1968 289 / Why

On what day in 1966 did the secret Cougar marketing program begin? April 1st, April Fools day. On what day in 1968 did the Cobra Jet 428 become available in the Cougar April 1st April Fools day. Is there a message in there somewhere? This is the place to find out.
User avatar
Jan-O
Registered Member
Posts: 223
Joined: 17 Oct 2011, 14:43
Location: Norway

Re: 1968 289 / Why

#11

Post by Jan-O » 15 Nov 2011, 15:50

The 302 was intended as the std engine in 68, but due to the UAW strike, they shorted out on 302 engines, the result was to go to a 289 as std engine in all std Cougar´s, and the 302 became the std engine for the XR7 Cougar´s

User avatar
Don Rush
Registered Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 06 Nov 2011, 20:43
Location: Brooks Oregon
Contact:

Re: 1968 289 / Why

#12

Post by Don Rush » 15 Nov 2011, 17:23

Jan-O wrote:The 302 was intended as the std engine in 68, but due to the UAW strike, they shorted out on 302 engines, the result was to go to a 289 as std engine in all std Cougar´s, and the 302 became the std engine for the XR7 Cougar´s
Sounds plausible but no. Keep in mind it cost the same to cast a 289 as a 302 and they were made in the same foundries.

User avatar
mo2872
Registered Member
Posts: 3195
Joined: 02 Jun 2011, 18:59
Location: Collinsville, Ok
Contact:

Re: 1968 289 / Why

#13

Post by mo2872 » 15 Nov 2011, 23:20

Hmmmm.....ran out of pistons/cranks for a 302?? (Aren't the blocks the same? )
T3
Yup, that guy, the hooligan.

Somewhere out there is a tree, tirelessly producing oxygen so you can breathe. I think you owe it an apology.

User avatar
CougarCJ
Registered Member
Posts: 905
Joined: 16 Jan 2011, 16:00
Location: Salem, Oregon

Re: 1968 289 / Why

#14

Post by CougarCJ » 16 Nov 2011, 00:11

I did some checking and C code 289-2V engines started appearing in January of 1968, but only in standard model Cougars, no XR7's.

C code Mustangs are a dime a dozen, but they didn't get F code 302-2V's (except for 3 according to Kevin Marti).
Scott Behncke 1968 XR7
Carcheologist - West Coast Classic Cougar


User avatar
Don Rush
Registered Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 06 Nov 2011, 20:43
Location: Brooks Oregon
Contact:

Re: 1968 289 / Why

#15

Post by Don Rush » 16 Nov 2011, 09:51

Those in marketing realized they were missing out on potential sales by not having a similar priced 1968 Cougar to compete with the likes of Barracuda and Nova so in Jan. 1 a lower cost standard model Cougar was introduced. Here is a link to the updated insert for the dealer promotional guide.

http://www.cougarpartscatalog.com/68cougarpromo.html

User avatar
C7XR7
Registered Member
Posts: 223
Joined: 25 Dec 2010, 01:49
Location: Mesa Arizona
Contact:

Re: 1968 289 / Why

#16

Post by C7XR7 » 16 Nov 2011, 11:12

What would the cost savings have been to install a 289 vs a 302? I can see leaving things off, like arm rests and pillar padding to increase profit margins. Marketing has a way of spinning a bad situation into a positive appearing one.
Don Rush wrote:Those in marketing realized they were missing out on potential sales by not having a similar priced 1968 Cougar to compete with the likes of Barracuda and Nova so in Jan. 1 a lower cost standard model Cougar was introduced. Here is a link to the updated insert for the dealer promotional guide.

http://www.cougarpartscatalog.com/68cougarpromo.html
...1967 XR7*Polar White*Saddle Tan*PS*PB*AC*AOD

.................Everyone is entitled to my opinion................
----------------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
xr7g428
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 4333
Joined: 23 Dec 2010, 21:02
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Contact:

Re: 1968 289 / Why

#17

Post by xr7g428 » 16 Nov 2011, 11:59

Don Rush wrote:Those in marketing realized they were missing out on potential sales by not having a similar priced 1968 Cougar to compete with the likes of Barracuda and Nova so in Jan. 1 a lower cost standard model Cougar was introduced. Here is a link to the updated insert for the dealer promotional guide.

http://www.cougarpartscatalog.com/68cougarpromo.html

This sounds good, but they didn't lower the price.

Ford was in a very bad place following the strike of '67 in that they were being forced to add content by the new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard and the new smog requirements, and at the same time they had a huge increase in cost under the new UAW contract. Historically Ford was able to raise prices to cover increased costs, but the market was already sluggish and their profit margins had been falling well before the strike. Add in the loss of production and sales of maybe as much as 600,000 vehicles and they were desperate to find a way to squeeze a little bit more profit out of the cars they were building.
Bill Basore, Editor / Publisher
Legendary Cougar Magazine
Currently in the Cat House
'67 XR7 GT 390 4 speed, AC, AM FM, Lime Frost Green
'68 XR7-G 428CJ C6, Tilt-Away, AM, Black Cherry
'68 XR7-G 390 4 speed, Sunroof, Cardinal Red
'68 XR7 GT-E 427 C6 AM Cardinal Red
'68 XR7 resto mod 351W, soon to be AOD, Black Cherry

User avatar
Al Bundy
Registered Member
Posts: 1866
Joined: 19 Oct 2011, 11:14
Location: Syracuse, NY

Re: 1968 289 / Why

#18

Post by Al Bundy » 16 Nov 2011, 12:04

Don Rush wrote:Those in marketing realized they were missing out on potential sales by not having a similar priced 1968 Cougar to compete with the likes of Barracuda and Nova so in Jan. 1 a lower cost standard model Cougar was introduced. Here is a link to the updated insert for the dealer promotional guide.

http://www.cougarpartscatalog.com/68cougarpromo.html
I guess if that's your theory, and I'm not saying you're wrong, you would need to support it with cost comparisons between a base model with a 289 versus a base model with a 302. And they would need to be compared with the cost of the comparable GM and Mopars that they were supposed to compete with.

Since the 289 and 302 used mostly the same components, I'm not really sure how there would be any cost savings by using a 289 rather than a 302.
1974 Dodge Dart - daily driver
1963 Thunderbird Z code - raven black/red
1968 XR7 F code - diamond blue/blue
1968 XR7 J code - black/red
1968 J code - madras blue/aqua
1968 XR7 X code - lime frost/dark ivy gold
1968 GT-E XR7 W code prototype no. 500033 - cardinal red/black

User avatar
Al Bundy
Registered Member
Posts: 1866
Joined: 19 Oct 2011, 11:14
Location: Syracuse, NY

Re: 1968 289 / Why

#19

Post by Al Bundy » 16 Nov 2011, 12:09

xr7g428 wrote:
Don Rush wrote:Those in marketing realized they were missing out on potential sales by not having a similar priced 1968 Cougar to compete with the likes of Barracuda and Nova so in Jan. 1 a lower cost standard model Cougar was introduced. Here is a link to the updated insert for the dealer promotional guide.

http://www.cougarpartscatalog.com/68cougarpromo.html

This sounds good, but they didn't lower the price.

Ford was in a very bad place following the strike of '67 in that they were being forced to add content by the new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard and the new smog requirements, and at the same time they had a huge increase in cost under the new UAW contract. Historically Ford was able to raise prices to cover increased costs, but the market was already sluggish and their profit margins had been falling well before the strike. Add in the loss of production and sales of maybe as much as 600,000 vehicles and they were desperate to find a way to squeeze a little bit more profit out of the cars they were building.
Yeah but again Bill, what is the real savings? I think it's a much simpler explanation like using up the 289's. 1968 was the last year for them correct?
1974 Dodge Dart - daily driver
1963 Thunderbird Z code - raven black/red
1968 XR7 F code - diamond blue/blue
1968 XR7 J code - black/red
1968 J code - madras blue/aqua
1968 XR7 X code - lime frost/dark ivy gold
1968 GT-E XR7 W code prototype no. 500033 - cardinal red/black

User avatar
xr7g428
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 4333
Joined: 23 Dec 2010, 21:02
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Contact:

Re: 1968 289 / Why

#20

Post by xr7g428 » 16 Nov 2011, 15:08

I know this won't make sense from a common sense standpoint, but...

The tooling for the 289 was fully amortized, and developed at lower cost than the tooling for the 302 which was still considered a new engine at the time. Keep in mind the tooling would have been for lots of different parts. So from an accounting perspective, and that is what counts, the cost of the 289 would be less than the 302, even if they were identical in terms of materials and labor. Then to understand the importance of it you would have to think of it terms of the effect of saving $5 to $10 times say 50,000 cars. ($250K to $500K).

I have read that there were about 25 man hours of labor per car. So if the caost of labor went up by $0.50 per hour, they would need to offset that with $12.50 in savings.
Bill Basore, Editor / Publisher
Legendary Cougar Magazine
Currently in the Cat House
'67 XR7 GT 390 4 speed, AC, AM FM, Lime Frost Green
'68 XR7-G 428CJ C6, Tilt-Away, AM, Black Cherry
'68 XR7-G 390 4 speed, Sunroof, Cardinal Red
'68 XR7 GT-E 427 C6 AM Cardinal Red
'68 XR7 resto mod 351W, soon to be AOD, Black Cherry

Post Reply