Ford Automobiles banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Transferred from old sight, I didn't know there were two sights??

After years of getting neglected due to my efforts and money going to my 64 Sprint and 65 Mustang fastback (now sold) ,it's time to restore the Futura.

I know I want a three speed tranny, most likely a C4, but should I rebuild the original 260 and find a C4 with a 5 bolt housing, or just go with a much more common 289 or 302 and a 6 bolt C4??

I've heard the 260's are not great for rebuilding because after boring the clearance between the cyl and water jackets is just too thin and they run too hot? is this true? I dont think my engine has ever been rebuilt.

I would like to keep the car looking pretty original, thought about making it look like it would have been built up in the 60's maybe an open air cleaner and some vintage style aftermarket valve covers, or even just keeping all the original look?

I plan on using the car for a daily driver and a weekend cruiser, not too interested in high HP, I want good fuel economy and reliability, but a nice sound ,My fast back had a stock 289 with performer intake,carb & flowmasters and it was fine.

Also what year did the 289 go to the 6 bolt pattern 65 or 66?

Are their specific years of C4's or 289/302's I should look for, or just get the best deal?

I'm going to be on a lower budget, just want to make a nice dependable daily driver, and I welcome all suggestions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
The 260 did have some problems such as those you have mentioned.

In reality, unless you are planning to past the car off as pure stock at car meets (which you could not do with a C-4) it would be cheaper to drop in a later 289 built to 1967 specs (the highest horsepower/torque ratings of the 289). In fact you could install a 302.

But use the correct colors for the valve covers, air cleaner, etc. That would pass the eye of a casual viewer.

Trivia: Most of the 260's that were sent to England to install in the Sunbeam Tiger had cylinder walls so thin they rusted through before being installed. Of course the English stored the engines outdoors, but...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,028 Posts
Transferred from old sight, I didn't know there were two sights??

After years of getting neglected due to my efforts and money going to my 64 Sprint and 65 Mustang fastback (now sold) ,it's time to restore the Futura.

I know I want a three speed tranny, most likely a C4, but should I rebuild the original 260 and find a C4 with a 5 bolt housing, or just go with a much more common 289 or 302 and a 6 bolt C4??

I've heard the 260's are not great for rebuilding because after boring the clearance between the cyl and water jackets is just too thin and they run too hot? is this true? I dont think my engine has ever been rebuilt.

I would like to keep the car looking pretty original, thought about making it look like it would have been built up in the 60's maybe an open air cleaner and some vintage style aftermarket valve covers, or even just keeping all the original look?

I plan on using the car for a daily driver and a weekend cruiser, not too interested in high HP, I want good fuel economy and reliability, but a nice sound ,My fast back had a stock 289 with performer intake,carb & flowmasters and it was fine.

Also what year did the 289 go to the 6 bolt pattern 65 or 66?

Are their specific years of C4's or 289/302's I should look for, or just get the best deal?

I'm going to be on a lower budget, just want to make a nice dependable daily driver, and I welcome all suggestions.
the 221, 260's were known for cooling issues when they came from the factory.

if you go 302, get one from 85 on up, so you can take advantage of the roller cam
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
The 260 did have some problems such as those you have mentioned.

In reality, unless you are planning to past the car off as pure stock at car meets (which you could not do with a C-4) it would be cheaper to drop in a later 289 built to 1967 specs (the highest horsepower/torque ratings of the 289). In fact you could install a 302.

But use the correct colors for the valve covers, air cleaner, etc. That would pass the eye of a casual viewer.

Trivia: Most of the 260's that were sent to England to install in the Sunbeam Tiger had cylinder walls so thin they rusted through before being installed. Of course the English stored the engines outdoors, but...
My thoughts exactly, as soon as I put a C4 in it, it's no longer original, so whats the point, but I do think I want it to appear to the casual viewer as being original, I'd use my orig 260 parts on newer motor, and paint motor black with the proper blue covers and air cleaner, or maybe use some vintage style valve covers and air cleaner, I hate it when I see a ford blue block in a 64 falcon, even my 65 Fastback Mustang had the motor painted ford blue when I got it, totally wrong, I was even thinking if I did swap out the carb/manifold from a 2brl to a 4 brl, I'd even paint the manifold black to appear orig?

Man I just missed an engine, a local guy had advertised a 1967 Mustang code 289 rebuilt for $400 , now ya never know how true or good the motor is, but man it's hard to find a 289 core around here for half that much, and unless I'm wrong, the 289 does look like a 260 from the front, I believe you can see the two front head bolts where they come out of the head and then go into the block, I believe the 302's are not visible.

But I also found this local add below , going to call the guy tomorrow, not sure what a GT 289 is? and I'm assuming the 66 C4 would mate up to it? but maybe it would just be cheaper to buy a used 302 and C4?

64 1/2 tranny C4- $200.00

1965 GT 289 $400.00 casting# C5AE-6015E ???any one?

66 c4 trans 75.00
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,028 Posts
the 289 and 302 are the exact same block. only difference is in 68 they made the cylinder skirts longer, and stamped 302 in the lifter valley. if you really want a 289, buy a 302, and put the 289 crank and rods in. the 260 and 289 were two completely different animals, and you CANNOT interchange any parts from 260 to ANY other SBF.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,028 Posts
i've owned all 8 of the Windsor design engines (221, 255, 260, 289, 289Hi-PO, 302, 5.0 HO, 351W) the only one i haven't gotten my hands on is an original Boss 302... I have found out what interchanges, and what doesn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,028 Posts
1965 GT 289 $400.00 casting# C5AE-6015E ???any one?
that's a true 289 Hipo it's a 65 design, but that doesn't mean when it was made. still a REAL HP none the less. If it's original color, it should be orange...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 · (Edited)
the 289 and 302 are the exact same block. only difference is in 68 they made the cylinder skirts longer, and stamped 302 in the lifter valley. if you really want a 289, buy a 302, and put the 289 crank and rods in. the 260 and 289 were two completely different animals, and you CANNOT interchange any parts from 260 to ANY other SBF.
OK correct me if I'm wrong, I just looked at my 260, and the bolts I'm referring to are the two forward manifold bolts, you can see them where they go through the manifold, then they come out where they are visible before they go into the block, I believe the 289 was also like this? but I had a 302 once, and I dont think I could see these bolts? was that because the heads or blocks were different?

And the only 260 parts I was thinking of using was the original air cleaner and maybe valve covers, but I'm sure the 289 early covers probably looked exactly like the 260's?

As you can tell, I have no ideal on what way I will go, and I'm not very knowledgeable on SBF's or any engine for that matter, I just thought a 289 would look like the 260 due to those forward bolts? and I have been told by others to go with the 5.0 with roller rockers, is that very important if I plan on building a pretty much stock motor? like mentioned earlier, my Fastback, had a (I was told by orig owner who built motor) rebuilt 289, Chevy valves in heads? I guess larger? a very mild cam, edlebrock performer intake and carb and it had plenty of power for my needs, I thought it was funny, guy built up mild motor, but still had 2.80:1 rear end in car?

What on a budget eng/tranny combo would you guys suggest for a daily driver, I'd like it to be reliable, decent to good fuel economy, better than stock 260 2brl Fordomatic performance , my rear end is 3.25:1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
that's a true 289 Hipo it's a 65 design, but that doesn't mean when it was made. still a REAL HP none the less. If it's original color, it should be orange...

Can you recommend a book or an online sheet to decode these numbers? or tell me what I'm missing? I do have Kelly hot rod ford info page that i was looking at, but I guess I'm missing something, I see a C5AE-E s both a 289 and 289HP and 6015 as the basic part #, and I guess if it has the correct heads they should be marked ? wait I also see some of the same #'s for the heads?

Man getting old sucks, I had this down when I got my fastback 15yrs ago, but haven't looked at it since.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,028 Posts
OK correct me if I'm wrong, I just looked at my 260, and the bolts I'm referring to are the two forward manifold bolts, you can see them where they go through the manifold, then they come out where they are visible before they go into the block, I believe the 289 was also like this? but I had a 302 once, and I dont think I could see these bolts? was that because the heads or blocks were different?

And the only 260 parts I was thinking of using was the original air cleaner and maybe valve covers, but I'm sure the 289 early covers probably looked exactly like the 260's?

As you can tell, I have no ideal on what way I will go, and I'm not very knowledgeable on SBF's or any engine for that matter, I just thought a 289 would look like the 260 due to those forward bolts? and I have been told by others to go with the 5.0 with roller rockers, is that very important if I plan on building a pretty much stock motor? like mentioned earlier, my Fastback, had a (I was told by orig owner who built motor) rebuilt 289, Chevy valves in heads? I guess larger? a very mild cam, edlebrock performer intake and carb and it had plenty of power for my needs, I thought it was funny, guy built up mild motor, but still had 2.80:1 rear end in car?

What on a budget eng/tranny combo would you guys suggest for a daily driver, I'd like it to be reliable, decent to good fuel economy, better than stock 260 2brl Fordomatic performance , my rear end is 3.25:1
-the first part, the later 289 and 302's didn't need the studs in the front, but you can put them in if you want.
-the second is, it's a 302/5.0 with a roller camshaft, not rockers. the roller cam makes for quieter running, less wear in the engine, and frees up horses.
-the build all depends on what you go with for the engine/trans. I would suggest looking for a mid 80's (84) to early 90's (up to 93) thunderbird, MK7, or Cougar with the 5.0 HO. a c4 would bolt to it just fine. you can swap the fuel injected intake for a carb'd one, otherwise you have the option to swap the computer over too, but i have a feeling you won't want to do that keeping it factory appearing... once you get a hold of one of these beasts you can do a stock rebuild. from 145HP(260) to 225HP (5.0HO) and it stays a normal street engine. FYI all 5.0L's in the cars listed above are HO's.

as far as that particular engine above goes, it's real deal, just as the guy says. the part numbers i don't know where you can find them, it's mainly something i just remembered over the years. working in the parts department at a ford dealership that's been around since 1908, you find a ton of material for this stuff...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
Hi-po engine has high Nodular Iron crank, last counterweight may be polished for hardness test. May have orange paint swatch. Make sure you check. Also '65 has a 6 bolt bellhousing. Valves will measure 1.78/1.45. ANYONE can paint an engine orange!!!!!
( Chevy even did it :yikes:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,028 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
As for small block info, and I mean ALL the detailed info, look fo the Small Block Ford rebuild softback book published by HP Publications. It was writen late enough in the Windsor's life to be almost complete (no 5.0 info such as the fact the "5.0" water pump runs in the reverse direction then the belted Windsors.)

As for the later blocks with roller cams, some are good, some are better out of the factory. EPA laws were in effect and the factory's attempts to meet the laws brought about the 1984 enignes which had the lowest HP/torque ratings to date.

I disagree with the roller as the factory spec 1967 model year had the better ratings. But to each his own.

Times are changing in Ford's engine designs too. Back in the 60's people laughed at 6 cylinder engines but the late 250 was just a tad smaller then the 260 V-8 and had more torque, less weight. But "it's a six".

Having until recently drived an 85 Mustang with 210 HP V-8 I was aware that later Windsors had more power. And then "that" TV commercial came on showing the hard to identify dark gray car tearing up the road. Sort of looks like an ad for "Fast and Furious XIII" doesn't it?

And then the letters "305 HP V-6" appear on the screen and you almost die until the car is identified as a Ford product. Whew!!!

Will there ever be enough early Falcons around to stuff one of these lightweight V-6's in the engine bay along with all the required hardware to make it produce that HP? Cross your fingers. It's either that or a slightly modified Aluminum Buick V-6 that has to work harder to produce the power since there is no computer management.

There are methods that make the Windsor V-8 run better then the original factory design and it's not bright, shinny, $$$ speed shop parts. Over the years the factory hopped up the engine (yes, roller cams were part of that) without making major changes to the outside of the engine.

Build a Falcon V-8 that runs good and gets good MPG. Hot Rodded "look at me, I am a fool who can waste money" engines are toys you outgrow. (Example: look at an engine built for the Salt Flats vs "hot rodding". They go so far as use engine paint meant for industrial equipment because it is easier to take care of then polished alumin...)

Whatever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,028 Posts
i took my 302 and put a 306 stroker kit into it. you won't know the difference until you drive it...
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top