Mangusta Hi po Engine

I am sure someone has more complete info; however, I believe that Ford provided DeTomaso with crap motors for the Mangusta with valve springs so weak they wouldn't rev much above 5000 rpm. If a high performance engine was installed, it may have been aftermarket.

What Year are you claiming 289 Hi PO's were installed in a Mangusta ? Can you give us pictures of the casting numbers on the block above the starter ? Can I see pics of the heads ... hi po's had screw in studs ... document the claim ...

Ron

Wasn't there a thread here on this subject and wasn't it said that there were something like only two 289HP factory installed engines and that was the first two?

As far as week valve springs in the 302, the car was built at a time when the 289 HP was at the end of production and the highest performance small block was the 68 302-4v.

It was never claimed to be a high performance engine by anyone.

There were two other engines in development but not ready for production yet.

That was the Boss 302 and the 351 Windsor.

The 351 Cleveland is there in that mix as well but is a little later. It was said that the Boss 302 was the application of the 351c heads on the 302 block. Not the other way around. So they were both in development simultaneously.

The Mangusta had been layed out for a small block and the association with Ford made that a Ford small block.

At this point does it really matter that much what engine is in the car?

There was the one special Chevy small block car built for the head of design at GM at the time and the owner of that car participates regularly here on this forum.

I have the Chevy. I met a gentleman that had worked at Chrysler when Lee Iacocca and DeTomaso ginned up those Chrysler DeTpmaso cars. He spent a lot of time at the factory in Italy and told me that once at a dinner with some of DeTomsos people they told him that before the Ford engine deal was finalized that they did engine packaging studies with all kinds of engines, "GM, Ferrari, Lamborghini,etc”.

He wanted to also sell the Mangusta body design to someone as well if he could not get an engine.

The vertical dimension is tight on the engine package, it cannot go down as that reduces road clearance. The frame would also move with it, that is not such a problem. The soundproofing engine covers could also move up.

My spark plugs sit about 1/2 of an inch off of the frame.

Dick Ruzzin

Thanks for the info. Mangustas are pretty interesting to begin with and yours being 1 or 1 even more so.

In the days of changing points in the distributor the Chevy location in the back of the engine seems to fit the mid-engine layout much better than the Ford location.

One other thing too that I noticed a long time ago and still is so noticeable, the Chevy engine sounds so much different than the Ford on the track or at speed.

The Chevy sounds smooth and integrated whereas the Ford sounds like "washing machine Charlie" is on his way.

Bob,

I would expect that you would see an assembly date of "sometime" 1967 or 1968 in your car. We were lucky enuf to have #508 around here for a while....and I was able to look into that motor when the guy was freshening up the v/c gaskets etc.... It was a genuine hipo 289 with proper 67-68 date codes. I can't recall if I wrote them down anywhere....if I did...I can't recall where I wrote them.....but being an old Mustang/Cougar "by the numbers" sort of character, I was able to confirm all the proper hipo bits.....distributor, intake, heads (casting markes 12 or 23 in corners) and the fact that all of the manufacturing stamps were original on this particular car! Casting dates were also grouped close together...within a couple of months of each other! I would have expected that these engines came out of Ford "spares"..... Since you could still get a hipo 289 in 1968 in a Mustang etc, this was not a stretch for DeTomaso to get them. The 302 was not yet in production in 1967, not hitting the US production lines until 1968.

The only thing that differed on the early 289 cars was that they used a different bellhousing and smaller flywheel than the 302 cars.

I think that with other posts, we have figured that your car was one of the last cars to have a hipo in it! Guessing that perhaps 15-20 cars came with the engines. Once the 302 was available, it was most likely cheaper...!!! So guess what DeTomaso purchased???? Not a stretch here....!

Ping me if you need more help, but you can find date codes on Harmonic balancer, water pump, block, heads, intake, distributor, carb to start with. Flywheel also. The combo of date codes and "casting numbers" will tell you the rest of the story. Generally, it is accepted that all of the components should be dated within a 2-3 month period of each other, as some may have been stacked in bins....but figure that when an order went in for a batch of engines, that most likely the cast iron parts, heads, block, would be close. The aluminum intake could vary as it was probably an outside vendor (Buddy Bar?) that made it....flywheels and balancers could have been on the shelf for a while too.....

Nothing magical about these early engines....they came from Ford. nothing wrong with the 302's. They wind like STINK if you let the exhaust out...... Goose headers are very restrictive.....and the 302 heads will benefit from slight exhaust porting. (Intakes are FINE!) Stock valve springs will go above 5K, but usually the cam/spring combo was the shortcoming. However, this 302 engine, is exactly the same as the 302 used in every 4 barrel Mustang, Cougar, Fairlane, Comet with a manual transmission. No slouch.

If you are lucky enough to still have the small aluminum tag on your intake manifold, this will tell you exactly what car it was built for, when it was built and which revision it is. These tags are decoded in the front pages of the Ford Master Parts Catalog that is found on your Ford dealer's parts counter....or my garage....as I bought a copy of this book a long time back.....! Has been worth every penny....many times over!

Lemmeno if you have a tag and want it decoded. I know we have been over this before......

Ciao!
Steve

A 289 Hipo had casting numbers / date codes 1963 - 1965. The only difference in all 289 blocks, the hipo had heavier main bear caps. the 1963 hi po heads had a unique casting and screw in studs. The 1967 hipo heads were same and std 289 heads. Its very hard to identify a 289 block unless you drop the oil pan and the only head of value is the C3OE head.

Its stated the 1967 Euro Mangusta had the 289 and the USA version had the 302.

Documentation and tags and casting #'s / Date codes are the key.

Ron

Ron/All, Unfortunately there were no 289's made after July of '68 or so. Maybe DeT could have had a few motors on the floor before then, who knows. My car is a late and Euro , it has a 302. As Steve mentioned if you are lucky you may still have the engine tag on the motor.

See my post April 15th, 2009 http://pantera.infopop.cc/eve/...=755102011#755102011

I have found a few cars with engines tagged at the factory.

I have to re-visit a very early car to confirm it was done from the beginning.

I stand corrected the last Casting of the 289 was C6AE meaning 1966 and probably sold out into 1967 ... and the 302 took production in late 67 and according to those the eariest casting numbers C8TE & C8OE was the first castings dated 1968

Denis obviously your example below is a stamped number which the only Ford Motor Stamped by Ford were the Boss 302 and 429 in the USA ... it seems maybe by LAW the stamped serial # motors seemed to be the import / export engines.

A casting and date code on a 289 block is up under the starter.

Ron,

The 67 hipo heads on the Goose had the cast in spring pockets as well. I don't think the standard 67 heads for non-hipo motors had the cast spring pockets....

I believe when Ford sold a hipo motor....it was a hipo motor.

Did anyone know that you could get a 69 Mustang with a 289 in it? Many sold..... due in part to 302 production issues at the machining plant (strike!?) so Ford punted and came up with new advertising material for the little 289! Cougars were only choice of small block was the 302 small block in 68.

Ciao!
Steve

What Denis posted are the DeTomaso stampings...as far as we can guess...

...but I thought we've heard of communications from the Ford parts exec about deals to DeT.....and that Ford shipped out of spare supply, domestic and European....even going so far as shipping/putting industrial engines in some cars! (Had one of them in CA here at one time! Painted baby poop yellow....! HD water pump......)

I had the engine for 768, and didn't get a picture of the marking on the intake before I shipped it, but Roger Brotton may have posted a pic.... I think I posted a picture of the aluminum tag....which I believe I retained....

Steve

Here is a set of '67 289 HP heads for sale on ebay right now.

There are differences with them in that they have an additional lump of material cast into them in the exhaust ports for the air pump tubes.

The '67s HP heads do have the pockets for the spring seats and screw in rocker arm studs.

Valve sizes are the same as for the 68 302 as are the port pockets and the 53 cc combustion chamber.

On an engine built to use an automatic transmission like these heads, the air ports were not drilled.

On the heads intended for the manual transmission they were.

There is no better air flow between the heads, one vs. the other.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ford-M...em43c8c80941&vxp=mtr

You would have to go to the GT40 heads to get that and even so by todays standards even the GT40 race head doesn't flow very well.

The flow numbers that I have seen show really about 250 cfm on the intakes on the C6FE GT40 heads and about 220 cfm on the 289-302 4v head ported.

Stock they show something like 180 cfm.

My block says C80E on it. I'd have to have it alongside to see the difference on a C5 block but as far as I know just the caps on the HP block are thicker and other than the caps, it's the same block as regular production 2v and 4v engines.

The HP blocks themselves are not thicker in the webs. The GT40 block is thicker though.

The last variation of that block is what went into the '69 Boss 302 production engines and was marked C8FE which is the same casting as the Trans-Am race cars.

My "expert" tells me that the Boss production blocks are not exactly the same though.

Most think of those as 4 bolt blocks but there is a genesis of development on them and some are two bolt mains.

As with any Ford product especially special applications like these, you can never say something doesn't exist because it probably does somewhere.

It doesn't seem like they threw anything away. Someone somewhere would have gotten it.

When you bought the engines has everything to do with what you got. With the Mangusta the timing is everything.

I remember a story that was told from the '80s ( I think) about Jay Brunk and Caroll Shelby partnering on making '66 GT350 convertible "continuation cars".

The story was that because of his friends still at Ford Shelby was able to get brand new 289 HP engines for the cars out of Fords "private" stock warehouse. How many were still left in that "pile" no one would say, but there were still some left assembled.

How true this is and not just sensationalized journalism I don't know? But the story was told.

Performance wise it isn't worth going out of your way to find a real 289 HP engine.

Change the cam and the valve springs in the 302 and you have the same thing performance wise with the added benefit of a few extra cubic inches.

What would be neat in a Mangusta would be a 302 that had been gone through porting the heads, cam and either a 331 or a 347 stroker kit in it.

There are more than a few 331 Boss track cars running around and a whole bunch of 347 street cars.

The 331 is better if you are going over 7,000 rpm like a race car would but the 347 is what you could run on the street and really is a super sleeper since there is no way to tell what it is by just looking at it.

Any way you look at all of this though is that it is really a fun subject to discuss.

A C8OE appears to be a 302 out of a Shelby or an early 302 Boss block ... your comparing that to a C5 289 block ... not understanding ?

But we may have gotten off track ... an original 289 hipo does appear to be documented in the early production 1967 Mangusta Euro version ... my point is has anyone documented this ...because with seeing the value of these cars rise ... originality as always prevails.

My experience with my 69 and 70 boss 302's the serial #'s matching the vin are of value for originality.

I wonder if Marti Report would show this ?

Ron

HAH!!!! A Marti report on a Goose would be priceless!!!

I don't believe that any of DeT production would have gone thru L-M or Ford until the Pantera. You need the "little note book" that DeT used to keep all the production notes in, about each car! One of our fellow Goose owners is a nephew of the DeT family, and has reportedly touched such book, but Santiago has his fingers securely wrapped around it..... A few minutes with a photo copier is all I would ask....just a few....>!


I think the C8OE block picture is just a 302 casting number example. C8FE was early prototype Boss.

Bob, the guy with #528 that started this thread could be the last, or one of the last hipo cars that I know of as documented.

I've heard claims of Euro cars having them....but never any follow up to get proof, ie casting numbers, dates, pictures..... and trying to explain casting numbers and dates to people with sometimes limited English skills can be difficult. We've been exposed to the "numbers correct" crazy....where Europeans get a different take on it.....from what I have seen.


We are also not exactly sure when DeT began stamping the numbers on the pad on the intakes..... I can't say anyone has posted a 289/xxxx yet????? Seems to have been 302's.....

Somewhere, there was a letter posted about an engine quantity sold to DeT..... Need to see if I can dig that communication up.... Not much info, but interesting never-the-less!

Steve

Take a look at the MUSTANG TEK site they document Engine blocks and the HP Ford Engine Parts Interchange ... Book.

C80E they state was an real early 302 block. C8FE was the early Trans Am Tunnel Port block.

To really throw a wrench in the works ... i had seen a 302 Boss in a Mangusta ...

I will agree that DT has the info under wraps ... years ago I had the info for my 79 Euro Gts photo copied for me at the factory and sent to me ... so your right its out there .. only whos hands is it in now ... I think MARTI has some info on the Panteras'

Ron

Marti is doing Pantera reports now. I heard some complaining about inaccuracies in it though.

Marti only has what ever information Ford had. They do not have info on pushbuttons and GT5s as they were not 'Ford' era cars.

Factory has (had) Mangusta have build sheets available.

here is copy of page 2 from 8MA1266, see note at top: Motore 302/0093

Unfortunatelly reverse crunching the numbers assigns motor 'ZERO' to 8MA1065 !!

or somewhere around there.

Re-reading that build sheet, it seems 8MA1266 was originally delivered with an Autolite carb with tag C6ZF-C...... and that is THE carb that was on the 289 HiPo cars

OK Denis, you're going to love this one......

Ford Master Parts List, section 95, page 36 lists the C6ZF-C carb as fitting a 1968 Mustang (F body code) with 289 and "open emission".....but here's the kicker.....wait for it.... come on, keep waiting.....litle funny symbol next to the model.....denotes....CANADA ONLY!

They changed the carb so your car could go to Canada!!!! WOW!!!

You have a very rare carb if you indeed do have it! The application does not denote hipo or "special" in that particular listing!


However, digging deeper into page 37 we find the C6ZF-C turning up as the proper carb (replacement or original) for 65-67 Mustang "special" and 1965 Fairlane "special" models. (This may apply to Cougar and Comet accordingly....but only maybe... would need to dig into a L-M copy of the parts books...)

In 67 we find another Mustang "special" (HiPo) carb, C7ZF-C, but interestingly, also for 1967 two carbs with 68 numbers are shown, C8ZF-J and C8ZF-K. Manual choke and T/E. (these are "Identification" numbers or what you would find stamped into the base plate of the carb, or the small metal tag if so affixed, or perhaps both!)

What I would expect to find on a 1968 manual trans (M/T), emission equipped (T/E) 302, ala Mustang/Cougar/Fairlane, would be carb# C8ZF-C which is an Autolite 4V carb. This is the correct carb for the engine which was spec'd for the Goose as most of us should have had....and is what others have reported being on their cars.


There is only one 302 4V Holley carb listed as a C9OF-R, which is a 600CFM center pivot bowl model, available for 68-71 Fairlanes, Mustangs, and Cougars. I think this was an "over teh counter" factory carb for the aluminum intake manifolds that you could get......on a Shelby or for Cougar or Mustang.


So, as to the "correctness" of what should be on that invoice for 1266, I would doubt that a car that late, and being a 302, would have had that carb on the engine when it was installed. Ford would never have put that carb on a 302 since it was never spec'd for it.

Besides, your car was finished by the Germans....and they would have dropped engines in place....not mix and match old parts from 3 years earlier in production! I suspect a transcription error......by someone sitting in Italy.....making up paperwork...

IF by some odd chance you still have an Autolite carb on your car, the date code on it would need to be close to the rest of the casting dates from your block and heads etc...to be "correct". I am not saying that a car couldn't have a date correct C6ZF-C carb on a 302...... as spares were sold over the counter.....for years....but it would be unlikely...or darned coincidental! I would expect the C8ZF-C model or a later replacement.

That's what the book says!!! Can't say if it is correct....it's only a guide!!!! ....or if you were reading the Ford parts book in Italy, it would be a "suggestion"!

Ciao!
Steve

Well hope some of this helps, this is what I know about these parts for original production, not over the counter replacement parts.

This is just what I know, but I'm not the expert to go to. This is just from documentation that is fairly well known or accepted in other circles which may or may not overlap here, and could be incorrect but is pretty well excepted as correct by the judging bodies. I'm not going to be the defense lawyer to defend these statements in court as gospel and that is not the intent of them as far as I am concerned.


In Ford parts, there are two different animals your are talking about. Production and replacement. Replacement parts are rarely the same as original production. Even when it is a Ford Service part.

Back then, that didn't matter much to anyone because no one thought 40 years down the road as far as value or desirability and having the original production part or a replacement part would effect the value of the car.

In the Mustang "Concourse" events, it is the original production line part that is the correct part. It doesn't matter if you have the Ford Service Part on your car that you bought from Ford Service Parts. It is still wrong for Concourse.

Other clubs tend to follow along the same lines as far as making judgments but also other manufacturers such as GM didn't operate the same as Ford did with a difference between production line parts and "genuine replacement service parts" being often different.

Accobra is positively correct in that it is the "original production" part that is now the most valuable and often what people are asking about in what is the "correct" part. This is really hitting home on cars that are drastically escalating recently in value like the Mangusta is.



The C90F-R is a "Service Part". It does not require a special intake manifold. "Use it as you like". It is not a '67 or '68 Shelby GT350 carb.

The '67 Shelby GT350 carb is stamped S7MS. There are two '68 Shelby GT350 carbs. S8MS-9510-A or C. They were only used in production after May 15, 1968, and only on the S7MS COBRA lettered intake which also was not installed in production until after 5/15/68.

There was a service recall campaign to change the intake manifolds from the cast iron to the aluminum COBRA, but that did not include the Holley Shelby carb.



The C80E 302 block is the '68 "J" code 4v engine block. It is only used in '68 production. Any model line that would have used the J code would have had that block.

Yes the 68 GT350 used the J code engine but it is not unique to the Shelby at all.

There is also a C8AE block that shows up occasionally but I think is the exception rather than the rule. They both look the same to me except for the casting numbers.

The C8FE block is both the '68 Tunnelport 302 and the '69 Boss 302 production block. It is a 4 bolt block. The Boss casting is actually C8FE-B. Perhaps the T/A block is the -A?

http://www.boss302.com/block.htm

As far as I know these Boss blocks are the last of the special production Ford 4 bolt small blocks.

The first one that I am aware of is the C6FE. The last one the C8FE.

The C6FE was taken out of the Ford "Indy" racing program. It is referred to as the "GT40" block but that is not entirely true. It came out the special race program and was applied to the GT40's.



The same is true of the C6FE 289 heads. They are referred to as "heavy duty" heads in the Ford engineering "notes" and there are several versions of them.

They were used more in the '67 Shelby coupe Trans-Am cars then anything else but you could have bought them from Shelby in their race car parts program ported or unported.

There are listings all over the place that are sometimes inaccurate or incomplete as far as applications.



These aren't necessarily an intentional misleading mislisting. It depends on what publication that writer was using for documentation.

The Ford Service Parts book is not always the most accurate as far as original application since it is really showing what was available as a service replacement part over the counter at that time.

It should also be noted that often the casting number is the "engineering number" and that does not always translate exactly into the part number or the service number.

It can get confusing on some of the parts really quickly.



Randy Gillis is a long time Shelby racer and has "connections" into the Ford Racing/Engineering program in southern California since 1966.

He has got copies of several of the foundry casting log books which actually show the original engineering designations and the revisions to them through the evolution of the parts.

These are actually a step before the "Engineering" logs since those only list the latest version of the original engineering number.



He pointed out to many, things like, the C8FE "trans-am" block has differences to it than the C8FE '69 Boss 302 block because of engineering revisions in the casting process.

In many cases most would never (me) would never notice the differences in the castings unless I had an example of each right in front of me at the same time.

Sometimes when you read a magazine article that might say something like "Ford gave several their aluminum 4 bolt Cleveland blocks to "Dyno Don Nicholson", and you found out that Nicholson sold them to someone else, a lot of the time that someone else was Gillis.

He had the benefit of personally knowing some of the "big" racers like Nicholson and some of the Ford development engineers because he raced with them.

That is a unique advantage that puts him into probably a group of only one that is left.


I'm just stating this because I don't want to be accused of attempting to be the expert here which I am not. I am just passing along information that was given to me by a "higher authority" so to speak, and I do the best to pass it along as best I can and try to avoid being burned at the stake by a mob carrying torches and yelling heresy at me.

This is as far as I will go. I will not venture an opinion on whether of not the "Flat Earth Society" is right or wrong. Some of them are my friends.

Doug ... to many disclaimers .. but I see your point on the Racing effort a replacement parts etc. I'm pressing you guys to see what documentation is out there for a 289 hipo in a 67 Mangusta .. if I'm hearing you right ... none ... Detomaso is either with holding it, or its not documented properly or someone is harboring this info ? I'm sorry i have to say its documented somewhere and its being harbored ... that person I think is waiting for the right time to capitalize on the info.

Steve I see your point on the Italy production being all F'd up ... but in the US during production I'm going to have to say the USA made cars are pretty close to the records. I have 2 Marti reports on 2 Boss 302's and there were some options dealer added (and you can tell they were dealer added) and a few options I didn't notice like a special cooling and special suspension options I didn't notice until I received the reports.

I'm in the Originality mode right now restoring 2 cars ... so dont shoot me but with the value of these cars seeing a rise ... I;m sure this subject is going to come up AGAIN and AGAIN.

Heres what i got from the factory for 9138 ... its some thing which documents the car.

Ron

quote:

Originally posted by accobra:
Doug ... to many disclaimers ..
Ron

Well two things come to mind."Don't shoot me I'm only the piano player". "When you raid a cathouse you arrest the piano player too".

Either way somebodies gonna' get ya'.

But what happens to the cat??

Ron,
I agree with you about US production figures and records especially on Boss and CJ cars. (My old R-code Cougar finally surfaced on ebay a couple of weeks back..sad condition...1 of about 10 if I recall....sold it to keep the Goose!) ....but I know of at least two 69 Cougars built on the San Jose line that didn't quite match the paperwork...amazing what a case of beer or so could buy back in the 60's on the assembly line!!! "...I'll take one of those track loc's, that funny looking big block over there...be sure to get the oil cooler....oh and put in the red interior...."


As to documenting hipo's in early Gooses, all I can say is that we have plenty of proof that the hipo 289's appear in the earliest of cars built, and the factory parts book confirms a unique bellhousing for them, and further notes document the later 302 bellhousing. There are plenty of other references to hipo parts in the parts books, like the dual point distributor which no 302 probably ever got. Using the numbers in the DeTomaso parts book and going backwards in the Ford Parts book I was able to confirm these bits as being hipo original.

The original homologation document that I have also shows pictures of a hipo 289. But then it shows a Weber intake too.....which never made it to production....!

How good are the notes in the "note book"? We may never know...... Does it make a lot of difference to any car's value? Not from what I have seen in sales prices...... some real "polished turds" have brought big cash, and the beautiful original green Roots car that sold brought top dollar for a top condition car. But the difference in the cars was crazy if you talk to people that had seen these cars in person and/or knew their history... All in the buyer....how badly he wants to part with his cash......

Since all of our cars are hand built, we can expect to see slight differences just about anywhere. My car has the alternator in a different mounting spot than any other that I have seen, yet my bellhousing shows no indication of having anything mounted in the "normal" spot...nor does my wiring show any indication of modification....down to the original Italian crimp connectors on the ends! After that, my car suffers from many slight modifications that previous owners made. I will say that I have added some more....like the 331 that sits in it....but since the Boss 302 that came in the car was not stock....and the original engine was long gone...I didn't feel so badly doing it....and it is so much fun to drive now! I did get many of the hard to find parts with the car, including finding the 4th owner who still had an original air cleaner hanging on his garage wall...! (I'm owner #6 or 7.)

I think if you purchase a Goose, and it has a hipo 289 in it with all 67 or 68 dates on the parts, it is probably original.....hard to prove otherwise. If you got a 302, and it was stamped with something resembling the pictures that Denis posted of the "302/xxx" on the intake pad, and all of the cast iron dates matched up, and preceeded the date codes on the brake calipers and the windows by some good amount of time, I would think you'd be in good shape saying that it was original also!

But the paperwork....it remains in flux. Hell, we just found out recently that there was a 402cnd car built!!! No paperwork to back it up(yet)...but pictures of the car and a stamped serial number pretty much prove it to be.....

Maybe someday, Santiago will cut the notebook loose and we can all get "our pages" but I doubt that you'll see much variance other than perhaps "special A/C dash" or different calipers front/rear.....perhaps some clue to aluminum or magnesium rims....! Paint codes.....or names.

That would be cool!!!

I think the Bosses have a reputation and a lot of guys owned them or rode in their buddy's car and always wanted one....and that drives their price up....plus the rareness and collectible aspect too....so you are wise to do these resto's properly.

But if I wanted to build a Boss 302 race car or custom....I'd buy a 6cyl sports roof and go at it......but it will never be "original" because of the paperwork! However, you just can't go out and snag a Mangusta just anywhere!!!!! Special no matter how you cut it.....paperwork or not!

That reminds me....I need to go drive my car soon!!!
Ciao!
Steve

Steve.

On the 289 block, there is ONLY a difference in the bell on the 63-64 289 block where it used 5 bolts.

That was eliminated by the '65 production.

The earliest version of the 289 you should see on the Mangusta is the '67 version which is a 6 bolt block. At that point there is no difference between the bellhousings.

The value to the 331 or 347 is that it is built internally on the 302 and there is NO outward sign of the modification.

There have been people looking for COMPLETELY stock Panteras all along but particularly within the last couple of years.

There are speculators that have analyized that these cars are way too cheap and are resembling the Cobra scenario with prices hovering in the 30 to 40 thousand dollar area just before they jumped in virtually one shot into the hundreds of thousands of dollar reselling.

The production numbers on the Mangusta resemble more closely the numbers on the Cobras than the Panteras do but for sure there are people with car portfolios and their managers are advising investing in these cars.

Smaller flywheel....smaller bellhousing.

68 saw the introduction of a larger diameter flywheel.

Wasn't much...maybe 1/4" or so but ground clearance was a tad better with the early bellhousing.

If Bob is still on this post, and has his car all apart, perhaps we can get him to measure the diameter at a few points and I can compare to my spare bellhousing???? Just to confirm.

Steve

Does all this really matter??

When Larry Stock of Pantera Parts owned 8MA0510 (#6 built if you count the prototype 8MA0500 that was a pushmobile until the early 2000s), he did some research with Wilkinson and Santiago, and they determined there were only six (6.0) original 1967 Mangustas ever built. There MAY have been one or possibly two built in '66 but no one really knows for sure nearly 50 years past. #0510 had quite a few GT-40 parts visible on it's ZF: aluminum side plates in place of the later cast iron parts, no protective aluminum box around the shift linkage going into the rear of the ZF (Lloyd Butfoy said he'd never seen that arrangement on anything except an original GT-40), and a couple of other oddments. Unfortunately, Larry didn't write any casting #s down before it was sold.

In any case, the possibility of finding such rare parts are real close to nil, so 'restored to showroom-stock' is probably a most unlikely term to use on an early Mangusta. Since even a panel of experts (with electronic brains at their fingertips) can't agree on what was likely to have been originally used 47+ years ago.

quote:

Does all this really matter??

Oh it sure does my friend ... engine matching cars in every aspect surely matters ... maybe not now and maybe not to you ... but in the automobile world its important.

Ron

I am still here. Just trying to take in all this information. Sorry, engine is back in the car. Over the weekend I will be try and take some measurements. The car is up on blocks. I have had to slow down on the restoration because of college expenses and a wedding. Looks like it will be early next year before it is done. If it is not done by early next year, I am going to send it to Wilkinson to have him finish it up.

You are not going to be able to tell if it is a 289 HP block by the casting number on the block because the casting numbers are the same. The only difference between an HP and a 4v is that the main caps are thicker. Ford started with the same block. Same casting number, just assembled and line bored machined with the the thicker caps. You usually can not just switch the caps over from another block without line boring the mains. They will be off a few thousands and will lock up the main bearings so the crank will not spin freely.
On the exterior you have a much thicker balancer on a HP vs. the 4v, the HP heads, which are unmistakable because of the screw in rocker arm studs and the cast in valve spring pockets that they have.
The only question is which versions are in there. I would think that they should be the '67 type that has the air injector bosses cast into the exhaust ports, and because it is a manual transmission application, the air injector "rails" over the ports.
The "service" heads all had the ports drilled irregardless of an automatic or manual transmission application but the heads intended for the automatic transmissioned cars had those ports plugged with allen socket plugs.
If it is the original distributor it will be dual point and the date stamping on it should fit into '67 production date ranges.
HP intake manifolds were iron JUST like the 4v intakes. Chances are the intake will be stamped from Detomaso like the 302 4v intakes were with and engine number on it.
There are two flywheel sizes right in this era. A 157 tooth and a 164 tooth. One is larger in diameter but the flywheel itself should be manually stamped into the engine side of the flywheel. The '67 SHOULD have the larger of the flywheels even though there are two bellhouses showing in the DT parts book. It might be that the first Mangustas used a 65 289 and it had the smaller flywheel so Detomaso was unsure of what "regular" production of his car would require and had service part numbers for both bells?
I believe that the original carb for that engine should be a 4100 with a manual choke.
Best to check each and every part on the engine to see what looks like it was original and what was not.
The FORD assembly plant attached aluminum tags on the bolt that holds down the dirstributor that has an assembly date and engineering number identifying the engine assembly on it. Most got thrown away by the first mechanics to "tune" the engine and set the timing because they were in the way. Some have survived. They also stamed the final assembly date into one of the pads on the front of the engine. It should have a two number and one letter identification. If it was going into a regular Ford production vehicle, by '67 the US Federal law required the engine to have the serial number of the car stamped into it. On the small blocks that was usually done on the pad on the block at the top on the back on the drivers side. Most Mustangs I've seen had a portion of the number stamped in and many did not have the last two digits stamped. Depends on which assembly plant did the chassis build. I would think the Mangusta engines came out of different source, perhaps directly out of the Dearborn parts depot and that was too far before the US assembly lines to conform to that stamping since those engines were not pulled off of the assembly lines to supply Detomaso apparently?
So many possibilities including having the engine changed in service under warranty?
In a Mustang the 289 HP would have had the special high performance cast iron exhaust manifolds on it.

WAY off subject, but the three sea-vans Wilkinson bought from Santiago apparently contain a LOT of the 'extra' Mangusta parts some of us saw in the usually locked warehouse next to the old assembly building in Modena.... including a half-dozen Mangusta front and rear body clips and other stuff that's not seen the light of day since the late '60s. We all know that A. DeTomaso never threw anything away that could be sold. Well, here it is!

So I may be wrong and some of the NOS parts from early builds may actually become sort-of-available later this year thru Wilkinson. I seriously doubt the treasures stored there will be cheap, though. Steve says his first job is actually getting the sea-vans into So-Cal and the even bigger job is inventorying everything to see whats really there. All good questions to ask him at the San Diego Fun Rally later this month.

quote:

All good questions to ask him at the San Diego Fun Rally later this month.

Steve won't be at the Fun Rally, as he will be in Italy with Santiago.

John