www.ColoradoClassicBroncos.com

I'm a big fan of Car Talk. So I thought I would pose a Car Talk like quiz, for us Ford and Bronco fans. Last night while cruising craigslist, I came across an ad the pique my curiosity.

The seller claims to have purchased a 1967 Mercury Cougar with a 1966 Mustang 289 and C4 installed. The previous owner of this car had the motor rebuilt by Phil Long Motors back in 1998. The seller quoted two sets of numbers stamped in to the block. The first, located on an engine boss below and to the right of the distributor (as viewed from the front) is 1H172. The second number, located on the right rear of the block, just in front of the transmission, is 2H108647.

So, based on the information provided, what do you think is wrong with this ad?

True. But the answer can be found without casting numbers.

Pretty sure they will, or did.

The mystery lies in the following key words: 1966, 289, Mustang.

The 289 came with the cruis-o-matic in 1966, not the C4

Did not know that. However, still not the answer I was looking for.

Although not standard or common, the 1966 did come with a 289 as an option..........correct?

3 different 289's were offered '66. Ranging from 200 to 271 h.p.

Just as crawler said, 289s were available in 1966.

But...

is this motor a 1966?

Remember,
"The seller claims to have purchased a 1967 Mercury Cougar with a 1966 Mustang 289 and C4 installed."

Not unless they chenged the motor mounts on the Cougar frame.

The Cougar & Mustang are basically the same vehicle with a different shell, but the Cougar has a longer wheelbase than the 'Stang did. I guess I am missing what is wrong with the statement because both cars came with a 289. As a matter of fact, by 66, the 289 had started outselling the I-6 for the power plant and it was actually a V8 advantage of 58-42 percentage gap. I dunno, I guess I don't see much wrong with having a Mustang 289 in Cougar. The better question is why is he trying to pump it as a Mustang engine in a Cougar? Cougars came with, at the smallest, a 289 and they were never offered with an I-6. Other than maybe the seller is ing for someone who doesn't know (or lacks the knowledge of a search engine) the vehicles.

BFD305 wrote:Not unless they chenged the motor mounts on the Cougar frame.

Wouldn't matter if the Cougar originally had a 289 or the 302 in it, motor mounts would be the same. Now if it was one that came with the 390 and they swapped it out, then I would be pissed and wouldn't give the guy the time of day had he swapped a 390 for a small block.

Here's a quick hint to alleviate some frustrations.

From everything I have read on Mustang forums, Ford did not start stamping numbers on the back of the block, near the transmission, until 1968.

I just new there was a motor mount change from the bolt through style after 66. I figured the black stayed the same but figured I'd throw the guess out there.

Today's Quiz was very hard.

It gets even better.

I'll hold off on all the details to give guys at work a shot at figuring out what Paul Harvey refers to as "the rest of the story".

And now, as Paul Harvey says...the rest of the story.

So, the first indication of a problem with the seller's ad came when he mentioned the number stamped at the back of the block, near the transmission. As I said before, Ford did not start stamping motors in this area until around 1968. Presence of the stamp here indicated that the block was not a 1966.

Second, the seller said he believed the motor to have been from a Mustang. That number stamped in the block was a giveaway that it was not a Mustang motor. 2H108647 breaks down as follows:
2: 1972 model year
H: Lorain assembly plant (the only vehicle ever made at Lorain was the Econoline van, up until 1974 when production was moved to Avon Lake)
108647: production number for the vehicle the motor went in to

The other number provided by the seller, 1H172, is the assembly date for the motor.
1: year, 1971
H: August
17: day of the month
2: inspector number

Yeah, I probably have a little too much time on my hands.