Mustanglvr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,258
Thanks Mustanger. My 289 is a 4v could it have been changed to a 4v? When did they have the 4v?
Rhonda
Rhonda
COMMUNITY
1968 GT/CS & HCS
2007+ GT/CS
1966-1967 HCS
-
Welcome to the CaliforniaSpecial.com forums! - You are currently viewing the forums as a GUEST. To take advantage of all our site features, please take a moment to join our community! It's fast, simple and absolutely free.If you have problems registering or can't log into your account, please contact Admin.Please Note: If you are an existing member and your password no longer works, click here to reset it.
[quote author=Mustanglvr link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=15#msg12544 date=1121539755]
Thanks Mustanger. My 289 is a 4v could it have been changed to a 4v? When did they have the 4v?
Rhonda
[/quote]
Yes, most likely it was changed. The 289 4V A-code was available from '65 - '67, and then Ford swithed to the 302 4V in '68. Although many Mustang owners could easily add some performance goodies to the 289 2V since most of their parts can be interchangeable with the 302's parts (not to forget the 289 4V and some of the Shelby goodies).
Odd thing, many have reported better fuel efficiency with a properly tuned 289 4V than a 289 2V, as long as you keep your foot off the pedal-on-the-right
Thanks Mustanger. My 289 is a 4v could it have been changed to a 4v? When did they have the 4v?
Rhonda
[/quote]
Yes, most likely it was changed. The 289 4V A-code was available from '65 - '67, and then Ford swithed to the 302 4V in '68. Although many Mustang owners could easily add some performance goodies to the 289 2V since most of their parts can be interchangeable with the 302's parts (not to forget the 289 4V and some of the Shelby goodies).
Odd thing, many have reported better fuel efficiency with a properly tuned 289 4V than a 289 2V, as long as you keep your foot off the pedal-on-the-right
Should this site change our price guide to more accuratly reflect the prices of our GT/CS cars? If we used the NADA Collector Car price guide people coming to this site to get info and pricing would have a more realistic price guide than what we have listed now.
Bill
Bill
Mustanglvr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,258
Sorry Mustanger, I forgot to mention the 289 4v isn`t original to my car. It came stock with a 200 6 cylinder. I`ve been told it has a high performance cam in it and it has an Edelbrock carb and intake.
I remember reading somewhere as how to tell if a 289 is a hipo. Can you or anyone else refresh my memory on that?
I`ve been told the 4 speed transmission in my car is a top loader. Is that a good thing? Sorry so many questions. Thanks, Rhonda
I remember reading somewhere as how to tell if a 289 is a hipo. Can you or anyone else refresh my memory on that?
I`ve been told the 4 speed transmission in my car is a top loader. Is that a good thing? Sorry so many questions. Thanks, Rhonda
[quote author=Mustanglvr link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=15#msg12550 date=1121559675]
Sorry Mustanger, I forgot to mention the 289 4v isn`t original to my car. It came stock with a 200 6 cylinder. I`ve been told it has a high performance cam in it and it has an Edelbrock carb and intake.
I remember reading somewhere as how to tell if a 289 is a hipo. Can you or anyone else refresh my memory on that?
I`ve been told the 4 speed transmission in my car is a top loader. Is that a good thing? Sorry so many questions. Thanks, Rhonda
[/quote]
Rhonda,
Don't worry about asking, I'll try my best to answer .
For the 289 hipo K-code info request, here's an excellent website devoted to the 289 K-code:
http://www.hipomustang.com/images/hipoeng/
They get into all the details which would take alot of typing.
However, a quick note on identifing a K-code (as long as the owner doesn't change or modify anything): 1) high performance badge underneath the 289 badge, 2) "K" in the VIN (5th digit), 3) manual choke, 4) no factory AC, 5) factory chrome valve covers and air cleaner w/ high performance stickers, and 6) a "clickity-clackity" engine sound due to the mechanical lifters (vs hydralic lifters that the other engines had internally) ;D.
The 4-speed top loader is a good transmission, especially in its day. It replaced the T-10 which was used in Mustangs until about '66.
Today, if you don't mind modifying your car, they have kits to where you can adapt modern day 5-speed transmissions (Mustang T5s and possibly others) into your vintage Mustang and enjoy its aggressive out-of-the-hole performance along with its economical overdrive .
Sorry Mustanger, I forgot to mention the 289 4v isn`t original to my car. It came stock with a 200 6 cylinder. I`ve been told it has a high performance cam in it and it has an Edelbrock carb and intake.
I remember reading somewhere as how to tell if a 289 is a hipo. Can you or anyone else refresh my memory on that?
I`ve been told the 4 speed transmission in my car is a top loader. Is that a good thing? Sorry so many questions. Thanks, Rhonda
[/quote]
Rhonda,
Don't worry about asking, I'll try my best to answer
.For the 289 hipo K-code info request, here's an excellent website devoted to the 289 K-code:
http://www.hipomustang.com/images/hipoeng/
They get into all the details which would take alot of typing.
However, a quick note on identifing a K-code (as long as the owner doesn't change or modify anything): 1) high performance badge underneath the 289 badge, 2) "K" in the VIN (5th digit), 3) manual choke, 4) no factory AC, 5) factory chrome valve covers and air cleaner w/ high performance stickers, and 6) a "clickity-clackity" engine sound due to the mechanical lifters (vs hydralic lifters that the other engines had internally) ;D.
The 4-speed top loader is a good transmission, especially in its day. It replaced the T-10 which was used in Mustangs until about '66.
Today, if you don't mind modifying your car, they have kits to where you can adapt modern day 5-speed transmissions (Mustang T5s and possibly others) into your vintage Mustang and enjoy its aggressive out-of-the-hole performance along with its economical overdrive
.... another thing about the K-code is that they only came with a 4 speed (in '65), but then in '66 there were some that came with an C4 automatic.
In Fact, the '66 Shelby Hertz Rent-A-Racers originally were 4 speeds, but they were more maintanence than Hertz wanted; so the majority of Shelby Hertz cars were C4 automatics ;D .
Sorry Rhonda, this may be more info than you wanted, but you let me know 8) .
In Fact, the '66 Shelby Hertz Rent-A-Racers originally were 4 speeds, but they were more maintanence than Hertz wanted; so the majority of Shelby Hertz cars were C4 automatics ;D .
Sorry Rhonda, this may be more info than you wanted, but you let me know 8) .
[quote author=WLM link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=15#msg12548 date=1121547593]
Should this site change our price guide to more accuratly reflect the prices of our GT/CS cars? If we used the NADA Collector Car price guide people coming to this site to get info and pricing would have a more realistic price guide than what we have listed now.
Bill
[/quote]Bill, brings up a good point. Pricing has always been confusing on the Cal. Special. Why I don't know?
Should this site change our price guide to more accuratly reflect the prices of our GT/CS cars? If we used the NADA Collector Car price guide people coming to this site to get info and pricing would have a more realistic price guide than what we have listed now.
Bill
[/quote]Bill, brings up a good point. Pricing has always been confusing on the Cal. Special. Why I don't know?
Mustanglvr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,258
Thanks Mustanger, I like alot of information. Rhonda
Rhonda
OP
OP
PNewitt
Guest
Looking this over, I can see how the CS & HCS values are really off.
When i do my mass mailing, I'll ask about buting and selling values--based on owner's experiences (and nearby cars bought and sold) in their area.
Then I'll do a new value chart for the new registry book. I don't mean to come off critical, but if these guides list a 429 for '68, how accurate can they be? It's like they really aren't that interested in getting it right.
Paul N.
When i do my mass mailing, I'll ask about buting and selling values--based on owner's experiences (and nearby cars bought and sold) in their area.
Then I'll do a new value chart for the new registry book. I don't mean to come off critical, but if these guides list a 429 for '68, how accurate can they be? It's like they really aren't that interested in getting it right.
Paul N.
meadowsdk28
Well-known member
[quote author=Mustanger link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=15#msg12543 date=1121538129]
[quote author=Mustanglvr link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=15#msg12540 date=1121490443]
[/quote]
The 289's last year was in '68 and only offered as a C-code (2V), with the 302 2V C-code replacing it in summer of '68.
[/quote]
Whooaa!! Did I just learn a new fact or is this off a bit. My HCS was built in July of 68. It's a C code. I always assumed that the 302 in my car was a replacement for the 289 that a previous owner must have replaced. I had not seen a reference to a 302 C code motor before for 1968. Or if I did, it might have been later than the summer of 68. Help! How can I be MR. Know-it-all while lacking this kind of basic info? I always thought the 302 2V was an F code and not actually coded as such until 69. There was a myth (maybe not) that some 302 2V's were dropped into cars coded as 289 2V with a c code in the vin in late 68. Anyone know of this?
[quote author=Mustanglvr link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=15#msg12540 date=1121490443]
[/quote]
The 289's last year was in '68 and only offered as a C-code (2V), with the 302 2V C-code replacing it in summer of '68.
[/quote]
Whooaa!! Did I just learn a new fact or is this off a bit. My HCS was built in July of 68. It's a C code. I always assumed that the 302 in my car was a replacement for the 289 that a previous owner must have replaced. I had not seen a reference to a 302 C code motor before for 1968. Or if I did, it might have been later than the summer of 68. Help! How can I be MR. Know-it-all while lacking this kind of basic info? I always thought the 302 2V was an F code and not actually coded as such until 69. There was a myth (maybe not) that some 302 2V's were dropped into cars coded as 289 2V with a c code in the vin in late 68. Anyone know of this?
[quote author=meadowsdk28 link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=30#msg12629 date=1121794776]
[quote author=Mustanger link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=15#msg12543 date=1121538129]
[quote author=Mustanglvr link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=15#msg12540 date=1121490443]
[/quote]
The 289's last year was in '68 and only offered as a C-code (2V), with the 302 2V C-code replacing it in summer of '68.
[/quote]
Whooaa!! Did I just learn a new fact or is this off a bit. My HCS was built in July of 68. It's a C code. I always assumed that the 302 in my car was a replacement for the 289 that a previous owner must have replaced. I had not seen a reference to a 302 C code motor before for 1968. Or if I did, it might have been later than the summer of 68. Help! How can I be MR. Know-it-all while lacking this kind of basic info? I always thought the 302 2V was an F code and not actually coded as such until 69. There was a myth (maybe not) that some 302 2V's were dropped into cars coded as 289 2V with a c code in the vin in late 68. Anyone know of this?
[/quote]
I used to also think that the 302 2V made its debut in a Mustang in '69, but then I read somewhere that it replaced the 289 2V in mid-'68. Here is a reference (it's not the original one I read however):
http://www.fordcobraengines.com/Mustang Engines.htm
Interesting info ...
[quote author=Mustanger link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=15#msg12543 date=1121538129]
[quote author=Mustanglvr link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=15#msg12540 date=1121490443]
[/quote]
The 289's last year was in '68 and only offered as a C-code (2V), with the 302 2V C-code replacing it in summer of '68.
[/quote]
Whooaa!! Did I just learn a new fact or is this off a bit. My HCS was built in July of 68. It's a C code. I always assumed that the 302 in my car was a replacement for the 289 that a previous owner must have replaced. I had not seen a reference to a 302 C code motor before for 1968. Or if I did, it might have been later than the summer of 68. Help! How can I be MR. Know-it-all while lacking this kind of basic info? I always thought the 302 2V was an F code and not actually coded as such until 69. There was a myth (maybe not) that some 302 2V's were dropped into cars coded as 289 2V with a c code in the vin in late 68. Anyone know of this?
[/quote]
I used to also think that the 302 2V made its debut in a Mustang in '69, but then I read somewhere that it replaced the 289 2V in mid-'68. Here is a reference (it's not the original one I read however):
http://www.fordcobraengines.com/Mustang Engines.htm
Interesting info ...
[quote author=WLM link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=30#msg12640 date=1121801953]
I have been monitoring the GT/CS selling prices for the last year. The NADA prices look correct for what I have seen, but their options info is off. Maybe their options info is wrong because of the rarity of our cars.
Bill
[/quote]
I may be reaching here, but giving them, NADA, the benefit of the doubt - what if, okay, pony int should really be deluxe int., not a big deal, right? And what if the 429 option is a typo? What if they meant 427?? I know many will argue that Ford didn't put any 427s into Mustangs from the factory, but some will argue that some Ford dealers offered that option and that Shelby offered that option also ... maybe it's not probable, but it may be possible.
I have been monitoring the GT/CS selling prices for the last year. The NADA prices look correct for what I have seen, but their options info is off. Maybe their options info is wrong because of the rarity of our cars.
Bill
[/quote]
I may be reaching here, but giving them, NADA, the benefit of the doubt - what if, okay, pony int should really be deluxe int., not a big deal, right? And what if the 429 option is a typo? What if they meant 427?? I know many will argue that Ford didn't put any 427s into Mustangs from the factory, but some will argue that some Ford dealers offered that option and that Shelby offered that option also ... maybe it's not probable, but it may be possible
.
meadowsdk28
Well-known member
[quote author=Mustanger link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=30#msg12641 date=1121803594]
[quote author=meadowsdk28 link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=30#msg12629 date=1121794776]
[quote author=Mustanger link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=15#msg12543 date=1121538129]
[quote author=Mustanglvr link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=15#msg12540 date=1121490443]
[/quote]
The 289's last year was in '68 and only offered as a C-code (2V), with the 302 2V C-code replacing it in summer of '68.
[/quote]
Whooaa!! Did I just learn a new fact or is this off a bit. My HCS was built in July of 68. It's a C code. I always assumed that the 302 in my car was a replacement for the 289 that a previous owner must have replaced. I had not seen a reference to a 302 C code motor before for 1968. Or if I did, it might have been later than the summer of 68. Help! How can I be MR. Know-it-all while lacking this kind of basic info? I always thought the 302 2V was an F code and not actually coded as such until 69. There was a myth (maybe not) that some 302 2V's were dropped into cars coded as 289 2V with a c code in the vin in late 68. Anyone know of this?
[/quote]
I used to also think that the 302 2V made its debut in a Mustang in '69, but then I read somewhere that it replaced the 289 2V in mid-'68. Here is a reference (it's not the original one I read however):
http://www.fordcobraengines.com/Mustang Engines.htm
Interesting info ...
[/quote]
Right, but it would have still been ID'd as an F code and not a C code, right? This is where I'm really getting corn-fused. Good info, by the way.
[quote author=meadowsdk28 link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=30#msg12629 date=1121794776]
[quote author=Mustanger link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=15#msg12543 date=1121538129]
[quote author=Mustanglvr link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=15#msg12540 date=1121490443]
[/quote]
The 289's last year was in '68 and only offered as a C-code (2V), with the 302 2V C-code replacing it in summer of '68.
[/quote]
Whooaa!! Did I just learn a new fact or is this off a bit. My HCS was built in July of 68. It's a C code. I always assumed that the 302 in my car was a replacement for the 289 that a previous owner must have replaced. I had not seen a reference to a 302 C code motor before for 1968. Or if I did, it might have been later than the summer of 68. Help! How can I be MR. Know-it-all while lacking this kind of basic info? I always thought the 302 2V was an F code and not actually coded as such until 69. There was a myth (maybe not) that some 302 2V's were dropped into cars coded as 289 2V with a c code in the vin in late 68. Anyone know of this?
[/quote]
I used to also think that the 302 2V made its debut in a Mustang in '69, but then I read somewhere that it replaced the 289 2V in mid-'68. Here is a reference (it's not the original one I read however):
http://www.fordcobraengines.com/Mustang Engines.htm
Interesting info ...
[/quote]
Right, but it would have still been ID'd as an F code and not a C code, right? This is where I'm really getting corn-fused. Good info, by the way.
[quote author=meadowsdk28 link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=30#msg12644 date=1121804355]
[quote author=Mustanger link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=30#msg12641 date=1121803594]
[quote author=meadowsdk28 link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=30#msg12629 date=1121794776]
[quote author=Mustanger link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=15#msg12543 date=1121538129]
[quote author=Mustanglvr link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=15#msg12540 date=1121490443]
[/quote]
The 289's last year was in '68 and only offered as a C-code (2V), with the 302 2V C-code replacing it in summer of '68.
[/quote]
Whooaa!! Did I just learn a new fact or is this off a bit. My HCS was built in July of 68. It's a C code. I always assumed that the 302 in my car was a replacement for the 289 that a previous owner must have replaced. I had not seen a reference to a 302 C code motor before for 1968. Or if I did, it might have been later than the summer of 68. Help! How can I be MR. Know-it-all while lacking this kind of basic info? I always thought the 302 2V was an F code and not actually coded as such until 69. There was a myth (maybe not) that some 302 2V's were dropped into cars coded as 289 2V with a c code in the vin in late 68. Anyone know of this?
[/quote]
I used to also think that the 302 2V made its debut in a Mustang in '69, but then I read somewhere that it replaced the 289 2V in mid-'68. Here is a reference (it's not the original one I read however):
http://www.fordcobraengines.com/Mustang Engines.htm
Interesting info ...
[/quote]
Right, but it would have still been ID'd as an F code and not a C code, right? This is where I'm really getting corn-fused. Good info, by the way.
[/quote]
You might be right :
http://www.dallasmustang.com/index.mvc?Screen=DataPlates&Zone=Engine
http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/timeline/67-68/68/index.htm
We're all here to learn and get smarter.
[quote author=Mustanger link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=30#msg12641 date=1121803594]
[quote author=meadowsdk28 link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=30#msg12629 date=1121794776]
[quote author=Mustanger link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=15#msg12543 date=1121538129]
[quote author=Mustanglvr link=board=1;threadid=1865;start=15#msg12540 date=1121490443]
[/quote]
The 289's last year was in '68 and only offered as a C-code (2V), with the 302 2V C-code replacing it in summer of '68.
[/quote]
Whooaa!! Did I just learn a new fact or is this off a bit. My HCS was built in July of 68. It's a C code. I always assumed that the 302 in my car was a replacement for the 289 that a previous owner must have replaced. I had not seen a reference to a 302 C code motor before for 1968. Or if I did, it might have been later than the summer of 68. Help! How can I be MR. Know-it-all while lacking this kind of basic info? I always thought the 302 2V was an F code and not actually coded as such until 69. There was a myth (maybe not) that some 302 2V's were dropped into cars coded as 289 2V with a c code in the vin in late 68. Anyone know of this?
[/quote]
I used to also think that the 302 2V made its debut in a Mustang in '69, but then I read somewhere that it replaced the 289 2V in mid-'68. Here is a reference (it's not the original one I read however):
http://www.fordcobraengines.com/Mustang Engines.htm
Interesting info ...
[/quote]
Right, but it would have still been ID'd as an F code and not a C code, right? This is where I'm really getting corn-fused. Good info, by the way.
[/quote]
You might be right :
http://www.dallasmustang.com/index.mvc?Screen=DataPlates&Zone=Engine
http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/timeline/67-68/68/index.htm
We're all here to learn and get smarter
.hicountrybob
Well-known member
MUSTANGER, good eye!!!!!! on locating these 2 ID sites. In reviewing their '68 stuff, I notice that Dallas Mustang makes no mention of the X engine code (390-2V) and for their S code engine listing, they've written the following--- 390-4v 428-4v--- on the same line and in the same box, BUT do have the R code 428CJ listed properly in another box. The Mustang Unlimited listing also makes NO mention NOR listing for the X code 390-2V for 1968. I, for one, cannot understand how and WHY these charts exist having these deletes and/errors etc. when all these stats and stuff on engines is in FORDS 1968 COUGAR FAIRLANE FALCON MONTEGO MUSTANG SHOP MANUEL page 1-2 (bottom of the 2nd column) EXCEPT for the 428cj R code. My '68 Ford's shop manuel is FIRST PRINTING dated Nov, 1967 and this explains the lack of listing the R engine (in the manuel) as this engine was a spring time '68 addition to the engine line. hicountry bob here.
68gt390
Well-known member
I think if you talk to some folks on this site you will find that they have a "C" in their VIN but, when you pull the intake stamped in the oil galley is "302". If I'm not mistaken, late in the production year, Ford ran out of the 289 blocks and started using the 302 with 289 2V heads. I could be wrong but, that is the story I've heard from more than one person. Any body out there found that with their 289 "C" code car?
Don
Don
Mosesatm
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 9,165
My old GT/CS had a big "302" in the oil galley but the engine VIN matched the door VIN so I knew the engine had to be a 289. The whole thing never made sense and has probably haunted me all these years. Thanks Don, I'll sleep better tonight.
68gt390
Well-known member
Arlie;
Just to give you a good idea of what Ford did with these cars. My CS has the following casting # on it C8ME. Every book I've checked show's this as a casting # for the 428 CJ. My 68 GT 390 has a casting # of C8AE. I've been trying to figure that one out for a long time.
Don ???
Just to give you a good idea of what Ford did with these cars. My CS has the following casting # on it C8ME. Every book I've checked show's this as a casting # for the 428 CJ. My 68 GT 390 has a casting # of C8AE. I've been trying to figure that one out for a long time.
Don ???
Similar threads
