Register now to get rid of these ads!

SBF guys I got a interchange question...

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by Master of None, Jan 3, 2011.

  1. Master of None
    Joined: Dec 18, 2009
    Posts: 2,279

    Master of None
    Member

    I scored a 63 289 on craig's with rebuilt heads new water pump fuel pump cam and timing chain list. The 63 block is complete,but the owner took the rockers and push rods out of the motor to make another run:mad:. I'm now working on getting the motor together, and have aviailble a 260 valve train out of another 63 motor. Will the rockers and push rods work in the 289 or am I better off buying new? Thanks for the input and reply's ahead of time.
     
  2. falcongeorge
    Joined: Aug 26, 2010
    Posts: 18,341

    falcongeorge
    Member
    from BC

    My old TRW catalog shows two numbers 48047 is 6.809, 48810 is 6.776, shows both numbers for both 260 and 289. Pretty sure the difference in length is hyd. vs mech. lifter. As long as both motors use the same type lifter, you should be good to go.
     
  3. Deuces
    Joined: Nov 3, 2009
    Posts: 21,299

    Deuces
    Member
    from Michigan

    As long as you buy the right pushrod length for the heads your using... Are the heads the same year as the block??? K-code heads or regular passenger car heads??
     
  4. Master of None
    Joined: Dec 18, 2009
    Posts: 2,279

    Master of None
    Member

    Thanks falcongeorge, thats kinda what I've been finding on other sites.


    Deuces, as far as I know its a stock motor with the stock heads, both are original to the block. I've read and been told that the valve stem length is different from the 63 to 65 then from 65 to 68. and it takes a different rocker arm,a non rail type, for those valves? But I'm not sure I'm learning as I go, grew up around more GM's

    Thanks for the reply's guys.
     

  5. falcongeorge
    Joined: Aug 26, 2010
    Posts: 18,341

    falcongeorge
    Member
    from BC

    checked a little deeper, the length difference is nothing to do with solid lifters, there was a minor change to valve length Oct. '68, the longer pushrods fit late '68 and up. so you should still be good to go, just my reasons were wrong.
     
  6. Master of None
    Joined: Dec 18, 2009
    Posts: 2,279

    Master of None
    Member

    Great news, now I can save the money for the Tylor/Vertex mag look distributor I've been looking at for a while.
     
  7. David Chandler
    Joined: Jan 27, 2007
    Posts: 1,101

    David Chandler
    Member

    Hate to piss on the parade, but 289's didn't come out in 63. As far as I can recall it was a 221, then followed by the 260 in 64, then 289 in "early" 65. Some Mustangs were 64 1/2's and had 260's while some had 289's. I think full size cars got Y blocks in 63, I know trucks did because I had one. Rail rockers came out later around the time that the 302's were introduced. But mechanical lifters can't use them. At least that's what I was told.
    So take a look at that thing and see what you can see on the castings numbers etc.
     
  8. havi
    Joined: Dec 30, 2008
    Posts: 1,876

    havi
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    1963 Galaxies had the 289 as an option.
     
  9. Mercury got the 289 in 1964, as well as the C4 automatic. Mercury usually (at the time) got the better stuff a year or two earlier. Justified the price differential, a bit.
    Cosmo
     
  10. AnimalAin
    Joined: Jul 20, 2002
    Posts: 3,417

    AnimalAin
    Member

    Not true. The Y block was all done at the end of the 1962 model year in cars, replaced by the 289 in many applications. The 289/271hp K-code was available in Fairlanes starting in the spring of 1963.
     
  11. texoutsider
    Joined: Jul 6, 2005
    Posts: 826

    texoutsider
    Member
    from Frisco, Tx

    Another thing about the early 221/260/289s were the 5 bolt bellhousing pattern. Later 289/302s had a 6 bolt pattern.

    M.
     
  12. The Law
    Joined: Sep 26, 2007
    Posts: 248

    The Law
    Member
    from N. AZ

    63? It aint a 289. Its a 260 probably with a 5 bolt bellhousing pattern.


    EDIT: just read that the 289 was introduced late in 63... so it might be. I thought it was a 64 option. learn something every day!

    But it still probably has a 5 bolt pattern for the housing.
     
  13. 65COMET
    Joined: Apr 10, 2007
    Posts: 3,086

    65COMET
    Member

    Ford hydraulic and solid lifters are the same length,actually the same lifter body.63 was the intro of the 289,although the 260 was more prevalent in the small cars. ROY.
     
  14. JeffB2
    Joined: Dec 18, 2006
    Posts: 8,977

    JeffB2
    Member
    from Phoenix,AZ

    Check this link to verify the code numbers on your block and heads: www.mre-books.com/interchange/interchange2.html a '65 and later timing cover will also not interchange.If you look to the left on the site click on "small blocks" and the Interchange book will come up on top,click on it for info previews for other components,buying the book would be a good idea too some of them are available on CD so you can print out info and take it out to the shop instead of the book.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2011
  15. Toymaker
    Joined: Mar 26, 2006
    Posts: 3,920

    Toymaker
    Member
    from Fresno,CA

    You can use rail rockers on a solid lifter cam you just need a narrow feeler gauge and make sure they are on the correct valve stem:D
     
  16. falcongeorge
    Joined: Aug 26, 2010
    Posts: 18,341

    falcongeorge
    Member
    from BC

    Well, yes, you can, I did it when I was young and had no money, not that that has changed much . It IS a right royal pain in the ass...
     
  17. falcongeorge
    Joined: Aug 26, 2010
    Posts: 18,341

    falcongeorge
    Member
    from BC

    May as well throw this out there too, Rail rockers came out in '67.
     
  18. Master of None
    Joined: Dec 18, 2009
    Posts: 2,279

    Master of None
    Member

    Well as far as the engine that was is my question, it is for sure a 63(thanks for the link Jeffb2). As far as i know and was told it has a new Elebrock cam that matches the intake. Its hydraulic so I'm going to have to run the pre 65 styled rockers.But I will keep the suggested trick in mind. Thanks again to all that responded, I'm slowly becoming more Ford savvy.
     
  19. David Chandler
    Joined: Jan 27, 2007
    Posts: 1,101

    David Chandler
    Member

    Well I stand corrected on the first year of the 289's. But I did own a 63 F100 that had a 292 Y block in it. However I do recall it had a sort of funny looking front mount on it, that was attached to the frame just behind the radiator. It was about the only thing that wasn't coated in black slime when I got it. I looked like stainless and stamped, not welded together. ???? Some sort of universal conversion mount?
     
  20. havi
    Joined: Dec 30, 2008
    Posts: 1,876

    havi
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Yeah, the Y block was in trucks up through 1964. The first 5 years of the 1960's, Ford had just about everything coming and going with engines.
     
  21. HOT40ROD
    Joined: Jun 16, 2006
    Posts: 961

    HOT40ROD
    Member
    from Easton, Pa

    Ford did have a two 289 in 1963. The first was a 189 Hp. 2V hydraulic lifter regular fuel 9.0:1 compression. The second was a 210 Hp. 4V mechanical tappet 9.0:1 compression with screw-in rocker studs. It was also known as the Hi-Po.

    The block numbers were. 2V- C3OE-N, 4V- C3OE-B Both blocks had the wider 7 inch motor mount bolt pattern with the 5 bolt bellhousing.

    As for rockers for these motors. That have to have the with out the side rails. This early heads had push rod guide plates cast in the cylinder heads. Later (1966) round holes were the push rods went through and the motor relied on the rockers to hold everything in place.

    Head numbers are. C3AE-F, C3OE-E, C3OE-F.
     
  22. HOT40ROD
    Joined: Jun 16, 2006
    Posts: 961

    HOT40ROD
    Member
    from Easton, Pa

    Forgot the pictures of the rockers. The one on the left is the later style rocker 1966 on up. The one on the right is the early rocker
     

    Attached Files:

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.