Original Road Car Engine specifications

[JimmyMac]

Bob,
The 289 XE engine is heavier than the HiPo and the Boss 302.

The rotating parts in the HiPo and Boss engines are skinny compared to the GT40 XE.
Have a look at some rods below for comparison.

The C5FE and SK Rods shown in the photos are true GT40 engine parts and in my XE.
The lighter yellow painted rods are in my HiPo and are a bit heavier than standard 289/302 versions. The Boss and HiPo versions are virtually the same rods with the exception of differing shaped heads on the studs..

 

[Scott Calabro]

Some slight drift.....

It's always been my understanding that the only difference between a standard 289 rod and Hi Po (K code) rods, was that the Hi Po rods had 3/8 bolts as opposed to 5/16.

Also the crankshafts are the same, except that the Hi Po crank was hardness checked and verified by a stamp.

Am I in error?

 

[Keith]

This might help you.....

Andy

Well, you learn something new everyday. I had no idea that a 4 bolt block was available to the racing teams back then. This knowledge makes it all the more irritating that Ford repeatedly refused to modify the head gaskets for racing, resulting in most of small block racing retirements (those due to engine failure). I believe that many small blocks that did go the distance were modified by the addition of Cooper Rings, at least by JWA..

Also, the option of 2x4 barrel carbs for a 289? How on earth was the small block engine going to use that much carb? What was the thinking behind that?

 

[steve]

Gentlemen, please feel free to edit as necessary.

This is my understanding:

1965 LeMans C5AE-6015-A 271 HP block;
1966 LeMans C6AE-6015-A 2 bolt block w robusted webbing and caps;
1967 LeMans XE136505 four bolt block, enhanced webs, pressed plugs:
1968 LeMans C8AE-6015-A TB o-ring dry deck /C8AE-6015-B wet deck;

From here it goes to the Boss 302:

1969 had both C8AE-6015-B, C9ZE-6015-A w screwed plugs;
1970 D0ZE-6015-A, similar to C9ZE above;
1971 302C service, D1ZE-6015BA

I run a D1ZE. (I purchased a 302C service motor 40+ yrs ago). The D1ZE was said to have a thicker deck. It has the two (blank) casting pads similar to a Boss production block on the RH front and aft valley, screw plugs.

Re: the connecting rods. I ran Boss 302 TA rods which looked quite similar, except lack of bearing replacement proved to be a problem.

Steve

 

[JimmyMac]

Keith,
Picture of my ringed heads below. These were prepared by Valley Head Services Cal. for a Shelby C6FE engine.
They also brazed up the waterways.

Scott,
Correct.
The HiPo crank was from the same mould but tested as you say and it also had a special counterweight added.
Pictures of an extremely rare NOS crank which I put into the HiPo along with those rods above.
It is so rare insomuch that it has a complete set of the foundry inspection marks including the hardness stamp.

 

[Jac Mac]

Well, you learn something new everyday. I had no idea that a 4 bolt block was available to the racing teams back then. This knowledge makes it all the more irritating that Ford repeatedly refused to modify the head gaskets for racing, resulting in most of small block racing retirements (those due to engine failure). I believe that many small blocks that did go the distance were modified by the addition of Cooper Rings, at least by JWA..

Also, the option of 2x4 barrel carbs for a 289? How on earth was the small block engine going to use that much carb? What was the thinking behind that?

Picky Corner head gaskets were never really the problem, bolts(7/16) and head deck thickness were real culprits, relatively simple cure in both cases, drill/ tap block for 1/2" UNC(351w bolts) and fit studs/props inside water jackets to deter head flex as reqd, only works on early 289/302w & 302 Boss blocks, no good for later 302 blocks where head bolts go thru to water, bean counters stuffed all those by saving too much cast iron .