Ford Mustang Forums banner

Help with id'ing my block etc

18K views 33 replies 9 participants last post by  Black P-38 
#1 ·
Recently the '90 coupe I purchased ate its oil pump, so I pulled the motor to fix that and a few other minor issues. The guy I bought it from didnt know anything about mustangs at all, as all the mods on it were done by the guy who he bought the car from. Its clear to me the motor as been out of the car before. So I decided to take a look at some casting/part numbers to see exactly what I have.

Block is E7TE-9H18-CA. That should be the 1987 truck block from the NJ warehouse, and CA is just the revision number. Did I get that right? As far as the 9H18, im confused. Shouldn't that be 6015 ~ designating that it is an engine block?

Also, on the drivers side under the head the number 48 is cast, and on the same spot on the rear of the block 39 is cast. Any idea what those mean? The front one is not the engine assembly date code...infact the place where that is supposed to be has nothing stamped there at all....

Block has the partial VIN stamp on the rear behind the lower intake, LF103934. L = 1990, F is the assembly plant, and the 1 means that it was for a mustang....right?

What really got me confused about this block, it has a 2 threaded holes on the rear that I have never seen before. Behind the lower intake, on the passenger side, there is a threaded hole, and it appears to go into the oiling system (the part that feeds the passenger bank of lifters)...but upon googling for quite some time it appears its a hole for a knock sensor? I've never seen this on a mustang block and I have torn down a decent number of them. Also, on the passengerside rear of the block there is a threaded hole that apparently was a spot that the older style clutch linkages used...anyone verify this?

The pistons have E7ZE-CA, which should be factory forged TRW mustang pistons, right?

The rods are the strangest of all, they are the D10E-AA. Those are the 70-71 302 rods right? What the heck are those doing in there?

Please help verify/correct what i've got here! Many thanks!
 
See less See more
#3 ·
Part numbers do not change every year, they only change when the part is revised. e7te blocks used the same part number until the f1se block came out in 91. Same with the pistons. I have seen c8 as well as d1 rods in late 80s engines.
 
#5 · (Edited)
Okay, got a question for ya...

What would a block with casting # F1SE and E7TE heads be from???
I have the intake off and it is roller lifter/dogbone/spider tray equipped.

It was supposed to be from an F-150, has the huge 5.0 truck intake with twin bore TB.
Any initial impressions?

Interestingly, the valve covers still have the paper tags with a date, not coded, of 4/27/95. They're grey factory tin covers with small stamped Ford script-in-oval.

There are codes on the tags which, according to my manual, contain other info. Unfortunately I don't have them here. I will get the other code info later today and check back. I will also be checking the firing order by rotating the crank, (clockwise), if it goes 1-3 its H.O. order, 1-5 it's S.O. right???

Should be easy to find #1 TDC on the compression stroke by rotating the pushrods to verify both valves are closed. Then rotate the crank 'til the dizzy rotor points to the next plug terminal contact and check pushrods for #3 and #5 to see which pair rotates... does that sound right? Of course the dizzy turns counter clockwise...

Thanks,
Mike
 
#4 ·
WAYYYYYY TOOOO ANAL about thinking that the engine has to be EXACT....

the date code on the block casting is the only EXACT DAY that the thing was hot molten metal poured.

blocks and heads have this ..not much else does.
 
#7 · (Edited)
Okay thanks! I guess I got confused by reading a "how to" on reading casting #'s that seemed to identify it as a 91 T-bird Engine code... Plus I thought all truck blocks, (factory installed in truck/van/Bronco chassis), wore the _ _ TE casting code. I forgot to mention, it has the truck oil pan on it as well.

Did the later Mustangs ever use the F1SE block or were they F_ZE code?

Any idea what pistons and comp ratio? How can I tell if mine are forged? Any way to tell from the bottom end or do the heads have to come off?

It's a running motor and a budget project so I'm trying to limit what's done so I can get it on the road. I may drop in an HO cam I have, I think some of these motors were far less than the HO's 225hp/300tq, don't want to end up with a slug... BTW, it's going in an S-10 Blazer backed by a T-5 and will be my daily driver!!! :) Oh yeah, almost forgot... will be topped with a Weiand redesigned 8124 Action+Plus intake and 600cfm Holley... VROOOOM!!!


Thanks guys!
Mike
 
#8 ·
What really got me confused about this block, it has a 2 threaded holes on the rear that I have never seen before. Behind the lower intake, on the passenger side, there is a threaded hole, and it appears to go into the oiling system (the part that feeds the passenger bank of lifters)...but upon googling for quite some time it appears its a hole for a knock sensor? I've never seen this on a mustang block and I have torn down a decent number of them. Also, on the passengerside rear of the block there is a threaded hole that apparently was a spot that the older style clutch linkages used...anyone verify this?

The pistons have E7ZE-CA, which should be factory forged TRW mustang pistons, right?

The rods are the strangest of all, they are the D10E-AA. Those are the 70-71 302 rods right? What the heck are those doing in there?

Please help verify/correct what i've got here! Many thanks!
Like someone posted before me said, Ford will continue to use a casting and the same casting until they have a reason to change it, even if it is a very minor change. If the casting changes then the number changes. The casting number indicates only when that casting first started being used, not the year model for which it was first used.
68 was the first year for the 302, so the 302 rods were first made in 68. C8 indicates 68, most of the 302 rods I have seen are the C80E rod, the 71 D10E rod was first ued in 71 and they are comon also. I have never held both rods side by side to see what the differences are, but there will be at least one difference between the two rods, but they can be used in the same engine. All 302 rods except for the Boss rods have the same center to center, pin size, rod bearing size and width. I think there are four different 5.09 rod numbers.
The hole you are asking about on the top right of the block is for a knock sensor, I have seen Mustangs with those blocks, but they never used a knock sensor on a 5.0 Mustang. The other hole you are asking about I don't know what it is, if you posted a picture, that would help.
The hole you are talking about for the clutch linkage was on the left side/ driver's side, not the right side or passenger's side. The clutch Z bar pivot threaded hole was located on the left rear of the block near where the bellhousing bolts up. Ford used a threaded hole in the block up to '69 for the A bar pivot, starting in '70 they had a bracket that was held on by two of the lower left bellhousing bolts that had a threaded hole for the Z bar pivot.
I have a RDI block that was cast in 2000 for Ford, about a year ago I noticed it has the threaded hole in the left rear of the block for the Z bar pivot.
So where are you getting the info on the casting dates, where it was cast and for what type of vehicle it was cast for? I would like to have that info, I only have the info on parts of the casting numbers.
 
#10 ·
aarronn,

after all the time wasted,...you will eventually figure out that it DOES NOT EFFIN MATTER WHAT BLOCK....because after 1985 or so,..they all are the same levels of weakness...
only the blocks prior to 1985 were any amount/ level "stronger" and the blocks before 1978 were better and then the earliest 1969 to 71 blocks the strongest.

all of the parts fit in the block with only differences in balancing and the cam firing order.

any cam firing order can be installed into any block, (physically fits) with the only consideration as to certain specks/durations will work with batch firing injectors...
firing order really does not matter in subject of power except for considerations of the batch fire timed injection...
........stop wasting time...
the info about one block being better than another does not matter if you are just building a stock level of power....

who cares what the so called intention or original installation of the block was or should have been...after fifty years it does not matter NOR is it any positive proof of anything unless the exact VIN code / serial number can be found hand stamped on the block...
but as said,..it does not matter....
 
#12 ·
It sounded to me like he was trying to restore the car, if that were the case, the casting numbers would make a difference. Actualy the '85 roller block is a little different for the rest of th roller blocks, it did not have siamesed cylinders, that started with the '86 blocks. The blocks made before the roller blocks in the early '80s were virtualy the same as the '85 blocks other than the lifter valley and lifter bores. The blocks from the '60s and '70s have a little more metal than the '80s and newer blocks, but the molds were not as good, they had more core shift, that is the reason for the extra metal in the earlier blocks, to increas the chance of having enough metal were it was needed. There is very little difference between the early and later blocks in strength, not enough to justify building a high horse engine with and early block over a good aftermarket block. The only stock blocks I would give credit fortruely being stronger are the Boss 302 blocks, the 289 Hi Po blocks can potentialy be stronger but should be sonic checked, same goes for the Mexican blocks. The Mexican blocks used Hi Po molds but were cast in Mexico, so you can gess at the quality control on those. Basicaly you are getting a made in Mexico 289 Hi Po block, it could be better than a common 302, but because of the potential of core shift it may not be any better.
 
#13 ·
there AINT NO SIAMEZED CYLINDERS in any of the stock production blocks....!!!!

the mexican blocks were the same ORIGINAL molds as the pre 1971 or so blocks,..only difference is that they utiized the thicker caps of a hy-po 289 block...
 
#14 · (Edited)
hotrodT,

there is no extra added value to any of these blocks.

the only mannor that a block would ever "ADD" any resale value to it if it was an original VIN number stamped block....
but then still,.. it is just another mustang...

it aint a shelby or a specially made car or even a saleen...

just another car.

you cant polish a common piece of quap and get something that is then better.

as acknowledged,..the engine had been "out of the car" previously,..so,
it could have even been replaced by a ford dealer due to a warrenty situation... there are / were no requirements that the BLOCK had to be something as exact as that anyone would care... a stock block ..is a stock block... it is a sum of the parts inside and the heads that would then make it be smog compliant...
dealers would install whatever the local rep would allow to be installed for a warrenty claim.


get back to EARTH....!!!!!!!!!
 
#19 ·
so,

with all of that refrence to the S-10,


it does not matter what year the block is.
 
#21 ·
Not for my project it doesn't... I was trying to determine basic power level of the motor as is... based on what I've learned I just need to swap in my HO cam, install the carb setup, new oil pump, fox oil pan & pickup, timing set and I'll be ready to roll...

Mike
 
#22 ·
Kato, I'm not stressing over my block/internals ID, mostly I was just curious as to what motor was in the car, since the previous owner knew nothing about it's history, and the knock sensor thing kinda threw me for a loop.

one last question, if it is indeed the original motor that the car came with from ford, should the number stamped on the block (under lower intake at the rear) match the last digits of the vin tag on the car? Or did I get some bad Internet info again? :)
 
#23 ·
the number that is hand stamped on to the top side of block in between the two top trans bellhousing bolt thread holes is the V.I.N. of vehicle that the engine was in.

some / MOST fordfactory warrenty replacement blocks that were never in a car as original new, do not have a number, since the VIN code was not a federal requirement.

ford / ford dealer / warrenty replacement engines can be from a "rebuilder", however rare, they are usually instead a factory built new " known as a crate type" of deal that is whatever the lowest cost to get engine..... A FEW of the "desolate" dealers were allowed to "get whatever they could" to get the customer back on the road.

as you know, back in 1984/5/6, there were literally thousands of the engines replaced because of people that did not like the piston slapping noise when cold/first startup,....
all of those engines went SOMEWHERE....
I bought 6 of them for scrap metal value=====200 dollars a piece.
this is also why it is not reliable to utilize the color of oil pan to determine if the engine is a cast or hyper or forged piston setup, because the warrenty replacement engine could be ANYTHING pistonwise, and the engine usually came "in the crate" with no usable oil pan from the ford warehouse....
 
#24 · (Edited)
the number that is hand stamped on to the top side of block in between the two top trans bellhousing bolt thread holes is the V.I.N. of vehicle that the engine was in.

some / MOST fordfactory warrenty replacement blocks that were never in a car as original new, do not have a number, since the VIN code was not a federal requirement...
AHA!!! This could explain why I cannot find a VIN # stamped into that machined surface, or anywhere else on the block... it could also explain why the block casting #, according to a rebuilders Master List, designates a '92-'93 block, (F1SE-BB), while the valve cover Info/date tag indicates an assembly date of 4/27/95... again, not that any of this matters, but I find it interesting. Of course, without full knowledge of the engine from day one, any number of parts could have come from any number of sources... so it is what it is.

I just needed a roller shortblock with E7TE heads, to stuff my stock HO cam into, to provide the basis for my Blazer transplant. My F-Series manual lists all 5.0's from '87-'96 as 9 to 1 C.R. I still don't know if I have forged pistons or hypereutectics, don't suppose that really matters either since I'm looking at less than 300hp and it will NEVER see spray.

Mike
 
#26 · (Edited)
just because the block casting number or the related actual hot metal pour date code is something that can be identified...DONT MEAN THAT THE PISTON or CAMSHAFT/lifters IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS SUPPOSE TO BE....
parts get changed around all the time.

the salvage guy or the junk yard will tell you anything and oftentimes make up a story

no such thing as a true virgin from ford assembly unless the prior ORIGINAL owner was a honest relative that knew there was no after sale work done by anyone, even the dealer...


...expecting and then getting an honest answer from a 28 year old hottie woman about her being a virgin is just about as difficult.....
 
#29 ·
Aaron: The block engineering ("casting") number is E7TE-CA, which was the standard '87-'90 block. The date casting number is 9H18, which means it was cast August 18, 1989. The LF103934 is the (partial) VIN of the vehicle it was originally in, the 3,934th 1990 Mustang assigned a VIN at Dearborn Assembly.

Kato: You and I have danced this dance before regarding the '79-'85 and '86+ blocks. You say the later is weaker and I say the former is. You also say there were no siamese cylinders in any production blocks.

John Vermeersch (ex-Ford engineer and owner/operator of Total Performance aka the Ford Racing "hotline") would disagree with you....

Super Ford - August 2000 said:
Late-Production 5.0

For our purposes, we'll draw the time line between late- and early-production 302s at around 1980, when Ford converted to a new thin-wall casting technique in the Cleveland casting plant. The early '80s subsequently saw some of the lightest duty 302s ever cast. These are best avoided for any serious performance application and, like their later cousins, are not recommended to be overbored more than 0.030 inch.

During 1981, 302 reciprocating assemblies were changed from a 28- to a 50-ounce imbalance (making no difference to the blocks themselves), and starting in 1983 rear main seals were switched from two pieces to one piece.

From 1986 on, the familiar roller cam H.O. block - which served faithfully until the end of the pushrod Mustangs V-8s in 1995 - gained additional beef in the deck and cylinder-wall areas. These blocks often amaze us with how much power they'll contain. How much depends on the driver and the combination, but we've all seen them happily soldiering on in 10-second cars. ... Once you finally exceed the power capability of the 302's stock bottom end, it's a toss-up on whether the crank, the rods, or the block will let go first.
...as would Al Kirschenbaum...

The Official 1979 Through 1993 Ford Mustang 5.0 Technical Reference & Performance Handbook said:
'85 block = 122 lbs.
'86 block = 126 lbs.

For 1985, the H.O. cylinder block was redesigned to accept roller tappets and related hardware.

For 1986, a new stiffer block was cast with thicker decks, thicker cylinder walls and semi-siameesed water jacketing around the bores.
 
#30 ·
only issue is having to use a short length oil filter.

we put small block fords in a number of currier/toyota/datsun/nissan/ small trucks back in the day...only issue was getting a stock-original differential to take the load of a wheels up launch whilst getting on the freeway. about when the obdIII type stuff came along, I gave up attempting to get the electronicKs to work with the ford engine into a non ford chassis.,
 
#33 ·
only issue is having to use a short length oil filter.

...I gave up attempting to get the electronicKs to work with the ford engine into a non ford chassis.,
I'll be using a NAPA Gold , (made by WIX), filter. The GT40 pictured has a shorty on it...

My 1994 Ford F-150 Lightning came from the factory with a "short" oil filter, (I bought the truck new in January 1995). I drove it nearly 210,000 miles as a work truck with no issues, still kickin' ass, now powering a '54 F-100. Never been refreshed or rebuilt, just a timing set and water pump at about 191,000... both installed as a precaution.

As for my project, no electronics except for the stand alone dizzy's on board circuitry, 2 wire hookup. I wont have to worry about P/S, A/C or power brakes 'cause there wont be any... I want it simple with little maintenance and fewer parts.

Mike
 
#31 ·
the refrences in post #29 ,.... is well intended, but the actual blown up / broken engines reveal that the block splits down the center of the cam bearing towers bulkhead/up into the main bearing bulkhead saddles..... no mention of the fact that the 77 to 79 and then 84/5/6 block were ALL THINNER THERE in comparison to a earlier cast block.

STILL NO INDICATION THAT THE BLOCKS EVER HAD A TRUE SIAMEZED CYLINDER....
...( that was the refrence and word employed)....
we all know that the block may have been slightly thicker at the deck, but then some stupid penny counter made the head bolt threads open into the water. all of the pre 77 or so blocks had NO water going into the head bolt threads...
.....all that this did was to make additional problems.
so, just how many people have had issues with water leaks that start from the threads...??
maybe ONLY 99 percent of engine builds have a leakage issue...

LOL...LOL...



I HAVE saw cut apart a number of blocks, and the amount of material so called "that was added" is minimal....and as said, the block is thinner in a lot of other places which makes it overall weaker. Just put a early block and a late roller block on a bathroom scale ...compare,...and tell us what you get.

the early blocks do not have the "splitting down the middle" issue as do the "roller blocks"...
....all making the same usable power and tune up...
 
#32 ·
a pre 79 or so block was about 140 pounds.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top