My son’s 68 Mustang Fastback was a C code 289 2V. #200841 built in Metuchen NJ. Plain Jane Maroon/black vinyl bare bones car. We were surprised it was a 289 car although it had a newer 302 when he got it. And quite a few boxes of rust as well. LOL.
Wow! This has turned out to be a very productive thread! Without going through all my salesman training materials (filmstrips, LP’s, binders) I am going to concede that the facts have probably gone murky in my mind… I think the question should have been “Why did Mercury introduce a lower level model for 68?” And the answer would be to fill a gap in their product line to better compete with the competition. I like Bill’s theory on the amortization, I just assumed it was like so many products where they create several product levels with graduated pricing and reality is it costs no more to make one than the other and in some cases the “deluxe” actually costs less to produce! This thread is a great example of how accurate a forum community can be when several people bring a piece of the puzzle to the table.
I had always been told that the 302 was introduced to replace the 289 to compensate for the loss in power with the introduction of emissions equipment. Union strikes and problems with tooling prevented the 302 to be introduced in 1968 so the 289 was carried over into the first part of that year (even though the engine blocks were 302 castings).
302’s were made in Cleveland, 289’s were made in Windsor, CN.
As far as using “leftover” 289’s, I believe a company as large as Ford would have a good enough accounting department that only as many 289’s as there were 67 cars produced. Any “leftover” parts would be put in the parts netowrk or written off and scrapped.
To add to what Art added…
I think that there was movement to a 5 liter engine size to coincide with what was going on in racing.
“What wins on Sunday, sells on Monday”
I understand what you’re saying Art, but what I was thinking in this case was because of the much lower production in '67 due to the strike. Even the most well run companies likely would not have anticipated that well.
Strike (or was it fire?) at engine/casting plant. They had surplus 289s in stock.
Who was it that said the simplest solution is usually the truth?
That would be William of Ockham, the guy known for Occam’s Razor.
Somewhere I read that the 289’s went into the 68 base models and the 302’s went into the XR7’s with a 4v option …I’m a newbee so I don’t know what’s going to happen when I click on the submit button.
Hi Bev and welcome!
You are correct about the XR7 getting the 302 2V. The Standard also got the 302 2V if you ordered the Decore package. The 302 2V was to be the base engine for all Cougars in '68 according to the sales brochures, but after production started Mercury dropped the 302 and reinstated the 289 in base level Cougar standards. The Super Cougar 302 4V was an option available in everything but the GT-E and GT models.
I didn’t know I had a Super Cougar!!!
But were there also some late 67 models, like the XR7 have a 302 in them? Also there are the same issues with the 351 windsor and cleveland, I found a 70 XR7 with a windsor…
It is true that in 1970 (only) a 351 2V (H code) Cougar could come from the factory with either a 351C or 351W.
But there are no documented '67s with 302 engines, just as there are no documented “late-production” '69s with 351Cs. You’ll find no shortage of folks claiming that they “used to have” such a car, or their brother-in-law’s cousin has one in his garage, but every time it comes down to proof, such as period photos or paperwork, or showing engine parts correctly date-coded for the build-date of the car, the claims invariably evaporate.
But then there was not supposed to be a 427 in cougar but a GTE.
True enough. But extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. The documented existence of this or that oddball Cougar doesn’t prove that some other “impossible” combination was ever actually done.
With Marti having the database, it should take all of about two minutes to set up a query that would identify every combination of options that ever occurred, including stuff like this.
The book Cougar by the Numbers by Kevin does answer the '67 302 question, and it is a no. The 302 2V was an F code engine. There were no '67’s built with an F code in the VIN.
Now what causes a lot of confusion is the model year of the car, and the registration year of the car can be different. For example a '68 model year Cougar (VIN starts with an 8) is actually built in 1967, and registered in 1967. The title may show the year as 1967 so people think they have '67 model.
The situation with the 351 Windsor and Cleveland is slightly different. The '69 351 2V Windsor and '70 351 2V Windsors, and 351 2V Clevelands were called H codes. The '69 351 4V Windsor and '70 351 4V Clevelands were called M codes. Since the same codes were used in the VIN it is more difficult to decode.
I know this is a long dead topic, but did anyone consider the whole “I don’t trust a 302” theory ? A lot of people think the old stuff is better, so this new 302 may’ve been hurting sales as the 289 was no longer available. So they brought it back in the hopes of improving that base line sale with a “tried and true” motor ?
We laugh now as the 302 has quite a reputation, especially in 5.0L form, but at the time it would’ve been touted as a new motor and change is hard …
Just my $.02
wish
In 1972 I bought a 68 XR7 with a 302 4V. After some drag strip time several pushrods bent. Went to NAPA - 68 302 here you go. Put them in and they were loose no matter the torquing. Pulled out an original straight one and lined them up and the new ones were shorter, back to NAPA with the old one. They only listed the ones they sold. Over to the Ford dealer and the parts guy measures the rod and says you have an early 302 that has a slightly higher deck height. After a week wait for the warehouse they fit right in. Back to the strip!
There’s also the rumor floating around the net about the bottom of the bore on the early 302 being brittle and coming apart and 289 being put in as service replacements. Whatever the case, I like owning a '68 standard with a 289 and having people tell me that I couldn’t possibly have the original engine because the 289 was mothballed by '68.