Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I'm trying to investigate a little mystery with my '68 XL convertible restoration project. The car is almost completely original under the hood, it was only driven until 1976 then stored until a year ago. I am the second owner. What confuses me on my car is the '67 289 air cleaner that looks to have been there since day 1 and had a '68-correct 302 sticker on top. The car is VIN F, 302 2bbl. Date code on door tag is December 4, 1967.

So, what I believe I have is a 302 with a surplus 289 air cleaner housing. This seems reasonable considering the early build in the '68 model year. Are there any other '68 owners out there that have seen this phenomenon?

The only other reference I have ever seen to a 289-equipped '68 is this listing, and unless the motor was swapped at one point for a true 289, Desert Classics may have mistakenly judged the engine as such because of the characteristic air cleaner. That car looks to be quite original under the hood as well.

Pic of my '68's engine bay:


Carb tag:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,337 Posts
You ain't gonna like this but most likely somewhere on the air cleaner asm there may be an I.D. No. Stamping.

Also, is the Engine I.D. Tag still on the engine (somewhere around the coil bracket)?

Forgot...

The 289 was installed in early 1968 cars until 302 production caught up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
You ain't gonna like this but most likely somewhere on the air cleaner asm there may be an I.D. No. Stamping.

Also, is the Engine I.D. Tag still on the engine (somewhere around the coil bracket)?
I'll take a look for the engine tag, I imagine it's still there as the car is very unmolested. So there should also be a stamping on the air cleaner?

The 289 was installed in early 1968 cars until 302 production caught up.
You're sure about that? So an F-code '68 full-size could still have a 289 if it was early '68 model year production?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
34,855 Posts
1: NO the F code is the 302, the C code is the 289.



I think you are panicking for no reason.

I have seen the round fat body air cleaners on the 302 with a 302 sticker in the 68 cars and I've seen the round fatties with the 289 stickers in original condition, as well as vice~verse, the shorter 302 air cleaners with the square intake tubes having 289 stickers on them in their original state. But pretty much only in the 289 and 302 powered 68 Fairlanes and Galaxies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
1: NO the F code is the 302, the C code is the 289.

I think you are panicking for no reason.

I have seen the round fat body air cleaners on the 302 with a 302 sticker in the 68 cars and I've seen the round fatties with the 289 stickers in original condition, as well as vice~verse, the shorter 302 air cleaners with the square intake tubes having 289 stickers on them in their original state. But pretty much only in the 289 and 302 powered 68 Fairlanes and Galaxies.
No panic really, it just puzzled me to see the different air cleaner when most '68 302s have the shorter one with full-size lid and square tube. The inconsistency in the type used between the two motors doesn't surprise me, especially since that was right in the midst of the 289-to-302 evolution (my friend has a '68 Mustang, original 289 car that came from the factory with a 302 block).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,337 Posts
So there should also be a stamping on the air cleaner?
Somewhere on the body.

You're sure about that? So an F-code '68 full-size could still have a 289 if it was early '68 model year production?
I am not 100% of anything, especially when it comes to FOMOCO.

I also did not say that. If early production, it may have recieved an earlier air cleaner asm. especially according to the assembly plant. That is why you look for the numbers. If it is an 67 I.D. No., it does not really prove anything as the assembly may have been swapped at some point.

Also look for the Engine Tag. A lot of things happened during the changeover. There are (were) no set rules. It may have been scheduled (broadcast sheet) for a certain engine but they are not going to pull that chassis off the line waiting for a certain engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,786 Posts
(my friend has a '68 Mustang, original 289 car that came from the factory with a 302 block).

HUH? would someone else chime in....

Did a little research and found this statement from another board. Not that its gospel either... :


Some of the late 289s were actually built using the 302 casting numbered blocks. There was a shortage of the designated 289 blocks which had a slightly shorter cyl. wall length (something redicilous like .060" difference). The sure way to know what you have is to check the crankshaft casting number.

The C8OE-A casting is a 302 block that was used for building the late 289s. You can build a 302 using a 289 block, but you may encounter a bit of piston skirt slap at the bottom of the bore due to the reduced cylinder length.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I also did not say that. If early production, it may have recieved an earlier air cleaner asm. especially according to the assembly plant. That is why you look for the numbers. If it is an 67 I.D. No., it does not really prove anything as the assembly may have been swapped at some point.

Also look for the Engine Tag. A lot of things happened during the changeover. There are (were) no set rules. It may have been scheduled (broadcast sheet) for a certain engine but they are not going to pull that chassis off the line waiting for a certain engine.
I agree that it would have been easy for the engine to get the older air cleaner if they still had them in stock at the plant (Wayne, MI). When you said "the 289 was installed in early 1968 cars until 302 production caught up", I interpreted it as they may have put leftover 289s in VIN 'F' cars meant to have the 302.

No, it really doesn't seem like the changeover was very regimented. Makes it pretty hard to assess originality.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
34,855 Posts
No, Ford never put a C code motor in an F code body. Simply because the ENGINE decides the VIN# not the other way around.

They didn't make a bunch of vin plates then make the cars to go with them. It happened at the same time.

I am unaware of ANY Ford ever made with the Vin saying one thing and the actual motor they put in saying another. But I HAVE seen factory corrected Vin Stamping on the fender aprons, but never the incorrect motor in place from the factory.

I have also come across one 302 Cast block with a 289 crank and rods internally. Making at least in my eyes the 289 build with a 302 block valid.


Anyway.... I think that the surplus of air cleaners is as simple explanation as any.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,337 Posts
HUH? would someone else chime in....

Did a little research and found this statement from another board. Not that its gospel either... :


Some of the late 289s were actually built using the 302 casting numbered blocks. There was a shortage of the designated 289 blocks which had a slightly shorter cyl. wall length (something redicilous like .060" difference). The sure way to know what you have is to check the crankshaft casting number.

The C8OE-A casting is a 302 block that was used for building the late 289s. You can build a 302 using a 289 block, but you may encounter a bit of piston skirt slap at the bottom of the bore due to the reduced cylinder length.
It's true. FORD had a running change and could not keep up with the new 302. They also had parts bins full of older tech 289 parts and many were assembled and delivered to assembly plants incognito.

This is common knowledge on early MUST boards.

One reason for no K-CODE in 1968 along with the failure of the 302TP. Bad year for SBF performance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
965 Posts
I have a late 55 convertible with 56 parts that my dad bought new so its possible it came with a 67 aircleaner,my uncle was a member of the early V8 club and read in the monthly books about cars coming out of the factory with previous year parts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
108 Posts
My 68 Cougar that had an unmolested 289-2V had a "302" cast in to the lifter valley of the block.


cheers
Ed
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top