Did All FE-engined TBirds have a block spacer plate?

[kbuhagiar]

Hello Folks,

First off I need to mention how grateful I am for the information I have received so far from the folks on this forum.

I'm starting this thread to perhaps generate more specific discussion related to the absence of a block spacer plate on my new-to-me 1962 TBird Convertible. I started an earlier thread which originally questioned the fitment of the flywheel inspection cover. I have since discovered that I do not have a block spacer plate installed between my engine and transmission.

More discussion on the other thread seemed to indicate that some Tbirds before 63 did not have a spacer plate, Needless to say I have a vested interest in this possibility, as I would much rather not have to go through the trouble of installing one (although I am fully prepared to do so if necessary).

Further complicating matters is the possibility that I do not have the original engine in my 62. The date code off the trim tag is 12C, which decodes to a build date of March 12, 1962, but both previous owners I have contacted were told that the engine was rebuilt (although there is no supporting documentation to verify this). I have located what I think are engine rebuilder ID tags, one on each side of the block, epoxied to the rearmost expansion plugs. I cannot locate any casting numbers on the right side of the engine, but on the left side above the the oil filter there was this: 40 DIF (Mold #40 Dearborn Iron Foundry?) Directly below the oil filter boss is this: E (by itself) and then below the 'E' is an unreadable character which could be a 2, 3, 5, 8, or 9, followed by E 27. Also, the block has three engine mount bolt holes on either side (my understanding is this indicates a 1965 or later block).

The transmission is the original Cruise-O-Matic.

So here we are...hoping that the resident experts can chime in and shed some light on my mystery.
I expect that I will have to install a block plate but I would love for someone to prove me wrong!

Thanks in advance for any input.

[Karl]

Here is an image of the engine assy date that is on my block. It is a bit hard to read but is 2J25 and then what appears to be a 1.
From my understanding this is 25 Sept '62. The E2 above is the inspectors mark, I think.

This is my spare engine, I will have to get to work and clean up the rust.
Karl.

[Jim Wulf]

Ken,

I've been trying to decipher the numbers you gave but because they're incomplete it's a difficult problem to try and solve by just considering the numbers.

The three engine mount bolt holes do indicate a later block. 61 through 64 blocks only had 2 bolt holes as noted in the literature, and which I can verify by the 62, 63, and 64 engines that I have here in the shop. That one fact alone would seem to prove that your block is 65 or later.

Additionally, Big Fords also finally went to an alternator arrangement in 65, so you should be able to check that on your particular block. If you have an alternator it's almost certainly a 63 or later block. If you have a generator, it may still have been adapted to a 63 or later block through the use of custom brackets, but that is improbable. All Thunderbird blocks after 1963 have an added screw boss on the right front portion of the block for the alternator bracket, so if it has that boss it's most certainly a 63 or later Thunderbird block, so I would check that item first in order to verify your particular block. I've included two photos showing a 62 block witout the boss, and a 63 block with the boss for reference.

[Alan H. Tast]

An easy question/spotting feature to help date an engine (provided the intake wasn't swapped out): what style is the manifold on the car, and what's the casting/engineering numbers along with the casting date on it? If it has the filler neck near the front of the intake it's a '64-older manifold; if it doesn't have the oil filler neck it's '65-later as those engines moved the filler to the left (driver's) side valve cover. Casting/engineering number and casting date should be on top of the manifold in front of the carburetor - the engineering number would have a alpha-numeric prefix like C3AE, followed by the number 9425 (or similar - I'm going off of memory here) and a letter suffix. The casting date is a 3- or 4-digit code with #-letter-# (two at end if higher than '9') with the first number year of decade, letter for month and last number(s) for date of month.

If they swapped out the original intake on a later engine, then you'll need to find the engineering code on the right/passenger side of the block near where the generator/alternator are. Pics would help to see what you have. The casting date code on FEs after the late '50s-early '60s is located near the oil filter adapter on the bottom of the block/oil pan rail. You may have to get the car on a lift and do some cleaning to see it.

Now, back to the main question at hand - use of the so-called "spacer" plate. I do have manuals and parts books going back to the first FEs in 1958 and can look in them to see what they show, but right now I'm stuck at work (on a Saturday, nonetheless) and under deadline for a project going out the door on Monday. Plus, I have a tech article for the Scoop that's also on deadline for this weekend, so I'm burning the candle at more than two ends here (I should be billing for about 4 hours' worth of time to date at Senior Architect rates for the research shown below). So, once again, I shall go down another 'rabbit hole' for the benefit of others.

Let's start with the 1960-1968 Ford Master Parts Catalog (MPC). Looking under basic number 7007 for Transmission - Engine Rear Cover Plate Assembly, in Sec. 70.4 for Cruise-O-Matic transmissions, I didn't find a listing for a transmission engine rear plate with basic number 7007. (See later post with this info).

For the transmission converter housing, Sec. A70.3, pg. 28, Chg #36, Rev Aug 1968, lists C1SP 7976-A for '60-'64 full-size Fords/T-birds "All exc. 430" engines (the '60 T-bird offered a Lincoln-based 430 (MEL-series) engine) with the MX-series dual-range transmission. For '65-up full-size and T-birds with the 390 and MX- and FMX-series transmission, a different housing, C3AZ 7976-D (with ID marking C5AP 7976-E) was used.

For the cover plate, Sec. A70.3, pg 29, Chg #36, Rev Aug 1968, lists B8A 7985-A for '60-'62 Ford/T-bird 352-390s, and C5AZ 7985-B for '63-up full-size and 240, 289, 302, 352 and 390 applications with the MX-series dual-range transmission, along with '63-up T-bird 390s (for '66-up 428s you have to go to Section A70.5 for C6 automatics).

The Ford Car Master Parts Catalog from circa 1961 is organized a little differently than later editions. It has parts combined in group numbering regardless of transmission type. Section A70 doesn't show a spacer/transmission engine rear plate in conjunction with listings in Section A76 which include the Transmission Converter Housing Assembly C1SP 7976-A and Transmission Converter Housing Cover Assembly B8A 7985-A. Diagrams in the sections also don't show the plate in conjunction with the transmission bellhousing for FEs - they do show a plate with basic part number 7007 for 6-cylinders, though, and only list the transmission engine rear plate for 6-cylinder 223s in Section A70. There is no mention in it of a transmission engine rear plate cover plate assembly with basic number 7007 for the 352-390 that I could find - the numbers jump from 7005 to 7A022 (or something like that).

The '60-'64 Ford Car Parts & Illustrations Catalog, i.e. the "Blue Bible," was printed in 1969 and doesn't have parts sections A70 through A76 like the '61-prior MPCs did, which would have the converter housing/cover parts listings in a separate chapter regardless of transmission type. Instead, transmissions are grouped by type (2-speed Ford-O-Matic, Cruise-O-Matic, C4 and C6). In my copy of the '60-'64 "Blue Bible and '60-'68 Ford Car MPC, in Section A70.3 for Cruise-O-Matic transmissions, There is no mention of use of a transmission engine rear plate with basic number 7007 in Section A70.3 - it skips over the number. This is because it's located in another part of the book in Section A71 (see later post).

I did find a listing in the '60-'64 Lincoln-Mercury MPC, printed in 1965 (?), for Engine Rear Cover Plate for all '63-'64 Mercury full-size transmission applications (but no engine ID - typically they were 390s) of C3AZ 7007-B, with C2VY 7007-A shown for the '62-'64 Lincoln 430 MEL-series engine. I suspect 1963 might be the starting date based on this tidbit of information, but more research is needed as shown below (see later post for the additional research/info).

The '60-'64 Lincoln-Mercury MPC does show a change in the converter housing and cover plate numbers between '62 and '63 for FE applications (similar to what's shown in the '60-'68 Ford Car MPC), with C1SP 7976-A housing and COMM 7985-A ('60) and B8A 7985-A ('61-'62) cover plates; for '63 and '64 FE applications, the converter housing carried part number C3AZ 7976-C and the cover plate C3AZ 7985-A. There is mention of the transmission engine rear plate with basic number 7007 at the beginning of the transmission section, though (as noted above).

In looking at the '65-'72 Lincoln-Mercury MPC from Nov 1975, I found in the Sec. A70 index a listing for 7007 - Transmission Engine Rear Plate Assembly, along with illustrations showing these plates on various engines except in their drawings for FE-series engines. Going to Sec. A70.1 for Cruise-O-Matic/MX-type transmissions, I found no listing for the basic number 7007 - that's because it's listed in Sec. 71 with manual transmissions. I do have a copy of the '65-'72 Ford Car MPC - Final Edition, issued in 1975, to go through yet (see later post with this info).

I still have printed copies of the '60-'63 Lincoln-Mercury (L-M) and '65-'66 L-M MPCs to go through, along with the '60-'64 "Blue Bible," '65-'72 Ford Car MPC and various annual releases of the '58 through '66 Ford Car Parts & Accessories catalogs to comb through. If you can wait until later next week, MAYBE I might be able to give you some better answers on use of the plate and when it first was used (see later post). Knowing the part number '7007' and parts catalog description of it, transmission engine rear plate, helps to know what to look for. As you can surmise from above, I haven't found it yet in Ford-specific books, but I haven't gone through all my books yet (see results in later post).

Just for kicks and grins (and future reference), plus since I was there anyway, the '60-'68 Ford Car MPC in Sec. 60.6 for 352-390 engines, often times the question comes up about flex plates and number of teeth for the starter drive. On p. 18, Chg #36, Aug '68, it had listings for the flywheel and ring gear assemblies for '60-'68 T-birds as follows:

60-64 full-size, T-bird (F/M & C/M) - B8A 6375-B, 352 & 390 - includes ring gear - 153 teeth-14.96" O.D.-(16) 17/64" bolt holes

65-up full-size, mid-size, Mustang, T-bird, Police (C/M, C4, C6) - C5AZ 6375-D - 184 tooth ring gear - 14 1/2" dia. (16) 17/64" bolt holes on 11-13/32" bolt circle. (You'd have to go to the 429 section for the '68-up T-bird 429s). This coincides with the change in converter housings starting in '65, which is also when the starter changed from a "long" to "short" style and, of course, number of teeth on the starter drive.

[kbuhagiar]

Jim/Alan,

The plot thickens...my engine does have the alternator boss, but I still have a generator:

The alternator boss hole is currently being used for the negative battery cable attachment:

Here is the casting number on my intake manifold, which would appear to be the original, as it incorporates the earlier-style oil-filler neck:

[Jim Wulf]

Jim/Alan,

The plot thickens...my engine does have the alternator boss, but I still have a generator:

generator and battery cable.jpg

The alternator boss hole is currently being used for the negative battery cable attachment:

alternator boss.jpg

Here is the casting number on my intake manifold, which would appear to be the original, as it incorporates the earlier-style oil-filler neck:

intake manifold casting.jpg

That all positively indicates to me that your car was short blocked with a 63 or later unit, and most probably 65 or later considering the motor mount holes. The intake manifold was simply transferred to the new block, and maybe the heads as well - that would be interesting to know but not critical to the issue at hand. Simply using any rebuilt block that would fit was common practice over the years as hardly anyone was concerned with that level of originiality back in the day.

Unfortunately that also means that your engine/transmission combination requires the engine spacer plate, which means yanking at least the engine or the transmission, or trying to separate the two enough to slide it up in there somehow. I don't know if the latter is possible as I've never tried it. Maybe Bob could chime in here with his viewpoint.

[Cliff Rankin]

Question , I have been following this off and on for a while
Now. Wasn’t the original issue his starter , because of the
Spacer missing ? When I purchased my 64 it had a 65 starter in it some shop installed. Would make a horrific sound. I wonder , depending on witch flex plate is in the
Car , could he count the teeth on it and maybe use a later
Style Starter that does not have the long shaft and the correct bendex ?
Cliff

[Jim Wulf]

That could be done I guess depending on the flexplate and what starter is presently in the car. There would still be a gap between the cover and the block though, and certainly not advisable.

[redstangbob]

so you guys with 61/62 cars, you had no separator plate and a seal for the long style starter. What seals the bottom of the trans on your car? ( Bill, Jim) The PO has a noisy starter, does he have the wrong one? We're gonna miss the forest for the trees here pretty soon. And we need some pictures....

[BobHH]

Jim, my donor 62 is all original and has no spacer plate. My late model 62 roadster engine was replaced approximately 8K mile ago as I was told due to an hole being made in the oil pan while drive down the interstate thus causing the engine to throw a rod and destroy the block. The reman engine is a 68 year with the alternator hole boss but it is running the generator. As close as I can tell the date casting is 8L1 which would put it November 2, 1968. The cylinder heads are C8AE-H castings. Funny after taking a closer look it has some strange casting webbing on the block that kind of looks like a 427 block. I sent some pictures over to a Ford racing buddy of mine to see if he can ID!! I hate to pull the heads to check the bore as I plan to sell that engine. Of course the replacement engine was using the correct intake and even had a down draft tub. When I pulled it out it does have the correct transmission by the data tag but had no spacer plate. The starter made a little noise when cranked but not bad and I attributed it to the ring gear wear.

I worked for an industrial engine rebuilder for 12 years many moons ago and we were also a production engine remanufacturer for Ford. Yes we had a list of what would fit in any certain application and would pull random blocks to built to fit the purpose. Dates and casting numbers really did not concern us as long as it fit!! This is why I'm going back with my donor engine in the roadster as its date code is about 2 to 3 weeks before the cars assumed build date.

I guess to be sure I need to measure the donor car's transmission bell housing and compare it to the roadster's transmission housing as to the depth to be sure if i can run with or without the spacer plate.

[kbuhagiar]

Hello again folks,

I must say that this thread is generating some great information, hopefully it can be documented for easier reference down the road.
And I agree with the forest/trees comment; to be clear, I am hoping to (1) determine that my Tbird did NOT come with a block space plate which would (2) save me a LOT of trouble; and (3) restore may confidence in the previous owners of my Tbird, or at least the mechanics who worked on it, lol!

So I have spent hours researching this on the Internet, and I seem to have come up with some more information from the 332/428 FE board:

https://www.fordfe.com/viewtopic.php?p=1094652#p1094652

This appears to confirm that the block plate was not used until the 1963 model year. In lieu of the block plate this spacer ring was used on the starter to locate it correctly:

https://www.macsautoparts.com/ford_thun ... lsrc=aw.ds

I checked, and I DO have the spacer ring installed between my starter and the bellhousing, which is encouraging.

Another bit of of info from the FE board is that the earlier (pre-block plate) bellhousings (whether manual or automatic) are drilled/relieved to accept this starter ring. So it is the transmission/bellhousing choice which determines whether a block plate is used, not the block year.

Of course, ultimately this is still all conjecture at this point, as my sources are just FE forum members, and I can't vouch for their reliability.

So, what say you, does this all jibe up with what we have uncovered to this point?

Sounds plausible to me...

[kbuhagiar]

so you guys with 61/62 cars, you had no separator plate and a seal for the long style starter. What seals the bottom of the trans on your car? ( Bill, Jim) The PO has a noisy starter, does he have the wrong one? We're gonna miss the forest for the trees here pretty soon. And we need some pictures....

This is something I would like to know too, as this is the observation that started all of this in the first place.

And if there is a different inspection cover I would like to see a picture of it, or at least a source reference so I can get one.
The one I purchased from Ecklers is marketed as specifically for 58-62 only but it looks identical to the one I've seen for the 63-up Birds.
Hmmmm.

Thanks again.

[kbuhagiar]

And for your further consideration, some pictures taken this morning of the starter and the new (ill-fitting?) inspection cover:

You can clearly see the spacer in between the starter and the bellhousing.

That gap between the bottom of the block and the top of the new inspection cover is what triggered this whole episode...

EDIT: It appears that Mac's lists two different part numbers for the inspection plates, one for the 58-62 Thunderbird (66-31072-1) and one for the the 63-66 (66-36021-1), yet they both appear identical in the illustrations. Wonder if it's the same part?
I have yet to uncover any evidence (photograpic or otherwise) that the original 58-62 plate is different. Still looking.
It would be great if someone out there with an known original 61-62 cover could provide a picture.

[Jim Wulf]

Jim, my donor 62 is all original and has no spacer plate. My late model 62 roadster engine was replaced approximately 8K mile ago as I was told due to an hole being made in the oil pan while drive down the interstate thus causing the engine to throw a rod and destroy the block. The reman engine is a 68 year with the alternator hole boss but it is running the generator. As close as I can tell the date casting is 8L1 which would put it November 2, 1968. The cylinder heads are C8AE-H castings. Funny after taking a closer look it has some strange casting webbing on the block that kind of looks like a 427 block. I sent some pictures over to a Ford racing buddy of mine to see if he can ID!! I hate to pull the heads to check the bore as I plan to sell that engine. Of course the replacement engine was using the correct intake and even had a down draft tub. When I pulled it out it does have the correct transmission by the data tag but had no spacer plate. The starter made a little noise when cranked but not bad and I attributed it to the ring gear wear.

I worked for an industrial engine rebuilder for 12 years many moons ago and we were also a production engine remanufacturer for Ford. Yes we had a list of what would fit in any certain application and would pull random blocks to built to fit the purpose. Dates and casting numbers really did not concern us as long as it fit!! This is why I'm going back with my donor engine in the roadster as its date code is about 2 to 3 weeks before the cars assumed build date.

I guess to be sure I need to measure the donor car's transmission bell housing and compare it to the roadster's transmission housing as to the depth to be sure if i can run with or without the spacer plate.

Bob, If you can measure the height of your plate that would be helpful.

[Jim Wulf]

I think it's been resolved that Ken has a 65 or later block. If he wants to seal the gap, he needs to install a spacer plate or find a different cover that will do that. Maybe a cover from a 61 or 62 is a different dimension and will do it, I don't know. Once Bob H. measures his and posts it, that will resolve that question. I'll measure mine as well. As Cliff has pointed out, Ken was originally concerned with noise from the starter and will need to determine exactly which starter and flexplate is installed.

I'm still thrown off by the fact that my late '62 SR with a 5/14 build date, has a generator, no alternator boss, a spacer plate, and a cover that is identical in dimensions to a 63 cover. If the spacer plate wasn't there, my clearly pre-63 block/trans combo would have a gap beteen the cover and block. There is no 61-62 style seal on my starter and it works well with no noise. The present starter is actually from a '64.

Spacer Plate 62 SR

Generator Mount 62 SR