Ford 289 question

John M · Apr 24, 2014

Ok, so my buddy found this somewhat derelict 67 Mustang convertible. Has, as far as we can tell, the factory V8. Im sure its been gone into at least once in its life, and Ill explain shortly. So far he has completely stripped it down, and fixed what he could, replaced what he had to, and has upgraded the suspension, the trans, and steering. Now the fun part. We pulled the engine apart Saturday to send the block off to the machine shop. (Hes doing a mild upgrade to the engine. ) As we got down to the rod caps, everything seemed good, until we pulled the rod caps off. All of the caps had been installed backwards! So, my question is, how in the world could this engine have survived, for who knows how long with the caps on backwards? (Were guessing the rebuild has about 45000 on it) Regardless, all new guts is going back in the block, but just wondering if and how it could have survived running like that. It did run before we pulled it out. Sure wished I had brought my phone with me that day! Id have pics to show ya!

Anonymous-0 · Apr 24, 2014

Built Ford Tuff!!!!!!

David G · Apr 24, 2014

You sure they are all backwards?

They should have been bored one way.

Allan in NE · Apr 24, 2014

The bearing shell tangs were across the rod from one another?

Allan

Bob · Apr 24, 2014

GOTTA be more to that story... you might get lucky and one or two of the 8 wouldn"t lock up when tightened with the caps on backwards, but ALL 8 working with the caps on backwards would be BEYOND winning the lottery!

You don"t suppose the rods were "reconditioned" (big end honed) with the caps on backwards, for some reason?

David G · Apr 24, 2014

I have seen them both ways, are the number stamps across also.

David G · Apr 24, 2014

I looked up those rods, and it does look like tabs should be next two each other. Where are the stamped numbers?

JMOR · Apr 24, 2014

(quoted from post at 12:33:12 04/24/14) I looked up those rods, and it does look like tabs should be next two each other. Where are the stamped numbers?

es, on same side. Bet they were on same side! Otherwise, great likelihood they would have spun!

JDemaris · Apr 24, 2014

Either the big ends (when the caps are on) - are round and correct ID - or they are not.

John M · Apr 24, 2014

I dont rememebr for sure about the numbers, but I do know when I took the first one off, I thought I must have looked at it wrong, then my buddy took one off, and it was indeed put on with the tabs opposite each other. He looking shortly to see what the deal is. Doesnt really matter, everything is going back new. I was just wondering how they could have survived being in backwards. They didnt look any more wore than the the bearing on the rod itself.

Wayne in MN · Apr 24, 2014

If the rods & caps were machined very accurately at the factory it is possible to reverse them without problems. More likely the rod big ends were honed at a machine shop at some point with the caps reversed. Do the bearings show any odd wear patterns?

John M · Apr 24, 2014

Not any more than the rod end bearings do. The bearings are .002 oversized bearings. (Just found that out.) (OK Someone flame for saying that) but no markings on the crank saying it had been turne, as its usually done. The rods are the Ford C3AE rods. Hes going to send me pics as soon as he gets home of the the bearings.

Dick2 · Apr 24, 2014

I had a 1967 Ford Company car with a 289 engine. It had a really inadequate heater, plus if I didn't let the engine idle long enough to warm up on a cold morning it would blow the thermostat about a mile out of town.

Also, if I drove through a puddle of water, it would crack the exhaust manifolds.

I appreciated getting a new 1969 company car with a 390 engine that didn't have any of the problems that I had with the 289 engine.

My brother had a couple pickups on the farm with 289 engines that always had broken exhaust manifolds - you could hear them cooming a long ways away.

dr sportster · Apr 24, 2014

The locking tab groove is only machined into each half. Reversing the cap probably doesn't really change anything. As long as its bearing was seated with its locking tab it may not have mattered. The 289 stock rods are not recommended for any high performance work as they had 5/16"s rod bolts Boss 302 rods were often used [which had 3/8"s rod bolts. The 289 rod can be drilled for an 11/32 bolt [chevy part] but if drilled to accomodate 3/8" bolts becomes too weak. If you don't have 5/16 bolts now you don.t have 289 rods unless they have been drilled for 11/32 bolts by a rebuilder.
[C3AZ-6200-D Ford stock 289 rod [5/16] C9ZZ-6200-B 302 Boss and 289 HP is the rod you want[3/8]. Standard 302 is a 5/16 rod bolt .

cole in mo. · Apr 24, 2014

The bearing tangs ling up with each other, and the numbers also line up, and they go to the outside, next to the block.

Massey farmer · Apr 24, 2014

C3 indicates its a 63 289 so it must have not been in that car when new. Ford stamps thier parts with a letter first then a number. C=60's 3 is the third year.

wisbaker · Apr 24, 2014

IIRC the Ford part number is assigned when the part is first used and tied to the first use of the part. Example Ford offered a 4 cylinder truck in the late 30's early 40 (pre-war) Parts number on that engine are the same as for a N series tractor, can't remember if they have the tractor part number on the truck engine or the truck part number on the tractor engine. Some of the wrenches that came with new 9Ns have a part number that indicates it belongs to a model T. The 289 first came out around 1963 and if I remember in the Falcon or Fairlane (Compact or Intermediate). You'll find all the 289s will use that part number identifying it as a 1963 intermediate car part up until they designed a new rod or upgraded it. I'm also thinking the difference between a 289 and a 302 is stroke and you can turn a 289 into a 302 by changing the rotating assembly (crank, rods and pistons). A fairly cheap way to pick up some power.

merlynr · Apr 24, 2014

(quoted from post at 14:10:12 04/24/14) IIRC the Ford part number is assigned when the part is first used and tied to the first use of the part. Example Ford offered a 4 cylinder truck in the late 30's early 40 (pre-war) Parts number on that engine are the same as for a N series tractor, can't remember if they have the tractor part number on the truck engine or the truck part number on the tractor engine. Some of the wrenches that came with new 9Ns have a part number that indicates it belongs to a model T. The 289 first came out around 1963 and if I remember in the Falcon or Fairlane (Compact or Intermediate). You'll find all the 289s will use that part number identifying it as a 1963 intermediate car part up until they designed a new rod or upgraded it. I'm also thinking the difference between a 289 and a 302 is stroke and you can turn a 289 into a 302 by changing the rotating assembly (crank, rods and pistons). A fairly cheap way to pick up some power.

289 was also available in full sized galaxies in 63. My brother had one.
I had a 65 Mustang fastback with 225 hp (code A in 5th digit of vin number) for 32 years. Put new rings and bearings in it once long ago and never had an exhaust manifold leak or crack.
Easy upgrade is to put disc brakes on front from a Ford Granada/Mercury Monarch with dual reservoir master cylinder.

David G · Apr 24, 2014

The 260 was out in 62 or 63, do not know if 289 was option.

chucksoliver77 · Apr 24, 2014

David, I bought a new 63 fairlane with a 289HP/271, had a lot of fun with that car and sold after 175000 miles. Should have kept it as less than 300 were made. Chuck

David G · Apr 24, 2014

My uncle had a 63 comet with at 260, spunky little machine.

toolz · Apr 24, 2014

Not necessarily. This would be a casting number, not stamped, and Ford would use the same number until the part changed, meaning these could very well be the original rods. The "C3" only indicates the first year of use, not the only year.

jimg.allentown · Apr 24, 2014

No such thing as "oversized" bearings. Bearings of this type go by the inside diameter. Oversize would make for MORE clearance. Undersize is the correct term for a replacement bearing.
Also, the part number on the rod is an engineering number, and indicates as was previously stated the first year that the part was used. C3=1963. That does not necessarily make your engine a 1963 built engine. That part was used up until a newer replacement came along.
Last but not least - rods are normally assembled with both locks on the same side. Back when I was learning engine repair, the axiom was "lock to lock" unless instructed otherwise. You should also have numbers stamped into the rod and cap. Those numbers indicate the original cylinder location. Numbers would be stamped on both halves, and would be right next to each other.
Hope this offers some help. Good luck with the project.

Massey farmer · Apr 25, 2014

They didn't make all the rods for 289s in one year. His car is a 67, the rods are stamped c3, by the time his car was rolling off the line they were into rods made after 63. My 66 289 is stamped c6 on every part so his is deffinatly a early motor.

Brian G. NY · Apr 25, 2014

Ford changed their casting numbers when they made a change in their castings.
All 221/260/289 rods right up through mid '68 are likely to be C3 unless they came out of a HiPo 289 engine.

missouri massey man · Apr 25, 2014

I just pulled an original 289 out of this '65 Galaxie last fall. Put it on the shelf with some other old goodies...for future projects. Not really related to the original question...sorry.

Pops1532 · Apr 25, 2014

(quoted from post at 12:15:07 04/25/14) They didn't make all the rods for 289s in one year. His car is a 67, the rods are stamped c3, by the time his car was rolling off the line they were into rods made after 63. My 66 289 is stamped c6 on every part so his is deffinatly a early motor.

The C-3 doesn't indicate when they were made, but rather when first used.
I think some research would indicate the C-3 rods were used from '63-'68.
That doesn't mean other variations weren't used as well. Your C-6 rods may be later replacement parts.

A '63 289 will have a different bell housing than later 289's. The early have fewer bolts holding the bell to the block.

Pops1532 · Apr 25, 2014

Hope you saved the 9" rear too.

Ford 289 question

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Similar threads