Don,
I used to work with someone who bought one of the first Mustangs. He called
it a "'65". I pointed out it must have been a "64". He argued vehemently
that there were no "64" Mustangs. Well, OK then "64 & 1/2". Nope, he was
sure I was wrong. The world seems to be rife with "experts", with the
voracity of their statements usually related inversely with their
conviction. Following publication of Norm's book in 1993, he was able to
obtain from Ford's Industrial Division microfiche and other records
pertaining to engines sold to Rootes. An account of how Norm was able to
finally get these records and a deciphering of the codes and other
revelations is presented in the Summer 1996 edition of Tiger Press.
Reproduced in this eight page article are Ford Assembly Orders that show,
for example, "SHIP LOOSE AND INCLUDE IN PRICE OF ENGINE" and "DELETE"
items, the key for deciphering the alpha-numeric designations on the valve
cover tags, etc. Anyone interested in this subject should obtain a copy of
this article. Ironically, even many of the people who worked for the Ford
Industrial Division at the time had no knowledge of any engines being sold
to Rootes - for Tigers or otherwise - and were convinced that this never
happened. This is somewhat reminiscent of the circumstance with Shelby
American where amnesia is also commonplace as regards the Tiger.
I am far from clear, even after reading Norm's article, about certain
aspects of the Ford/Rootes engine deal. I assume that all the Ford Windsor
engines were produced on the same Canadian assembly line(s?) and that the
distinction between "Industrial" and "Automotive" engines was more of a
book keeping exercise, although it would have controlled the options
installed on the engines, etc. I understand a full day's production at that
time was roughly 3000 engines, so the number going to Rootes was a relative
drop in the bucket. Somewhere, there are probably a couple of old Canadians
who were Ford engine plant employees and whose jobs included tearing down
and prepare those few engines for shipment to Rootes. Toss the "DELETE"
items and pack separately the "SHIP LOOSE AND INCLUDE IN PRICE OF ENGINE"
parts. What a tedious chore that must have been.
It looks to me like the color of the engines is not part of the
documentation supplied by Ford. It seems surprising to me that the color
change from black to blue would not have been uniform for all the engines
produced. However, B382000600 was built in October of '65, long after you
state that Ford switched the engine color from black to blue . It seems
doubtful that Jensen was installing engines in late '65 that had been
manufactured by Ford a full year earlier. My guess would be that the
"Industrial" engines continued to be painted black until sometime in '65,
while the engines designated for installation in Ford automobiles were
painted blue. But my guess is as good as yours.
Well, TTFN,
Bob
At 01:28 AM 10/9/99 -0500, dondaves@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Bob Palmer <rpalmer@ames.ucsd.edu wrote:
> >Black on most 260s, but blue after about B382000600. There is some thought
> >that the black engines were from Ford's industrial engine production and
> >the blue engines were intended for automotive use.
>
>When I restored the engine compartment of our old 64 1/2 Mustang a decade ago
>(260 equipped), my research showed that the earliest Mustang V8 motors were
>painted black with the valve covers and air filter painted gold. It
>surprised
>me how many _experts_ would come by at the shows and point out that all ford
>engines were supposed to be blue. Anyway, as I remember it, the color
>changed
>to blue around the same time they started installing alternators in place of
>generators - mid to late summer of '64.
>
>Don Daves
>
Robert L. Palmer
UCSD, Dept. of AMES
619-822-1037 (o)
760-599-9927 (h)
rpalmer@ucsd.edu
rpalmer@cts.com
|