1968 289s

G

gt/cs

New Member

Dec 11, 2002

105

0

0

SW California

Sep 29, 2004

#1

• Sep 29, 2004

• #1

I was reading through this thread where there was a discussion re: the rareness of 289s in 1968 cars. I know that at some point in 1968 Ford started replacing the 289 with the 302, but I'm wondering when that was and how many of each were made.

My car's an original 289 (unfortunately the 289 it came with was long gone before I bought it), number 152044 out of the San Jose plant. Scheduled assembly date was March 22, 1968. Where is this on the timescale of 289 vs 302 production?

 

6

68SPRINT

New Member

Apr 9, 2003

26

0

0

Sep 29, 2004

#2

• Sep 29, 2004

• #2

I used to own a '68 289 Sprint with a 289. The car was manufactured in July '68 and I was told it was one of the last before the switchover to 302s. Not sure how accurate the info was though

Darren

 

9

91conv

New Member

Sep 15, 2003

59

0

0

fenton, mi

Sep 29, 2004

#3

• Sep 29, 2004

• #3

The way I understand it is that they built them untill they ran out, and since they were building at 3 different plants, that time varied. I really think they ran almost all, if not all, production year. They used 302 blocks for the 289's when they ran out of the 289 blocks.

If the prior post is correct in stating that 289 production ceased in late July, how much longer was the model year anyway. A month?

I have sent an email to Kevin Marti , to see if he has the 68 302/289 production stats. If I get an difinitive answer, I'll post it.

 

Great68

Founding Member

May 16, 2002

691

0

16

Victoria BC

Sep 29, 2004

#4

• Sep 29, 2004

• #4

My car is on of those 302 block 289's.

 

9

91conv

New Member

Sep 15, 2003

59

0

0

fenton, mi

Sep 29, 2004

#5

• Sep 29, 2004

• #5

here it is...

I just got this message from Allen Cross:

"Kevin Marti (via Ford's Data Base) says, 31K J-code vs 170K C-code..."

Looks like a lot of C-coders out there.

 

G

gt/cs

New Member

Dec 11, 2002

105

0

0

SW California

Sep 29, 2004

#6

• Sep 29, 2004

• #6

Thanks for the great info guys. I'm a bit confused by this statement though:

Great68 said:

My car is on of those 302 block 289's.

Click to expand...

I thought that the only difference between a 302 and a 289 was the crank and rods? Were the blocks cast differently, do they just have different casting numbers, or what?

 

Great68

Founding Member

May 16, 2002

691

0

16

Victoria BC

Sep 29, 2004

#7

• Sep 29, 2004

• #7

gt/cs said:

Thanks for the great info guys. I'm a bit confused by this statement though:



I thought that the only difference between a 302 and a 289 was the crank and rods? Were the blocks cast differently, do they just have different casting numbers, or what?

Click to expand...

It says "302" in the lifter galley of the block. That's about only difference I know.

My car was also a San Jose car, built February 21st, 1968

 

D

D.Hearne

New Member

Sep 29, 2000

11,730

6

0

south louisiana

Sep 29, 2004

#8

• Sep 29, 2004

• #8

Just for kicks, I disassembled an original 302 from a 69 Galaxie, this was a plain jane 302-2bbl motor, nothing special about it. The owner didn't believe antifreeze was necessary here in south Louisiana, sooooooo it had a large hole in one cylinder wall. And as I said before, there was nothing special about it ......... till I removed the oil pan. Low and behold, it had those thick main caps.......... that told the story of how Ford liked to "use up" parts on the assembly line....... even the high performance stuff........... to build plain jane 302's using 289 Hi-po blocks

 

6

68FairlaneFB

New Member

Sep 11, 2004

6

0

0

Sep 29, 2004

#9

• Sep 29, 2004

• #9

My '68 fairlane is a 302.

 

6

6stang8

New Member

Dec 5, 2003

28

0

0

Sep 30, 2004

#10

• Sep 30, 2004

• #10

I thought that all the 302's in '68 were 4 barrelled and installed in GT cars? Anyway, my '68 was originally a 289 car. I've still got the engine at my parents house(it spun a bearing on a previous owner).

I didn't think there was anything special about '68 289's in Mustangs except for the larger combution chambers which decreased compression(not a good thing).

Randall

 

C

chris I

Founding Member

Aug 29, 2001

97

0

0

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Sep 30, 2004

#11

• Sep 30, 2004

• #11

My car is a 68 with 289.

It has 302 stamped on the block by the lifters.

Can't remember the production date or plant.

 

6

68FairlaneFB

New Member

Sep 11, 2004

6

0

0

Sep 30, 2004

#12

• Sep 30, 2004

• #12

6stang8 said:

I thought that all the 302's in '68 were 4 barrelled and installed in GT cars? Anyway, my '68 was originally a 289 car. I've still got the engine at my parents house(it spun a bearing on a previous owner).

I didn't think there was anything special about '68 289's in Mustangs except for the larger combution chambers which decreased compression(not a good thing).

Randall

Click to expand...

my 302 is a 2 barrel.

 

P

paintballtommy

Member

Jan 31, 2004

244

0

16

concord, ca

Sep 30, 2004

#13

• Sep 30, 2004

• #13

my car is a jcode 302 4barrel

i still got the block and the 4barrel heads.

 

6

6stang8

New Member

Dec 5, 2003

28

0

0

Oct 1, 2004

#14

• Oct 1, 2004

• #14

68FairlaneFB said:

my 302 is a 2 barrel.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but you said you had a Fairlane. In the '68 Mustangs, 302 engines were 4 barrelled.

edit: I reread my first post and see I wasn't too clear that I was talking about Mustangs. Sorry for the confusion.

 

D

D.Hearne

New Member

Sep 29, 2000

11,730

6

0

south louisiana

Oct 1, 2004

#15

• Oct 1, 2004

• #15

6stang8 said:

Yeah, but you said you had a Fairlane. In the '68 Mustangs, 302 engines were 4 barrelled.

Click to expand...

Some of the 68 302's were 4 bbl motors, the rest were 2 bbl.

 

3

390Fe

Founding Member

May 14, 2002

236

0

0

Pottstown PA

Oct 1, 2004

#16

• Oct 1, 2004

• #16

Wouldn't there have been a vin change for 289 2bbl vs 302 2bbl?
In '69, when the 302 2v was standard you had the F code.
'68 was still using C code (which was a 289 2v). If I am not mistaken, wasn't the fairlane 302 2v an F code? I just can't see Ford not differentiating between the 289 2v and the 302 2v when they did so later.
A J coded vin was a 302 4bbl
Does anyone have an F coded 68 mustang?
It is possible that the confusion comes from the 289 4v to the 302 4v production. (Early 68's could have the A code 289 before the 302 hit full production)

 

O

Ozsum2

New Member

Jul 28, 2004

695

1

0

Oct 1, 2004

#17

• Oct 1, 2004

• #17

D.Hearne said:

Some of the 68 302's were 4 bbl motors, the rest were 2 bbl.

Click to expand...

Yep, just like the 289's of yesteryear.