Topic: Early 67 289 Starter Details (ink stamp type)

[67gtasanjose]

Any pictures of unrestored starters would be great. Details I wish to see include the small block ink stamp for Auto Trans car, paint transition or fade to the aluminum nose cone to try and duplicate factory details (maybe make an ink stamp too?)

Build date of 11/2/1966

Somehow I get the feeling this ink stamped version (below) is generic, not correct

[J_Speegle]

Ok - lets deal with the finish/paint detail first Some examples that have been posted in other threads

[J_Speegle]

Any pictures of unrestored starters would be great. Details I wish to see include the small block ink stamp for Auto Trans car, paint transition or fade to the aluminum nose cone to try and duplicate factory details (maybe make an ink stamp too?)

Build date of 11/2/1966

Somehow I get the feeling this ink stamped version (below) is generic, not correct

The stamp on the starter in your picture looks like someone took the current reproduction sticker and had a stamp made from that. IMHO not even close in many ways.

From earlier discussions we see that the ink stamp and stamping into the metal case likely overlapped for a number of months - different plants doing different practices for a while.  Latest AUTOLITE ink stamp examples I've seen was May 67. Those starter likely were installed on cars during June and possibly into July or later.

http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=11000.msg66530#msg66530

For your application I do have a Oct 66 stamped starter picture which indicates that by that date the supplier had moved from the FoMoCO stamp design to the AUTOLITE design.

[67gtasanjose]

Digging up bones:

Trying to determine what engineering number is correct for a Nov. '66 built 289 Auto Trans Mustang.

C7AF-11001-A
C7AF-11001-B

I want to say it is the 11001-B number based on my 1975 Master Parts Catalog.

According to what I find through a quick research, it looks as though I should have the AUTOLITE logo ink stamp, NOT the FoMoCo version.

I would also think that lead time for a date code should be about 3-4 weeks for the starter, given other dates throughout my 11/2/1966 built San Jose exaple. Does anyone else have information that can help prove or disprove any of these theories? Maybe the 67 MPC manual has more help? (I only have an illustrated 67 MPC to use and din't find help in it)

[J_Speegle]

Trying to determine what engineering number is correct for a Nov. '66 built 289 Auto Trans Mustang.

From an April 68 MPC page (interesting since it has caused tons of issues for owner) They don't list different starters for different transmissions for Mustangs as they do for other models. Since this is likely an oversight I offer the following possibility

67 289 w/Automatic - C4OF-1101-A or C7AF1101-B
67 289 w/3 & 4 Spd - C6AF-1101-B  or  C7AF-1101-D

These are listed as identification numbers - different from part numbers or replacement part numbers

For others - other years have different identification numbers that those listed above though the same issue of no difference for Mustang applications but different ones for other Ford models remain. And we thought all those wrong starters we got from parts houses was they fault - now it appears that it may have started with Ford

I would also think that lead time for a date code should be about 3-4 weeks for the starter, given other dates throughout my 11/2/1966 built San Jose example...........

Have  a couple 66 San Jose example where the starter was dated same month as the projected build date assigned to the car.
Can't determine weeks (could be sure even if I could with just a projected date)  since the stamping style didn't always include the day of month on the starter

[Bossbill]

That's real weird Jeff, as I just received an old C3 nose without the later reinforcements and looked up the part numbers on the 60-68 MPC. I wanted to know what ink stamp it would eventually have.
 
In the pic, yellow denotes starter identification numbers (the ink stamp?) for 1967 289 vehicles.
The C6AF-11001-B shows up for 289 3/4 speeds on other car lines, but not the F (Mustang).
The C7AF-11001-D shows up for 289 3/4 speeds on other car lines, but not the F.
The C4OF-11001-A shows up for 289s (No trans stated) for the F car line.
The C7AF-11001-B is also shown for the F car line.

Second picture is of the nose with the reinforcements.
Third is of the part number cast into the nose. I hope this nose is correct for the Shelby.

[J_Speegle]

What we've found on unrestored original cars does not always match up in the books showing what parts were used to service the originals. See a number of numbers not represented on that chart. Often allot of cross confusion when using the MPC to determine things. Sometimes it helps to have OS & Y books (think that is the right letters)  also when doing the exercise since those (published every few months) showing what part numbers were dropped, replaced and so on.

Looks like that chart does not show your application  - 289 4 speed in a Mustang

[Bossbill]

I agree that the MPC is not the be-all.

Anyway, I'm not sure everyone is aware of the differences between the very common (and incorrect) D2AF starter nose and the earlier C3OE version.
The pic I have above of the C3 is dark -- the housing was very dirty.
Here it is cleaned up and compared to D2.

In all pictures the C3 is on the left and D2 on the right.

Once you notice the externally visible reinforcement bumps on the D2 you cannot unsee it. This incorrect nose could be worth up to 2 points in concours (according to MCA)! I'll let the judges chime in if I've misstated the point value.

[carlite65]

where do you see the 2 pt. deduction in the mca rules?? that part of the nose is buried and cannot be seen. no see---no deductee.

[J_Speegle]

where do you see the 2 pt. deduction in the mca rules?? that part of the nose is buried and cannot be seen. no see---no deductee.

The "ribs" or reinforcements are visible especially on 6 cylinder and small block applications. Other details related to the nose itself would be hidden from view

68 Small block install picture - starter detail.



As far as "rules"  (likely better discussed in those sections )  2 points would be likely the deduction if allot more than just this detail was different from original since 2 is for the complete starter for originality. Its a weighted deduction based from the total.

[Bossbill]

The reinforcements are shown in blue and are highly visible.
Of course, you do not see the area in red.


A wrong nose = a wrong starter. I'm not sure what the deduct would be. Maybe one would get a break for correct paint?

[J_Speegle]

A wrong nose = a wrong starter. I'm not sure what the deduct would be. Maybe one would get a break for correct paint?

Not really a "break" but rewarded for getting things like original

[carlite65]

i stand corrected again....thanks jeff!

[krelboyne]

1st Picture from my Mercury MPC for 1967 Starters, does not show A/T or ST though.

2nd Picture from my Mercury MPC for 1968 starters, shows A/T and S/T, on the S/T for 1968 we know that the 289 used a 157 tooth flywheel and the 302 used 16 tooth flywheels.

[J_Speegle]

1st Picture from my Mercury MPC for 1967 Starters, does not show A/T or ST though.

2nd Picture from my Mercury MPC for 1968 starters, shows A/T and S/T, on the S/T for 1968 we know that the 289 used a 157 tooth flywheel and the 302 used 16 tooth flywheels.

Always wondered where the mess up of applications of which starter number is correct for which application started. Ford or the aftermarket side. One of the most repeated question and issue it seems across the board for decades.   Sorry shouldn't get this off in a new direction