99% certain this is the original block - I even have the engine tag showing the engine being made in Windsor in Feb of 68 (I showed this in another thread).
So, option 1 is that this is not the original engine. option 2 is the VIN is stamped somewhere else. option 3 is some engines were not stamped in early 68.
This is even looks like a possible 66 block - it is definitely vintage. Maybe some blocks were pulled from the shelves to meet demand (or cost control) and not all were VIN matched? (Paul, any thoughts on this?)
I would love some input on this - I was always under the impression that in 68 all engine blocks were "numbers matching" to the VIN. (I know they were not earlier).
[I hope my uncovered block does not shock you again ;D]
06/06/2005, 09:57 AM
Hmmm... I’ll go with option number 3.
All blocks were SUPPOSED to be stamped starting around mid to late 1967. This appears to be one of the topics you’ll hear all sorts of stories. I’ve heard some say they have partial a VIN, like three to six numbers and still others say their 1968 car never had the stamping at all. Apparently the stamping was done by hand and wasn’t completely consistent. Go figure! ::)
Anyway, the numbers cast into the block down by the starter WILL be there and will be a great clue as to the motors originality in relation to the rest of the car. The date should decode to one to two months before the car's build date. If it is, it meets my definition of “numbers matching”! :D
06/06/2005, 09:57 AM
[I hope my uncovered block does not shock you again ]
You are only showing a little part so the shock vlaue is much lower. ;)
06/06/2005, 10:10 AM
HEY! Get a GT/CS T-shirt on that bare block, meesteer!!
Seriously...I've always heard that not all blocks got stamped. It's not all that unusual.
06/06/2005, 12:51 PM
Casey, is there an engine size cast in the valley of your block, ie 289 or 302?
Mine is a 289 and has the serial number stamped in the block, but has the 302 cast into the valley of the block.
Apparently it was common for ford to use the 302 block with the 289 heads, 2bbl intake manifold as well as the 289 crank, rods, etc.
Maybe the 302 block was used in later production cars or as the 289 blocks were used up???
Just a thought.
06/06/2005, 02:42 PM
Dave - the block has 289 cast in the valley.
Paul - no worries, the block is now decently dressed. Although it would be proud to wear one of your tee shirts - preferably wet. Also, news to me, but good to know that not all blocks were stamped with the VIN.
Bbeaty - I know where the block casting is and will check that and let you know.
06/06/2005, 03:46 PM
Casey, the only '68, 289 cars with serialized engines that I have seen so far, has had 302 cast into the valley of the block.
That's only what I've observed mind you, and I haven't had occasion to seen a large number of 289's with the 302 block.
Paul, if your sending out engine dressup shirts, count me in.
06/06/2005, 08:00 PM
Again, it is one of those cases were Ford wasn't consistent in what they did. My neighbor and I tore his 390 down to put in a new cam, lifters etc. and couldn't even find a casting # anywhere on his block (figure that one out). We even looked for grinding marks were the casting # normally goes and found nothing. We wound up measuring the bore and piston size to determine that it is in fact a 390. It is one of those catch 22 things when dealing with FE motors since they all used the same casting #'s. His block is the only one that I've not seen a casting # on.