I was looking at a 64.5 mustang that had an F code Vin but had a 289 engine (also had the 289 logo on teh front quater panels). The owner said it was correct as the 260 was ready yet or something like that when the car was made. It sounded like a bunch of BS to me. Is there any other reason why a 289 would be in an F code car other than someone along the way wanted a better engine in the car. In other words, Ford didn't do this for any reason did they?
Posts: 2035
Joined: 9/5/2006 From: Barossa Valley, South Australia Status: offline
f = 260
I'm pretty sure if it were a 289 it would have been C (2v) or D (4v) in a 64 1/2 this reverted to C, A, or K for 65 - 67.
_____________________________
quote:
A 2007 study found on average Australians walk 900 miles a year. We drink 26 gallons of beer. That means, on average, Australians get about 34 miles per gallon. Not bad hey!
funny story. check on the datestam of the engineblock, if that says 66 then you know it's BS. But i can't verify that story and I don't really believe it either the datestamp is when you stand in front of the engine just to the front of the driver's side head (between ditributor and oilpressure sensor). it's stamped on a little flange. first digit designates the year
_____________________________
1964 1/2 289 2bbl (autolite 2100) with holley headers and flowmaster 40s new: Quick Performance Racing 9" rear, Moser axles, 3.5:1 trac loc from FRPP and T5. CSRP disc brakes front and FRPP discs back. New wheels and tyres
Printable Version
289 Engine in an F Code Vin??? - 
