1 2
redvalkyrie
redvalkyrie Reader
7/22/21 2:52 p.m.

I went by the Falcon,  swapped out a flat tire so It's be less likely to draw attention at the storage facility.  Then I placed an outdoor version of a California Car Cover to put it to bed until it cools off.  Luckily,  The owners' parked their onsite rv there and their smaller trailer on the opposite side so there should be few door digs.

Got the hood open and this is what I found.  Missing emblems--which I'm in market for.  The mystery engine appears to be 289 with either different heads or simply different valve covers.  Two barrel was a bit of a bummer but easy to fix.

  

redvalkyrie
redvalkyrie Reader
7/22/21 3:00 p.m.

redvalkyrie
redvalkyrie Reader
7/22/21 3:03 p.m.

In reply to californiamilleghia :

You recommend 17" x 8" wheels?  I noticed the 15: wheels would not look correct.  They look fine on smaller cars--Toyotas--but not a Falson.c

redvalkyrie
redvalkyrie Reader
7/22/21 3:05 p.m.

In reply to Will :

It is indeed a 65

DarkMonohue
DarkMonohue Reader
7/22/21 3:20 p.m.

15s are totally appropriate. That car probably came with 13" wheels on it when new!

 

 

MadScientistMatt
MadScientistMatt UltimaDork
7/23/21 7:16 a.m.
DarkMonohue said:

15s are totally appropriate. That car probably came with 13" wheels on it when new!

 

 

Yep, small wheelwells on these cars. 15" ones typically look aggressive on something like a Falcon; 17" wheels are going to look like it's on dubs.

redvalkyrie
redvalkyrie Reader
7/23/21 11:02 a.m.

In reply to MadScientistMatt :

Thank you, sir.  I was going to run 15"s to start but 17" also looks good when done right butI prefer 15" wheels if possible.

The car came with 14" stock.

redvalkyrie
redvalkyrie Reader
7/23/21 11:08 a.m.

 

Can anyone identify these brakes as factory or something else?  I was under the impression 3 three column shifters came with drums all around...but it is a Futura model with a 289 badge.  

No real clue on the engine either.   I'm assuming it's a 289 with a two barrel.  However,  did the 289 blocks that fit the 3 speed column shift also fit later five speeds like perhaps out of foxbody?  I read somewhere the bell housing bolt pattern is different but I "think" that's only on the 260 V8.   Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks

John 

MadScientistMatt
MadScientistMatt UltimaDork
7/23/21 12:20 p.m.

Explorer rear axles with the long side shortened are pretty popular with Mopar A-bodies, with a similar track width. Strong axle and it gets you rear discs.

Or you could go the Sean Korb route and stuff an Mk II Supra IRS under there. devil

wawazat
wawazat Dork
7/23/21 3:44 p.m.

I am trying to finish a TKO-600 swap on my 351 Cleveland powered '69 Cougar so Ive been living this stuff for a while now.  My car was originally a 3 speed floor shift car.  I'm using an aluminum T5 bellhousing from a Fox Mustang along with the corresponding clutch/flywheel/pressure plate system (10.5", 157 tooth), block plate and starter).  These components are different from the cast iron bellhousing, 164 tooth, 11" stock stuff on the car originally.  I was planning on going down this path originally then elected to pull the Z bar and replace with hydraulic clutch stuff which I found would be easier with the T5 bellhousing.   I'm happy to offer any advice if you're interested.  I also have a build thread on my Cougar here.

I do have a California Pony Cars cross member for a Mustang which I didn't use as the T5 bellhousing is  different depth than the OEM cast iron bell.   

03Panther
03Panther UltraDork
7/24/21 7:18 p.m.
redvalkyrie said:

 

Can anyone identify these brakes as factory or something else?  I was under the impression 3 three column shifters came with drums all around...but it is a Futura model with a 289 badge.  

No real clue on the engine either.   I'm assuming it's a 289 with a two barrel.  However,  did the 289 blocks that fit the 3 speed column shift also fit later five speeds like perhaps out of foxbody?  I read somewhere the bell housing bolt pattern is different but I "think" that's only on the 260 V8.   Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks

John 

Being a 64-65 falcon fanatic back in the late 70's, I don't remember any square body falcon having discs from the factory. I did have a falcon that had a set of mustang front discs on it... even the mustang discs were fairly rare. I think Granada discs may have made it on some early cars as well. I've seen some 4 lug (6 cyl) cars with either 13 or 14" rims from the factory, and some 5 lug (v8) cars with either 13 or 14". No clue what options got what. 
IIRC, after 65 the 289 got the 6 bolt (I think) bell... but early 289 engines did have the 5 bolt bell. As well as the 260 and earlier. I had a 63 Galaxy with an early 289, but the falcon didn't get the 289 till 65 (except as an option on a 64 wagon)

Short version, your 65 would've come with a 5 bolt bell 289, and 5 lug drums all around, with either 13" or 14" rims. 

redvalkyrie
redvalkyrie Reader
7/25/21 2:56 p.m.

In reply to 03Panther :

Thank you, sir.  Your unformation, as well as everyone elses',  has been a big help

On the brakes...from what you say Mustang or Granada discs made it onto the car.  If you look at the engine bay it has a dual channel master cylinder.  I know that's not stock...right?

redvalkyrie
redvalkyrie Reader
7/27/21 2:34 p.m.

It looks like Maverick brakes and master cylinder made it onto the car at some point.  Now I'm really curious about the engine.  I know my uncle had a hard time finding spark plugs...he was old and had had a stroke so he didn't think to take the old plugs in with him.  I imagine he asked for 65 Falcon plugs.   Is there another Ford V8 from that era that would have used different spark plugs?

 

Thanks

John

stukndapast
stukndapast Reader
7/27/21 2:46 p.m.

You could take a look for visible part numbers on the intake manifold, and maybe pull a valve cover and see the head number. That will tell you what year (or very close) the engine is from.  If the PN starts with a C it is 1960's, D 1970's, E 1980's.  So if the intake PN starts with C8XX- it is an 1968 manifold.  Same with the head PN's and block.  Distributor too should have a visible PN.  There were years that Ford carried over parts, but it wasn't usually for more than a year.  The valve covers on that engine don't look like they are 1964 or 65 time frame.  I don't recall seeing the squared off covers with the Ford logo that early.  I think that style started around 1967.  Disk brakes and dual master are definitely later parts.

RevolverRob
RevolverRob Reader
7/28/21 2:22 p.m.

Rear Axle:

Used stock car parts. You'll find a number of stock car rear ends out there from 55-60" hub-to-hub; 57" is perfect for early Fords (pre-67). Don't waste time trying to find a Versaille rear end, you won't. They didn't build many Versailles to begin with and they're basically all crushed now.

I wouldn't bother shortening an 8.8, none of the 8.8s Ford ever built are narrow enough. An Explorer 8.8 is the narrowest and it is still 6" too wide. By the time you futz with it, money won't be saved. While there is technically space to have a wider axle up to 60", you'd do better to err on the side of narrower, not wider. The rear wheel wells will limit you tire wise with a 57" axle to 225s. If you go 55" you can get 255s under the car by rolling the fenders. A 60" axle is going to make you run an odd offset wheel and you'll probably only be able to get 205s under the car.

If you're a junkyard cruiser, look for a good 9" center section and order a housing to your width from Speedway and cut-to-fit (short) axles. For ~$6-700 or so you can have your 9" that fits perfect under the car.

Edit A couple of Hours Later to Add:

Check your rear axle, I'd bet money if the car codes as a 289 car it has an 8" rear axle. They only put 9" in HiPo (K-Code) cars (in '65), but C-Code cars typically got 8" axles. You could easily rebuild the 8" with 31-spline axles and a limited slip and unless you're in the habit of doing clutch drops with 500 ft/lbs of torque on tap, you're not likely to break it.

You can check it easy, if it has a drop out center section, it is an 8" or 9", if the center section is integral and there is a cover on the rear it's the smaller 7.25" rear axle. To determine if it is an 8" vs. 9" (they look similar from the eye), use a socket. If the center section nut at 6'oclock can have a socket put on it, it's an 8", if you can only get a wrench on it, it's a 9".

___

Brakes:

Square Body Falcons did have discs available. All of the '64 and '65 Sprints did and they were an option from the factory.

However, this is a later conversion. All Ford front disc calipers used in the Falcon/Mustang/Comet/Cougar/Fairlane from '64-67 were 4-piston Kelsey-Hayes. In '68 they went to a single piston design, these are the single piston design. That's a '68-later setup and it could be from almost anything, later Falcon, Mustang, Cougar, Comet, Maverick, Grenada, Versaille, etc.

Dual bowl master cylinder wasn't standard until '66/'67, so that's also a conversion. Though a common one when swapping to front disc brakes. Edit: Every single Ford master cylinder from 1960-1995 for cars and light trucks have the same master cylinder footprint. So it's no uncommon to find a later MC on an older car. If you need an MC they are easy to get.

__

Valve Covers:


Those are late '60s square/pent-roof style. Commonly found on Mustang/Falcons/Torinos/F-series trucks. When sand blasted and cleaned up, they look great wearing a coat of Ford Blue. But originals would have been round top and probably Autolite Gold.

___

Bolt pattern on block:

5-bolt blocks were used in '63/'64 across all 221s, all 260s, and on early 289s. I haven't seen a '65 with a 5-bolt block, they went to the 6-bolt late in '64 early in '65. The 6-bolt is the same pattern as all other SBFs from subsequen generations. If it turns out it is a 5-bolt block, Modern Driveline makes a bellhousing conversion to mate it up to a T5.

If you want to do a T5 swap, save your pennies and order the kit from Modern Driveline. The shifter of a Mustang T5 will come out too far to the rear, directly next to or even behind you. Then you're in the bag for doing a tailshaft swap to a forward mounted shifter S10 tailshaft. I've been there and gotten the t-shirt, these parts are getting HARD to find (like a Versaille rear axle). Guys who are talking about their conversions were buying parts 20-25 years ago now, today the expensive of finding the parts and DIY'ing a conversion just doesn't make financial sense, unless you happen to have or know of where to find the parts.

___

I know it isn't the most 'grassroots' way of doing things to throw money at the problem, but when it comes to classic Fords all the parts, upgrades, etc are available and relatively inexpensive compared to other marques.

I miss working on these old Fords, I've had two Mercs (Comet and Cougar) and a Mustang. One of these days, I'll get another, I almost had the Mrs fully onboard with a Falcon Ranchero. But I really need to focus on one project at a time and four cars for two people is one too many (I know that's GRM antithetical too).

redvalkyrie
redvalkyrie Reader
8/20/21 12:14 p.m.

In reply to RevolverRob :

Wow!  Knowledge drop!

The engine is good--I just hasn't been I figured out the engine is from a 1980 Mustang...but it's still a Windsor which I plan to pull, rebuild with all the good budget parts.  So,  at least I have a good base ro start on the engine.

It was a original 289 car so I imagine it still has the stock rear but who knows with this thing.  If it comes out to less than a classic 8"...I was planning to rob a foxbody Mustang--take the the five speed (maybe) and the rear end. What's your poinion on that?

Thank you,

John

 

1 2
Our Preferred Partners
s86ioudepmvOjCa1DHtBuj7Gh49QOE7luni31FXyS1ykZK07kx0JyJKxeAblxAc9