My Street 289 build

[Dan Case]

Originally Posted by Ivygreen65

Larry,

Thanks for pointing that out. Looking at what I considered fairly original cars, I have seen the PCV on both sides.

All original CSX2xxx, COB60xx, and COX60xx Cobras with 1964-65 street engines had the PCV system on the left side (driver’s side for LHD cars) of the engine. The obvious reason was the close proximity of coolant expansion tanks restricting the area around the oil fill / crankcase vent cap.

CSX2xxx Cars & 1964 Model Year Production Engines (assembled August 1963 through July 1964)
Received the same PCV valve (note 1), ring tag, and brass elbow any “1964” Fairlane 260/289/HP289 engine received. Shelby’s engine installers added aluminum tubes and ancillaries to make the left side valve location work in 4V and 2-4V induction cars. CSX21xx something through CSX2200 cars only received factory installed dress up aluminum covers if somebody specifically ordered them. Other wise chromium plated 1964 covers were standard and engine installers removed them and installed them with new gaskets on opposite sides as Ford delivered them.

CSX2xxx Cars & 1964 Special Order HP289 Five Bolt Engines (Cobra only) were made in August 1964 after regular production had gotten underway and they used the first version (note 2) of 1965 model year valve like any other 289/HP289 engine. The Ford PCV hose was cut and an elbow end remained as a connection for the valve in the rocker arm cover.

CSX2xxx Cars & 1965 Model Year Special Fairlane Automatic Transmission HP289 Engines were assembled in September 1964. They received the same valve and engine installation modifications as the 1964 Special Order engines.

Note 1: There were two Cobra related versions of assembly line valves for 1964. The original design was used at least as far as CSX2171 and CSX2190. (Remember when the engine was made dictated which valve was installed and not the VIN number of the car the engine went into.) I have seen the first design offered as Ford service parts. The second design was an assembly line (Ford’s Cleveland facility) only part never offered as a service part. To obtain one, means find a good used original. CSX2205 is to date the earliest chassis known to have gotten the second design of valve. In either case, the brass elbow fitting was used in all 1964 model 260/289/HP289 engines.

Note 2: There was just one Cobra related 1965 model year valve and I have never found one offered as a service part. Ford used multiple versions of valves in new 289/HP289 engines between July 1964 and about July 1965. Ford offered more than one version of service part as replacements. The hardest version to find in any condition, the one used early in the 1965 model year that Cobras with automatic transmissions used.


Side Bar: Even the best unrestored Cobras usually exhibit about 50 to 150 non-stock details gained over decades of time. I am not sure what you mean by "fairly original" but many cars considered 'original' have hundreds of non-stock details if one counts all the post production changes that are not like what the cars were sold new like.

[Ivygreen65]

Dan,

As always, thank you for sharing your wealth of knowledge. Having restored a couple of early Mustangs to MCA gold standards using correct assembly line and date coded parts, I know the headaches / misery / depleted cash that comes with that. That is why I'm enjoying this car so much - I can get the details close, but I don't have to lose sleep over them.

Regarding your sidebar, I'm always collecting photos of what I consider "minimally restored" cars and details. After reading your posts and exchanging emails, I know how most of these cars do not have many original parts left. My goal is to avoid some of the glaring things I see wrong on "100% correct" restorations. Even with the small amount that I have learned, it can be surprising how wrong some highly touted restored cars are.

Now, humbly, I'm off to swap sides on my valve covers.

[Dan Case]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/15567578981...Bk9SR6zA9cSuYg

[Ivygreen65]

Thank you, Dan.

[Dan Case]

Originally Posted by Ivygreen65

Thank you, Dan.

You are welcome.

[LMH]

I just ran across this in case your other deal fell through. It's not mine and I have no connection to the seller. Just passing it along.
Larry

https://www.ebay.com/itm/166287892717

[Ivygreen65]

Thanks for keeping me in mind, Larry. I made (IMHO) a pretty strong offer for the one that Dan had noted, but came up short. So, I decided to take a little control over my destiny and found an alternate. This will work for my little 289. I still have to switch the sides of my valve covers and correctly plumb the valve, but I’m good with the fitting.

[LMH]

Looks good!
Larry

[Ivygreen65]

Got the lump dropped in today. Time to start seeing if everything that I THINK will fit in the engine bay actually DOES fit in the engine bay.

[Ivygreen65]

And - no, the car isn’t on a rotisserie. Not sure why my pic is rotated.

[1795]

I can't recall if I mentioned this to you, but when you get to the point that you are actually installing the engine for good, you will have to drop the driver's side header in first before putting the engine in. The steering shaft and pedal box interfere with it going in after. You should be able to fit the passenger side in after. If your forward struts to the front tower are permanent (as opposed to removable) you may need to drop the passenger side header in prior to the engine as well. It is a tight fit.

Gas-N makes headers for the original frame 289's that are really nice. Good luck.

Jim

[Ivygreen65]

Originally Posted by 1795

I can't recall if I mentioned this to you, but when you get to the point that you are actually installing the engine for good, you will have to drop the driver's side header in first before putting the engine in. The steering shaft and pedal box interfere with it going in after. You should be able to fit the passenger side in after. If your forward struts to the front tower are permanent (as opposed to removable) you may need to drop the passenger side header in prior to the engine as well. It is a tight fit.

Gas-N makes headers for the original frame 289's that are really nice. Good luck.

Jim

Jim,

I always appreciate your input. My headers are a bastardized version of SBF shorty headers that I hope will work. They make a 90* turn at the collector and sneak over the frame rail on their way past the footbox. Tomorrow I'll see how well they fit after mock-up.

[old willy]

Hello again,

I was just getting caught up on your posts, it looks amazing BTW....

Perhaps I missed it earlier but I wanted to ask about your electric fan, you posted a picture on your wiring update and I like to look of it.
So what is it exactly?
Is this from a production car or is it aftermarket? It's a nice large size and the thin blades should not restrict airflow too much when it is not running.
I was originally planning on going with a modern behind the rad setup but it really looks wrong for the car, but the original style fans are not very efficient, yours appears to be a much better option.

Good luck with the exhaust fit up, I recently posted of my exhaust fabricating adventures, I modified a set of SBF block hugger style headers for mine. Jim was also kind enough to point out the place the headers in first tip to me as well.

Keep up the amazing work, it's an inspiration that helps keep me going with my project




.

[Ivygreen65]

The fan & motor that I'm using are an upgrade for early Jag XKEs.

https://www.coolcatcorp.com/Merchant...tegory_Code=CS

I have the Lucas fan motor and the lawnmower blade that attaches to it, but wanted a more efficient solution (especially seeing the weight and amp draw of the Lucas motor & blade). I found the CoolCat product and it looked like it checked all the boxes. It even mounts in the bracket I fabricated for the Lucas motor.

I'm getting closer to being able to run it. Once I do, I'll report back.

[old willy]

Thank you for the link,

I really think that might be the best compromise for looks and cooling performance.
I am sure a puller fan is still more efficient but it would look so out of place in a “vintage” engine bay.
I will keep watching your posts and trying to catch up on my build.

Cheers,
Hudson




.

[Harpoon PV2]

Originally Posted by old willy

Thank you for the link,

I really think that might be the best compromise for looks and cooling performance.
I am sure a puller fan is still more efficient but it would look so out of place in a “vintage” engine bay.
I will keep watching your posts and trying to catch up on my build.

Cheers,
Hudson




.

On small blocks, the fans bounced around from front, to back, then front again. Also, various makes, Lucas and American brands. Some of the race cars had two. Cheers, Dennis

[Ivygreen65]

The engine is in and full of oil. Making sure all the coolant lines are on and clamped. Getting close to trying to start it.

[LMH]

Originally Posted by Ivygreen65

The engine is in and full of oil. Making sure all the coolant lines are on and clamped. Getting close to trying to start it.

Looks good! You know eventually you'll have to change the air cleaner to correct type 'double hump' style assembly!

Larry

[Ivygreen65]

Yeah, I know the later style Hipo lid isn't correct, but I had it on a shelf and am using it to see if the hood is going to close using a 1" carb spacer. I'll get the correct lid eventually, but this one works for now.

[jolsen42]

Anything new?

John O