Two part question… The 289 was available only in the first half of the model year or second half? Why was the 289 2V put in the 1968 when originally it was announced it would be dropped?
Second half, and they ran out of 302’s…???
I thought it was available the entire time, but where the 302 was supposed to become the standard engine for the model year, it was only so for the beginning, after which point the 289 became the standard engine again (for non-XR7’s) because there were not enough 302’s.
Here’s where I got that idea from:
http://www.classiccougar.com/7_Extras/engineguide/engineguide.html
Scroll down to the section for 1968
“One is that Ford might have been running out of the new 302 engines.” Common myth but erroneous…
First half.
As I understand it, the 302 was originally intended for the standard engine in larger cars like LTD and Montego and optional in the Mustang and Cougar. Production problems with the 302 early on prevented this from happening. As the problems were ironed out, the 289 was dropped and the 302 2V became the standard powerplant with the 302 4V optional.
Well, so much for my W.A.G…LOL
Sorry, that is incorrect. I will answer the first part of the question now. The 289 was not available in 1968 until later in the year. They were not 1967 “leftovers” as they all are dated coded for 1968.
I will wager a guess. The 302 became the step up engine in the Decore group, and also the XR7. The 289 was a part of the cost cutting campaign following the strike of '67. The 302 went the same way as the rear arm rests, rocker panel moldings and windshield pillar padding.
My guess. Ford ran out of 289 blocks in the first half of the model year '68 forcing the change to the also produced 302. Later in the '68 model year they came across additional 289 blocks to finish out the run. My first Cougar, a very standard '68 had one of those 289’s.
Sorry… Way off. Your hint is Nova / Barracuda pricing.
The 302 was intended as the std engine in 68, but due to the UAW strike, they shorted out on 302 engines, the result was to go to a 289 as std engine in all std Cougar´s, and the 302 became the std engine for the XR7 Cougar´s
Sounds plausible but no. Keep in mind it cost the same to cast a 289 as a 302 and they were made in the same foundries.
Hmmmm…ran out of pistons/cranks for a 302?? (Aren’t the blocks the same? )
I did some checking and C code 289-2V engines started appearing in January of 1968, but only in standard model Cougars, no XR7’s.
C code Mustangs are a dime a dozen, but they didn’t get F code 302-2V’s (except for 3 according to Kevin Marti).
Those in marketing realized they were missing out on potential sales by not having a similar priced 1968 Cougar to compete with the likes of Barracuda and Nova so in Jan. 1 a lower cost standard model Cougar was introduced. Here is a link to the updated insert for the dealer promotional guide.
What would the cost savings have been to install a 289 vs a 302? I can see leaving things off, like arm rests and pillar padding to increase profit margins. Marketing has a way of spinning a bad situation into a positive appearing one.
This sounds good, but they didn’t lower the price.
Ford was in a very bad place following the strike of '67 in that they were being forced to add content by the new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard and the new smog requirements, and at the same time they had a huge increase in cost under the new UAW contract. Historically Ford was able to raise prices to cover increased costs, but the market was already sluggish and their profit margins had been falling well before the strike. Add in the loss of production and sales of maybe as much as 600,000 vehicles and they were desperate to find a way to squeeze a little bit more profit out of the cars they were building.
I guess if that’s your theory, and I’m not saying you’re wrong, you would need to support it with cost comparisons between a base model with a 289 versus a base model with a 302. And they would need to be compared with the cost of the comparable GM and Mopars that they were supposed to compete with.
Since the 289 and 302 used mostly the same components, I’m not really sure how there would be any cost savings by using a 289 rather than a 302.
Yeah but again Bill, what is the real savings? I think it’s a much simpler explanation like using up the 289’s. 1968 was the last year for them correct?
I know this won’t make sense from a common sense standpoint, but…
The tooling for the 289 was fully amortized, and developed at lower cost than the tooling for the 302 which was still considered a new engine at the time. Keep in mind the tooling would have been for lots of different parts. So from an accounting perspective, and that is what counts, the cost of the 289 would be less than the 302, even if they were identical in terms of materials and labor. Then to understand the importance of it you would have to think of it terms of the effect of saving $5 to $10 times say 50,000 cars. ($250K to $500K).
I have read that there were about 25 man hours of labor per car. So if the caost of labor went up by $0.50 per hour, they would need to offset that with $12.50 in savings.