Hello gang.
Name is Andy- handle is mildlyamused. I am new to this forum and fairly new to the Cougar community.
My question is this. I purchased a 1968 Cougar Base yesterday with an ID plate and a Marti report stating that the cat was built with a 289 2v motor. However- and let me be clear here that I believe the Gentleman I bought the car from whole heartedly-that the engine is a 302. He states that upon rebuild of the engine a few years ago that the Crank was a 302 and he was told that all the internals match a 302 2v engine as well.
Is this even possible. Would the engine plant have used a 289 block and started putting 302 internals in it while “running out” 289 parts in early 1968 builds?
Also- how does one tell if the car had a VINYL top or a PAINTED roof from the factory?
Fist off welcome to the Classic Cougar Community. In regards to swapping parts from the factory on the 289 and the 302 I don’t think that would happen. There are reports of 1968 Cougars having 289’s and I think that had to do with the automotive strike and the availability of engines during the strike. I’m sure someone else will offer more information in reference to the engine stuff. In regards to the vinyl top vs. painted top on your Cougar that should be called out on the Marti report. Cougars were available with vinyl and two tone painted tops. Both versions will have the trim at the lower portion of the roof along the trunk and C posts. I have also sent you a welcome email with a lot of great information for a new Cougar owner.
Steven
Sounds like the engine was swapped out at some point.
I have a document in my files (somewhere) with a date in October or November 67.
Among other things it states that there will be a change at that all non XR-7 Cougars ordered with a 302 and 2V carb, will have a 289 and 2V carb instead.
Found it.
Product notice 68.pdf (645 KB)
My '68 is a factory 289 2v which it still has. I had read in another place, can’t quite remember where I read it or if it was accurate, but it was stated that there was a core shift problem with early 302s and that 289s were used in their stead. If that statement is wrong, please don’t beat me up for it as I am only forwarding what I read somewhere. That site also stated that the 302 had a little deeper bore which was the problem area that was failing.
Like I said, I don’t know how accurate that statement is and I will talk to my retired Ford bud in Tennessee as he was working there at the time.
I actually own one of those 22K+ base Cougars originally equipped with a 289, as pointed out in the attachment that Scott posted. My car has the base interior and was produced in July, so it fits the pattern mentioned in the mid-year update. (If a standard car was ordered with the Decor Group after January or so, it got the 302; otherwise, the 289.) FYI, if you liked the base interior you could still option up to a 302 after the mid-year change – don’t have the mid-year price list handy but recall it was not very expensive.
And, I agree with Al Bundy – the car likely had it’s engine rebuilt/changed over it’s life.