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
Cougars_R_Grr8
Registered Member
Posts: 926
Joined: 25 Dec 2010, 00:28
Location: Pahrump, NV

Re: 1968 289 / Why

#31

Post by Cougars_R_Grr8 » 19 Dec 2011, 21:13

I didn't know I had a Super Cougar!!!!!!!!
'68 Standard Cougar - 302 4v J Code 4 spd (1 of 536) *SOLD*
'73 F250 XLT Ranger - 390 *Also SOLD*
'63 F100 Stepside - *NEW PROJECT*
'14 Camaro SS vert
Image

User avatar
bobcatrojo
Registered Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 18 Dec 2011, 12:28

Re: 1968 289 / Why

#32

Post by bobcatrojo » 19 Dec 2011, 22:29

But were there also some late 67 models, like the XR7 have a 302 in them? Also there are the same issues with the 351 windsor and cleveland, I found a 70 XR7 with a windsor...

User avatar
cj750
Registered Member
Posts: 450
Joined: 26 Nov 2011, 19:42
Location: Siloam Springs, Arkansas

Re: 1968 289 / Why

#33

Post by cj750 » 20 Dec 2011, 09:30

bobcatrojo wrote:But were there also some late 67 models, like the XR7 have a 302 in them? Also there are the same issues with the 351 windsor and cleveland, I found a 70 XR7 with a windsor...
It is true that in 1970 (only) a 351 2V (H code) Cougar could come from the factory with either a 351C or 351W.
But there are no documented '67s with 302 engines, just as there are no documented "late-production" '69s with 351Cs. You'll find no shortage of folks claiming that they "used to have" such a car, or their brother-in-law's cousin has one in his garage, but every time it comes down to proof, such as period photos or paperwork, or showing engine parts correctly date-coded for the build-date of the car, the claims invariably evaporate.
Every post I make is made with a request for corrections. I'm here to learn.

1969 Cougar Eliminator 351 4V, yellow
1970 Cougar Eliminator 428SCJ, black

User avatar
MercuryDon
Registered Member
Posts: 530
Joined: 24 Dec 2010, 14:31
Location: So.Ca.
Contact:

Re: 1968 289 / Why

#34

Post by MercuryDon » 20 Dec 2011, 17:11

But then there was not supposed to be a 427 in cougar but a GTE.
68 427 GTE-XR7 Dk Blue/Dk Blue(1 of 3 Color/trim) C6 3.50TL
68 390 4V XR7G Dk Blue/Dk Blue w/Sunroof C6 3.25TL
69 428SCJ 4spd XR7 Conv't.White/Aqua 12K miles(1 of 1 with 4.30DL)
69 428CJ 4Spd Cyclone CJ Maroon/Blk 29K miles 3.50TL
68 390 4V Cyclone GT. Madras/White C6 3.00 (Introductory Show unit)
69 390 4Spd XR7 Sunroof Med.Lime/Dark Ivy 3.00
68 390 4V Cyclone GT White/Red C6 3.25
04 Cobra Conv't.4.6 DOHC Supercharged Blk/Grey 3.50TL
70 390 Javelin SST Big Bad Grn/Blk 700R4 4.10 Dana 44
98 Dakota R/T 5.9 Std Cab Blue/Grey(1 of 32) 3.91SG
71 Thunderbird 429 w/suicide doors Copper/Drk.Brn 2.75
06 Dodge SRT10. 11k miles 488 cube Viper V10. 505hp. 6 spd. 4.10SG

User avatar
cj750
Registered Member
Posts: 450
Joined: 26 Nov 2011, 19:42
Location: Siloam Springs, Arkansas

Re: 1968 289 / Why

#35

Post by cj750 » 21 Dec 2011, 09:44

MercuryDon wrote:But then there was not supposed to be a 427 in cougar but a GTE.
True enough. But extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. The documented existence of this or that oddball Cougar doesn't prove that some other "impossible" combination was ever actually done.
Every post I make is made with a request for corrections. I'm here to learn.

1969 Cougar Eliminator 351 4V, yellow
1970 Cougar Eliminator 428SCJ, black

User avatar
tmh
Registered Member
Posts: 1369
Joined: 15 Oct 2011, 20:09
Location: Chicago

1968 289 / Why

#36

Post by tmh » 21 Dec 2011, 10:32

With Marti having the database, it should take all of about two minutes to set up a query that would identify every combination of options that ever occurred, including stuff like this.
'68 XR-7 J-Code C4, San Jose, Edelbrock 1406, PS, Front PDB, 8" rear 3.0, PS is leaky and sloppy, invisible fan shroud
'79 Bronco XLT 351m, C6, Edelbrock Performer 400 intake, Holley 6140, Howards cam, 4" suspension lift, 33x12.5x15 Duratracs, dana44 front and Ford 9" rear both 4.11 LSD, Warn hub locks, invisible fan shroud
'80 Suzuki GS750E 16V DOHC, looks about 6 months old
'13 Honda CR-V AWD

User avatar
xr7g428
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 4342
Joined: 23 Dec 2010, 21:02
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Contact:

Re: 1968 289 / Why

#37

Post by xr7g428 » 21 Dec 2011, 12:18

The book Cougar by the Numbers by Kevin does answer the '67 302 question, and it is a no. The 302 2V was an F code engine. There were no '67's built with an F code in the VIN.

Now what causes a lot of confusion is the model year of the car, and the registration year of the car can be different. For example a '68 model year Cougar (VIN starts with an 8) is actually built in 1967, and registered in 1967. The title may show the year as 1967 so people think they have '67 model.

The situation with the 351 Windsor and Cleveland is slightly different. The '69 351 2V Windsor and '70 351 2V Windsors, and 351 2V Clevelands were called H codes. The '69 351 4V Windsor and '70 351 4V Clevelands were called M codes. Since the same codes were used in the VIN it is more difficult to decode.
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
wish
Registered Member
Posts: 128
Joined: 05 May 2017, 13:12

Re: 1968 289 / Why

#38

Post by wish » 07 May 2017, 19:15

I know this is a long dead topic, but did anyone consider the whole "I don't trust a 302" theory ? A lot of people think the old stuff is better, so this new 302 may've been hurting sales as the 289 was no longer available. So they brought it back in the hopes of improving that base line sale with a "tried and true" motor ?

We laugh now as the 302 has quite a reputation, especially in 5.0L form, but at the time it would've been touted as a new motor and change is hard ...

Just my $.02
wish
Just my $.02
wish
69 Cougar, That 70s Truck, 84 Cherokee Chief 2dr, 88 Grand Wagoneer, 95 Grand Cherokee,96 Mustang

ClawIt
Registered Member
Posts: 412
Joined: 14 Nov 2012, 21:33

Re: 1968 289 / Why

#39

Post by ClawIt » 12 May 2017, 10:31

In 1972 I bought a 68 XR7 with a 302 4V. After some drag strip time several pushrods bent. Went to NAPA - 68 302 here you go. Put them in and they were loose no matter the torquing. Pulled out an original straight one and lined them up and the new ones were shorter, back to NAPA with the old one. They only listed the ones they sold. Over to the Ford dealer and the parts guy measures the rod and says you have an early 302 that has a slightly higher deck height. After a week wait for the warehouse they fit right in. Back to the strip!

guitar74
Registered Member
Posts: 1461
Joined: 11 Oct 2015, 16:55

Re: 1968 289 / Why

#40

Post by guitar74 » 25 May 2017, 18:45

There's also the rumor floating around the net about the bottom of the bore on the early 302 being brittle and coming apart and 289 being put in as service replacements. Whatever the case, I like owning a '68 standard with a 289 and having people tell me that I couldn't possibly have the original engine because the 289 was mothballed by '68.
Last edited by guitar74 on 02 Jun 2017, 18:26, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply