1968 289 engine identification

[POLOreme]

So I've tried to look for information before posting but couldn't find much. I have an early ‘68 Bronco that originally came with a 289. I understand 1968 was the transition year where ford went from 289 to 302's. I'm trying to look for a 289 with the correct date code for my bronco and a bit unsure if I'm looking for the correct casting numbers.

My bronco was built in December of ‘67. What months would be the date code to look for? Would it be the month of December and November only? And second, as far as casting number, would it be C60E-xxxx or C7OE(if that exist), or C8OE? And would the block say “289” in the lifter oil valley?

There was someone on craigslist that said was a 289 out of ‘68 mustang. Date code on it was March of ‘68, but it had “302” in the lifter valley. He was telling me that ford used 302 blocks with 289 internals in ‘68. Is this true? Thanks, just trying to put the period correct block into the bronco. Any help is appreciated.

 

[markatherton]

Look at both sides of the head. I have some heads that have 302 on one side and 289 on the other.

 

[Rustytruck]

the best you may find is a C7 casting code on the block and intake since yours were built in before 1968. most revisions on the 289 were done in 1966 and used those casting numbers as they were off and running on the 302 in design and dealing with emission changes. So I doubt your Bronco would have very many C8 part numbers if any. Maybe the wiring harness?

 

[Broncobowsher]

How much of a restoration are you doing? Since you don't have the original engine you could save a lot of effort by just having a period correct engine. Are you building so original that people will be crawling around looking at casting numbers?

As for the 289/302 it is little more than a different crankshaft and some shorter connecting rods. The block is the same. I have heard the 302 in the casting doesn't always match the guts as well and completely believe it. As I recall the truck like got 289s for most if not all of '68 where the car lines started getting the 302 pretty early in the model year.

 

[POLOreme]

Appreciate the help. So I'm doing a full frame off restoration. The rig is pretty rough. Needs frame repair, and about 75% of the tub is going to be new. It has a running 302 engine from the early 80s I believe, attached to 4 speed top loader I believe from the late 60's. Not sure if it was remanufactured engine or what the case is. But I'm just being particular and trying to put the correct stuff in it. I understand I can keep the current engine but I'm just being “me.”

So to confirm, there is a 289 block that would have a C7 casting code or would it be C6?
And if I understood you guys correctly, I would find a 289 engine that has 289 internals but yet have a “302” cast into the block in the lifter valley?

Appreciate all the help.

 

[Broncobowsher]

289 block = 302 block.
Well mostly anyway.

The difference is the crankshaft has a slightly shorter stroke and the rods are slightly longer to make up for it. The piston height is even the same between the two. The way to really know is to take the engine apart and look for a 1M or 2M on the crankshaft. 1M is 289 and 2M is 302.
Externally you can't tell the difference. If you are looking for an engineering date codes, the casting numbers, for a 6-bolt 289 engine (what you are looking for) the book says C5 or C6 dates.
But as some have mentioned, there were some 289 innards stuffed into blocks cast with a 302 in the lifter valley. The early 302 block have a C8 cast into them. The next major revision would be in '71.

Realisticly nobody will ever know. There are so many external items that people will see. Trying to track down all the stuff to be date correct on a vehicle that is getting as much done to it as you describe sounds like an exercise in futility. It is only original once, and you are long past being original.

 

[jamesroney]

I'm pretty sure that all of the 1968 289 engines were cast in the Windsor foundry and would have been cast with the C8AE-6015-B number.

December of 67 is not “early” in the production year, but is 5 months into production. So there wouldn't be any production year weirdness.

The Ford strike of 68 happened after your production, but Ford knew it was coming and built up additional inventory of some key components. So your engine might have a slightly higher date offset than some…but I still wouldn't put it more than 4 weeks from the assembly date.

The small block Ford was VERY common, so production was very well coordinated. The notion that Ford would cast your block 2 months before assembly is just silly. Two months of inventory of a small block in 1968 would be about 200,000 blocks. Someone would notice them, and a planner would get fired. I'm not saying that you aren't the 1 in a million that got the block from the bottom of the pile…but you aren't.

The C8AE-6015-B block will be cast in Windsor Foundry, and will have the numbers “302” cast in the lifter gallery. That doesn't mean it's a 302. (Although it probably was intended to&#8230

1967 is the harder model year for the 289, because you see Cleveland foundry, Windsor foundry, and pre production 68 blocks.

But your 68 Ford 289 should have a date code 2-4 weeks ahead of production, with an assembly stamp at least a day ahead of assembly. There's minimal transit time for the Bronco since everything is near Michigan.

The notion that Ford “used up” parts between the 289 and 302 is absurd. Even in 1968 the EPA requirements and certifications were displacement specific. 2bbl Broncos got 289's. 2bbl Mustangs got 289's. 4 bbl Mustangs got 302's. It's that simple.

 

[broncogt]

It has a running 302 engine from the early 80s I believe, attached to 4 speed top loader I believe from the late 60's.

I think it would be desirable to keep the top loader 4 speed. If you do , now its not stock.

You should build it how you want...

 

[spap]

Yea save the money from the search and spend on all that sheet metal your going to have to replace. The 4 speed might have been installed back in 68,69. I think period changes are pretty cool to keep
But I get and have been there with other things, but will be a rabbit hole