I have a 289 that I got a few years ago in a 55 truck. When I got the truck the PO told me that it had a 289 out of a 68 Mustang. I checked the casting numbers this morning and found the following.
7C10 (should be 1967 Mar 10)
C5AE-6015E
A book I have identifies this as a 289 High perfomance. Can anyone verify this for me?

 

That casting number is used on all 289 blocks of the period.

There were many differences between the 289 2V and 4V vs. the Hipo engine, but they used the same block.

 

True Hi-po would have:

Solid lifters, you'll hear them. Could have been added.

Screw-in studs and machined pockets for the valve springs. Xray vision required, or remove valve cover. These could have been added.

Larger main caps.

3/8 con-rod bolts vs. 5/16.

Possible a little swoopier exhaust manifold.

Not sure how common the hi-po was in '68, as starting in '67 the Mustang had the 390 option and on the showroom floor, that looks hotter than a hi-po 289, and other bb's were around, plus the 302, plus the early year strike at Ford.

Is there a tag on the intake manifold on or near where the coil bolts down?

 

No tag, I haven't pulled the valve cover yet but I think it probably has regular heads. On the back corner of the right head is the number 10 and on the front corner of the left head is the number 11. I read somewhere that if they were HiPo heads they would have a 17,19, 20 or 21. It has a two barrel carb and I was just wondering if somebody used a HiPo block and built a regular 289. It does have a single point dizzy. Our plans are to put it in my son 60 f100 and run it until he gets around to building it.

 

As indicated, blocks are the same. I can't see someone using regular heads and a 2bbl, and ditching the dual point dizzy on a hi-po motor. Hi-po motors have been seen as something valuable from day 1, so while it's not impossible for someone to "de-po" one, it would take someone with extraordinary automotive sense and instincts to do so...

Having said that, a garden variety 2bbl 289 can be 300+ hp with just few flicks of the wrist, so do some homework and Happy Motoring!

 

Sorry, the block info is in-correct, and there were two different 289 HiPo engine blocks.

C4OZ6010C .. 289 HiPo Engine Block / Uses 5 bolt holes for the flywheel housing.

This early block also uses a different timing cover and waterpump.

Fits all 1964's, 1965's before 8/23/1964.
---------------------------------------
C5OZ6010C .. 289 HiPo Engine Block / Uses 6 bolt holes for the flywheel housing.

Fits: 1965's after 8/23/64, all 1966/67's.
--------------------------------------
And...There were TWO non HiPo 289 blocks. Same flywheel housing bolt hole difference, same date change.

Same timing cover and waterpump change-over.
-----------------------------------------------
60F100: There is no way = NONE to determine from a block casting number what size the engine is.

Block casting numbers are next to worthless, because they cannot be cross referenced to actual Ford part numbers.

IF the engine you have is the 5 bolt hole type, it might be a 260.

 

So this source, found at the top of this forum, is incomplete:

Kelly hotrod - Ford Engines Page 2

OP id's his date code as March, '67 & block code is C5AE. Were C5AE blocks NOT used for Hi-Po motors? Were the blocks you listed the only ones? If so, there seems to be major misinformation about these blocks.

Thanks.

 

The two blocks I listed are the only HiPo blocks.

There were two 289 regular blocks also.

The info I typed above came straight from the 1960/64 & 1965/72 Ford Passenger Car Parts Catalogs, not from a magazine, or from a non Ford Hi-Perfomance book.

I dunno what the casting numbers were, and you can't cross reference casting numbers, regardless.

There are so many mistakes in those hot rod books, it's ridiculous.

Half of them list engineering numbers instead of the actual Ford part numbers.

A lot of the info has been copied from the original Hot Rod Mags Hi Performance paperback books they came out with in 1970, which were full of errors.

And I know they were full of errors because a fellow partsman and I gave Hot Rod all the original info.

Hot Rod was then part of Petersen Publishing, their offices at that time were located in West Hollywood. The closest dealer was Beverly Hills Ford, which was also the only Muscle Parts dealer on the westside.

Ron, the front counter guy, was a Muscle Parts nut. Bill, the back counter guy didn't give damn about Muscle Parts and still doesn't.

Hot Rod approached Ron for all the info, and because he was too busy to give them all the dope, and had to do it on his own time, I got involved.

What happened: We were supposed to proof read all the stuff before it was published, but Hot Rod never got back to us (typical).

When the books were published, they mixed up many of the numbers, with ID numbers listed as part numbers and vice versa.

They also transposed some of the prefixes...for examples, C9XA became C9AX, C9ZZ became CZ9Z.

They also left out important pertinent info, like the change-over on the 289 engines, the different length pushrods on FE's, which changed early in 1968, and other jazz I don't recall.

It was a FIASCO...and today...it still is.

 

Bill, that's good history you provided about the Hot Rod type books and their many errors and inconsistencies. I don't put much faith in them, but often they are the only sources for "information". I see that most websites merely rehash this information, which is only listed up to about 1979, I suppose when the books stopped getting original content.

One of the problems with Ford numbers as you pointed out is that the casting number and part number of the same part are usually not the same. So the part number is not so useful to the poster who is trying to determine what his casting number signifies.

One reference I trust is Bob Mannel's meticulously researched book "Mustang and Ford Small Block V8 1962-1969". On page 5-9 he has a couple photographs of the cylinder block with the casting number of C5AE-6015E. He states that this block was used for the 289 2V, 4V and HiPo.

At the introduction to the 1967 chapter he addresses the question of how many HiPos were produced in that year (all in Mustangs). He points out that the availability of the FE engine in the Mustang that year ate into this number, and says that one source gives a number of 472 Hipos installed in 1967 Mustangs.

Additionally, I suppose a few HiPo 289 engine assemblies would have been sold "over the counter" in 1967 and later years.

 

I'm sure that I'd buy Bill "Number Dummy's" guide to correct part number and application data guide.

 

The casting number may be C5AE-6015-E, but it's a casting number, which cannot be crossed to Ford part number.

I'm not that familiar with 289's, but with FE's, all the 352/360/390/410/428 blocks were cast as 352's, so there is no way = NONE to ID the engine size from the casting number.

Only when the blocks were finished could they be something else.

Does C5AE-6015-E refer to C5AZ-6010-C the non HiPo block, or does it refer to C5OZ-6010-C the actual HiPo block?

I suspect the same thing was done with the 289 casting, only when the block was finished could it be a HiPo....or not. So....the casting number is meaningless.

Marti.com has the exact total of how many HiPo's were made, because he bought all the info from Ford in the late 1980's before they tossed it out.

 

I believe the only difference between the HiPo and standard cylinder block was an orange paint splotch. The block is the same, the machining is the same. The HiPo was fitted with larger main bearing caps, though.

 

Which were only available with the block itself, because Ford did (does) not sell them separately.

Now you know why there was a separate HiPo only block.