1968 Block casting I. D.

[franklinair]

I got a photo of a V-8 casting: 5A14 /
O/C5AE-6015E
Can anyone verify for me? IIRC, this would be a 1965 which would make it a 289 block rather than a 302. (Could a 302 crank have been installed when o'hauled? )

Neil

 

[di81977]

Neil,

It is a 289 Block that was used from 65-67. The date code shows 1965. If there is a vin number stamped on the side of the block, it would have been used for a K code HP 289, but there is no difference between the regular 289 block and the HP block from what I have heard.

 

[Mosesatm]

Neil,
According to some of these folks there are clearance issues when installing a 302 crank in a 289 block.
http://forums.vintage-mustang.com/vintage-mustang-forum/586225-302-crank-into-289-block.html

 

[franklinair]

Thanks. I told the owner that for 13 more cubes it's not worth the cost versus benefit. A 289 with a 4BBL intake & carb is quite adequate.

Neil

 

[dalorzo_f]

The J code was not much different performance-wise than the A code. Rated at about 5 more max Hp and Torque, which no one would ever notice....

 

[rvrtrash]

I built a 302 once for my '69 Fairlane, using an early (1965) 289 block. The crank fit just fine with no extra machining required, however, there is a slight difference in deck height I believe ('65 is shorter) and you need shorter pushrods. With later 302 pushrods in the early 289 block, the valves never close. Learn something new every day.

(For those thinking outside the box, lower deck height would translate as higher compression, therefore, you're probably picking up a couple of extra horsepower for free)

Steve