289 casting decode
Cargo Master
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,232
Likes: 3
From: NE Texas
I have a book at home that should decode it. I will try to remember to look tonight. That casting date, 7C13 is March 67 which is VERY near the time when they switched over to 302 blocks with longer cylinders to accommodate the longer 302 stroke. There were many 289's built with these blocks in the changeover process. This date MIGHT be one of them. If it is and you were wanting to build a stroker motor, this would be a good candidate if that's the case. And, of course, if it should pressure test and magnaflux okay.
Looking at your post a second time, however, the C5 probably indicates a 1965 design block which would be a 289 cylinder length. I will try to remember to look tonight.
Looking at your post a second time, however, the C5 probably indicates a 1965 design block which would be a 289 cylinder length. I will try to remember to look tonight.
Cargo Master
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,232
Likes: 3
From: NE Texas
I looked at my book last night and it showed that to be a 289 block. As I said, in late 67 model year, 289's were built from 302 blocks. I thought that the part number would clear it up, but not with the information that I have.
That date code puts it being cast near the changeover time. I could not find where I had read about the 302 blocked 289s. I just don't remember exactly where I read that.
With what information I can find, it appears that the only way you will know is after disassembly, measure the height of the cylinder walls. Maybe by that time I will have my known 302 engine apart and measure the cylinder length on it for comparison.
That date code puts it being cast near the changeover time. I could not find where I had read about the 302 blocked 289s. I just don't remember exactly where I read that.
With what information I can find, it appears that the only way you will know is after disassembly, measure the height of the cylinder walls. Maybe by that time I will have my known 302 engine apart and measure the cylinder length on it for comparison.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
From: Little Falls,New York
No,it definately is 289.The engines were changed over in 1968.Als the numbers in question werethe ones on the little tag looking thing cast above the date code-7 C i 3
Trending Topics
Cargo Master
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,232
Likes: 3
From: NE Texas
I don't think that you are focusing on what I'm saying.
In the latter part of the 67 model year as they were moving toward changing to the 302, the 289's were built with 302 blocks. The only functional difference between a 289 block and a 302 block is about an 1/8" longer cylinder added to the bottom to support the piston skirt with the longer stroke.
Due to the fact that the casting date is about halfway through the 67 model year, this might very well be a 302 block that was used to build a 289 engine.
Do you now understand what I am saying?
Now, that might not mean squat to you because you never said why you were asking the question. I assumed that you were asking the question because you would be building a stroker motor from the engine in which case you want a 302 block to do it with. I don't know of any other reason you would care unless you were trying to build a numbers matching car or something.
In the latter part of the 67 model year as they were moving toward changing to the 302, the 289's were built with 302 blocks. The only functional difference between a 289 block and a 302 block is about an 1/8" longer cylinder added to the bottom to support the piston skirt with the longer stroke.
Due to the fact that the casting date is about halfway through the 67 model year, this might very well be a 302 block that was used to build a 289 engine.
Do you now understand what I am saying?
Now, that might not mean squat to you because you never said why you were asking the question. I assumed that you were asking the question because you would be building a stroker motor from the engine in which case you want a 302 block to do it with. I don't know of any other reason you would care unless you were trying to build a numbers matching car or something.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
From: Little Falls,New York
No,I am not building a stroker,just like to research before I spend money.The number in question is 7c i 3, not 13.
Cargo Master
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,071
Likes: 36
From: British Columbia
Romans vs Arabs
That 7CI3 identifies the date on which the casting was made. 7=1967, C=March, I3=Thirteenth day. So the casting was made on March 13th, 1967.
The foundry simply used an I instead of a 1. I.e. they used a Roman I instead of an Arabic 1. Kind of like using an O vs. a 0.
Any other specific questions?
The foundry simply used an I instead of a 1. I.e. they used a Roman I instead of an Arabic 1. Kind of like using an O vs. a 0.
Any other specific questions?
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
From: Little Falls,New York
Allright,call me nube,or whatever but why is the C5AE-(1965) and the 7CI3(1967 conflicting on the same block.Again,I am not educated to the peculiararities of date codes.
Cargo Master
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,232
Likes: 3
From: NE Texas
The C5 is referring to the part number meaning that the part was designed in 1965 and still used in the 67 model year. The casting date is just that, the date it was cast.
Since you are researching for whatever reason, you must remember that all you are identifying is the cylinder block. When you tear it apart, you might find a 302 crankshaft in it, 351W heads on it, or any combination.
Good luck,
Since you are researching for whatever reason, you must remember that all you are identifying is the cylinder block. When you tear it apart, you might find a 302 crankshaft in it, 351W heads on it, or any combination.
Good luck,
Cargo Master
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,071
Likes: 36
From: British Columbia
Yes the casting numbers retained old numbers for a long time- like C2OE oil pumps used in 302s into the 1980s or even later. The original design just happened to not be changed for decades.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
dogstar
Small Block V8 (221, 260, 289, 5.0/302, 5.8/351W)
21
Nov 11, 2010 12:39 PM
