SAAC Forum

The Cars => 1967 Shelby GT350/500 => Topic started by: Jbrooks on August 05, 2020, 10:09:11 PM

Title: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: Jbrooks on August 05, 2020, 10:09:11 PM
Doing an engine rebuild On the GT350, and I had a new 157 pin ring gear installed on the flywheel (found some worn teeth during the year down).  I just tried to do the break in on the motor, and I found my starter is grinding when I try to start the car (tried twice and rotated the flywheel to see if it would help the starter engage better)  Pulled the starter and found the bendix teeth to be good and luckily the flywheel showed no signs of damage. To get the car started tonight, I tried a rebuilt starter, but it was 3/100Ē bigger than my original starter and didnít mate up to the flex plate. Has anyone tried a mini starter on their 289?  If so, which one did you go with? 

Thanks in advance for any help!
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: Bob Gaines on August 05, 2020, 10:41:10 PM
Doing an engine rebuild On the GT350, and I had a new 157 pin ring gear installed on the flywheel (found some worn teeth during the year down).  I just tried to do the break in on the motor, and I found my starter is grinding when I try to start the car (tried twice and rotated the flywheel to see if it would help the starter engage better)  Pulled the starter and found the bendix teeth to be good and luckily the flywheel showed no signs of damage. To get the car started tonight, I tried a rebuilt starter, but it was 3/100Ē bigger than my original starter and didnít mate up to the flex plate. Has anyone tried a mini starter on their 289?  If so, which one did you go with? 

Thanks in advance for any help!
I assume you meant engine block plate. Some aftermarket starters do not fit well and the block plate has to be massaged with a die grinder so that it will fit.  67 on up shows two different starters in the MPC.  One starter for a 4 speed and one for a auto. That sounds like that could be your problem. Can you take some pictures of your starter and post them? The nose cone section portion that is visible once mounted will tell which one you have 4 speed or auto starter. 
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: Jbrooks on August 05, 2020, 11:14:39 PM
Itís been a long day working on the car today, and I forgot to mention that itís a 4 speed. The replacement had the same similar nose, but the diameter where it fits against the block plate was 3/100Ē too big. I tried taking the nose piece of my original starter and putting it in the replacement starter, but it wouldnít fit. Here is a picture of the nose section of my original starter.
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: pbf777 on August 06, 2020, 11:47:12 AM
Has anyone tried a mini starter on their 289?  If so, which one did you go with? 


     It doesn't look like the original, it's probably not the cheapest thing in the market place, but so far we haven't been let down by the Ford Performance High Torque Mini Starters; and what I prefer to sell (when applicable), as I can't say the same for a number of other brands products. 

     Part number: M-11000-B51, for automatic and manuals other than the 164 tooth flywheels.
                           M-11000-MT164, for manual transmission with 164 tooth flywheels.

     Scott.
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: Bob Gaines on August 06, 2020, 12:45:13 PM
Itís been a long day working on the car today, and I forgot to mention that itís a 4 speed. The replacement had the same similar nose, but the diameter where it fits against the block plate was 3/100Ē too big. I tried taking the nose piece of my original starter and putting it in the replacement starter, but it wouldnít fit. Here is a picture of the nose section of my original starter.
You have to open up the block plate opening with a die grinder in order to get the after market equivalent starter to work.But in your case that most likely will not solve your problem.The starter in the picture looks to be for a 67 and up automatic. The automatic starter will work most of the time which is confirmed by what you have working before. The change in the flywheel during your rebuild must have been just enough of a difference that the automatic starter wouldn't catch the teeth anymore. The four speed starter bendix goes in further compared to the automatic version. The problem most likely is that in 67 production year you have a starter nose and bendix for the 4 speed and a different nose and bendix for a auto according to the MPC.  That is what I suspected I would see when I ask for a picture given the description you posted. Original 67 and up 4 speed starters are harder to find now. I keep them on the shelf for concours type restorations.  I have seen some aftermarket starters that are meant for four speed applications. If you order the starter that pbf777 recommended be sure order the 4 speed one .
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: pbf777 on August 06, 2020, 04:48:12 PM
I had a new 157 pin ring gear installed on the flywheel

      This statement implies that the same flywheel is in use but solely with a new ring gear; if mounted properly, and of correct engineering execution (CHINA?) then this is not the issue. 

      The difference between the two starter applications is whether what is often described as the "offset", this being a distance from the back of the block to the face of the ring gear, is either 3/4" (generally auto flexplates & 157T manual flywheels, 3 or 4 spd.) or 3/8" (generally 164T manual flywheels only)  or the closest to as measured.  To the best of my remembrance the only application for the shorter 3/8" offset is the 164T flywheels, most notably in O.E. installations with the cast iron bellhousings, which were configured with a boss cast inside the starter nose relief which precluded the possibility of mounting the longer 3/4" nose starter.               ;)


Quote
I tried a rebuilt starter, but it was 3/100Ē bigger than my original starter and didnít mate up to the flex plate.
You have to open up the block plate opening with a die grinder in order to get the after market equivalent starter to work.


       STOP!  The only instances I've experienced that with O.E.M. components that it was necessary to "clean-up" the starter hole register would have been from some apparent damage inflicted upon the separator plate.  After all, this is the "register" for the purpose of properly locating the starter in relation to the ring gear, and if modified, well as I'm often stating: your the new engineer!  Yes, sometimes the alloy nose sections of the starter may require a little "clean-up", but if notably, greatly, obviously the wrong size, then take the offshore manufactured, piece of shyt back to where you found it!  After all, if they couldn't that right, what else is not going to measure up!          :o

      Scott.
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: Bob Gaines on August 06, 2020, 06:03:05 PM
I had a new 157 pin ring gear installed on the flywheel

      This statement implies that the same flywheel is in use but solely with a new ring gear; if mounted properly, and of correct engineering execution (CHINA?) then this is not the issue. 

      The difference between the two starter applications is whether what is often described as the "offset", this being a distance from the back of the block to the face of the ring gear, is either 3/4" (generally auto flexplates & 157T manual flywheels, 3 or 4 spd.) or 3/8" (generally 164T manual flywheels only)  or the closest to as measured.  To the best of my remembrance the only application for the shorter 3/8" offset is the 164T flywheels, most notably in O.E. installations with the cast iron bellhousings, which were configured with a boss cast inside the starter nose relief which precluded the possibility of mounting the longer 3/4" nose starter.               ;)


Quote
I tried a rebuilt starter, but it was 3/100Ē bigger than my original starter and didnít mate up to the flex plate.
You have to open up the block plate opening with a die grinder in order to get the after market equivalent starter to work.


       STOP!  The only instances I've experienced that with O.E.M. components that it was necessary to "clean-up" the starter hole register would have been from some apparent damage inflicted upon the separator plate.  After all, this is the "register" for the purpose of properly locating the starter in relation to the ring gear, and if modified, well as I'm often stating: your the new engineer!  Yes, sometimes the alloy nose sections of the starter may require a little "clean-up", but if notably, greatly, obviously the wrong size, then take the offshore manufactured, piece of shyt back to where you found it!  After all, if they couldn't that right, what else is not going to measure up!          :o

      Scott.
FYI aftermarket is many times not the same quality as OEM. I was not saying that it was the best thing to do when messaging the block plate just that is what has to done to get it to work. Some people are looking for more then one way to skin a cat. Also a cheaper or more available starter might be a priority for someone want to get the job done. Not a perfect world .If it was they all would fit.   
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: Bob Gaines on August 06, 2020, 06:14:54 PM
 If everything was exactly the same then the starter that previously worked would continue to work when fitted to the rebuilt engine. Something logically has changed . In the case my beat is on a slight change with the new flywheel ring installed. I don't think it is a problem in this case as long as you use the correct starter. ;)
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: pbf777 on August 06, 2020, 08:39:55 PM
Some people are looking for more then one way to skin a cat.


     What, you don't like cats?               :o

     When did you first find yourself in anger over cats?   You know, it was your fault if you left the vehicle's window open and the little kitty used the interior for a litter box!              ::) 

     Maybe we need P.E.T.A. to be monitoring this forum?            :-\

     B.T.W., do you play the violin?            ::)

     Scott.           
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: Bob Gaines on August 06, 2020, 09:39:02 PM
Some people are looking for more then one way to skin a cat.


     What, you don't like cats?               :o

     When did you first find yourself in anger over cats?   You know, it was your fault if you left the vehicle's window open and the little kitty used the interior for a litter box!              ::) 

     Maybe we need P.E.T.A. to be monitoring this forum?            :-\

     B.T.W., do you play the violin?            ::)

     Scott.           
No cats were harmed in the making of my post. Just a innocent turn of phrase not meant to upset cat people on purpose. I will try and be more politically correct next time .Sorry. :)
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: ramrace on August 06, 2020, 10:18:07 PM
Sounds like a hairy situation to me!
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: Don Johnston on August 06, 2020, 11:21:03 PM
I like some cats, mostly cat-a-logs.  They help find things like starters and other parts. ;D
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: The Going Thing on August 07, 2020, 12:24:36 AM
Well, who says cats don't like Shelbys. I caught him red-handed trying to steal my car! 8)
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: Bigfoot on August 07, 2020, 08:11:49 AM
A hungry Cobra will eat a cat.
Just sayin ...
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: Jbrooks on August 07, 2020, 08:46:08 AM
 
Has anyone tried a mini starter on their 289?  If so, which one did you go with? 


     It doesn't look like the original, it's probably not the cheapest thing in the market place, but so far we haven't been let down by the Ford Performance High Torque Mini Starters; and what I prefer to sell (when applicable), as I can't say the same for a number of other brands products. 

     Part number: M-11000-B51, for automatic and manuals other than the 164 tooth flywheels.
                           M-11000-MT164, for manual transmission with 164 tooth flywheels.

     Scott.

Thanks for all the help from everyone.  During the engine rebuild process, I was so focused on what was being done to the block that I had the wrong ring installed on my flywheel (157 instead of 164) at the machine shop, and I missed it.  That would explain why my starter is now being an issue.

Since I have the rebuilt motor and transmission already back in the car (getting the T pan to clear the radiator support was something else, I'm not pulling to the motor to change out the flywheel). 

With that said, I have ordered the Ford Performance 157 tooth mini-starter listed above, thanks Scott!



Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: pbf777 on August 07, 2020, 01:24:10 PM
During the engine rebuild process, I was so focused on what was being done to the block that I had the wrong ring installed on my flywheel (157 instead of 164) at the machine shop, and I missed it.  That would explain why my starter is now being an issue. 


     Please realize that my purpose is to assist; and I suppose anything's possible but,............ in this instance of the 157 vs. the 164 tooth ring gears, one cannot mount the wrong ring gear to the flywheel as the inside diameters are not the same (not even almost) which is critical as the ring is an interference press-fit or heat-shrunk in place!         :o

Quote
Since I have the rebuilt motor and transmission already back in the car (getting the T pan to clear the radiator support was something else, I'm not pulling to the motor to change out the flywheel).


     Well, let's start with the 164T ring gear & flywheel will generally in my experience not fit into the O.E.M. aluminum 157T application bellhousings,............... and the 164T bellhousings & separator plates will misposition the stater in relation to the 157T flywheel & ring gear.             ;)

     So, I'm just a little confused here, but somehow I'm fearful that as I read your description, it just ain't gonna work!  But maybe I'm wrong, but maybe I'm not?              ::)

     Scott.
     


Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: pbf777 on August 07, 2020, 01:55:10 PM
Sounds like a hairy situation to me!


      No, not really to bad,.............that is unless you've got a hairball!         ::)

      Scott.
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: Jbrooks on August 11, 2020, 11:25:07 PM
Scott,

To be completely transparent, I'm very new with this engine rebuild.  When I tore down my motor, I found that I had bad head gaskets and piston rings, which was causing me to burn both oil and anti-freeze.  With that being said, I have completely loved tearing down and building this motor back together (with a help of a knowledgeable on building engines (Pontiac guy) friend), as I have learned so much on how special these 289 K codes truly are.  So I am learning here, and I greatly appreciate the help.

On the fly wheel, I didn't know that the 164 and 157 teeth flywheels would be different sizes.  I assumed that the ring would be the same size, but one just had 164 count vs one with 157 count; so I learned something new.  I do have the aluminum bell housing (see attached picture), and the ring that was installed on my flywheel is 157.  Tonight, I installed the Ford Performance mini-starter (FMS-M-11000-B51).  When I tried to start the car, I can hear the starter spinning; however, there was no engagement with the flywheel. 

To try another starter, I ran over to O'Reiley's and purchased their Ford Motorsport 157 teeth standard starter.  When I tried to start the car with this starter, I could hear the starter spinning, but it wasn't contacting the flywheel at all.  At this point, I have no freaking clue what is going on.  As I mentioned before, my original starter would grind when I attempted to start the car (no damage to the flywheel, see picture taken tonight) after the rebuild (I had no issues with the starter before I pulled the motor); which lead me to believe the 164 tooth count was the  issue instead of 157 (now i know that my flywheel has to be for a 157 tooth count). 

Any help would be greatly appreciated, as I'm not sure what my next steps need to be.  I verified that the ring that the machine shop installed is for a 289 flywheel with a 157 tooth count. 
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: shelbydoug on August 12, 2020, 07:27:31 AM
The Tilton type mini-starters work great.

There are a number of companies making them including a Summit Racing in-house version for less money.

They are all based on a Toyota starter. I've got the Titlon brand and I just can't kill them. I have a pile of Ford starters morto bene.

The exception to that is the Accell starter which is made in the pattern of the original Ford version. It's a great starter also. That one is in my Pantera.

You COULD paint that one to look stock if you want to be a tricky devil?
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: Cobrask8 on August 12, 2020, 08:14:34 AM
My current 331, based on a 68 302 block is a very "Big" motor, roughly 450 HP, has 10.6:1 comp. A regular starter would not spin it, especially hot. Did all the grounds, battery, everything electrical.

Used a mini-starter, did the trick, spins it and starts, no matter the temp. Get the issues straightened out, and use/enjoy the mini-starter
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: shelbydoug on August 12, 2020, 08:51:44 AM
My current 331, based on a 68 302 block is a very "Big" motor, roughly 450 HP, has 10.6:1 comp. A regular starter would not spin it, especially hot. Did all the grounds, battery, everything electrical.

Used a mini-starter, did the trick, spins it and starts, no matter the temp. Get the issues straightened out, and use/enjoy the mini-starter

+++1

It will keep going even when the starter solenoid is smoking because it is so hot. 347 here on my 68-302 block.
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: KR Convertible on August 12, 2020, 10:17:37 AM
In your last picture, it looks like the flywheel may be too small.  Try putting your starter in the sheet metal plate without the bellhousing on and see if the starter gear looks like it will mesh with the flywheel gear.
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: Jbrooks on August 12, 2020, 12:29:43 PM
In your last picture, it looks like the flywheel may be too small.  Try putting your starter in the sheet metal plate without the bellhousing on and see if the starter gear looks like it will mesh with the flywheel gear.

The flywheel is the original one for the car.  The only thing that has changed is the ring was changed out due to the previous well showing some minor wear, so I changed out the ring since I pulled the motor.  Right now, I have everything back in the car, and I'm just trying to start it for the first time.  If I end up dropping the transmission (if no other solution is out there), I'll try this idea, thanks!
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: pbf777 on August 12, 2020, 12:48:13 PM
     O.K., the first question to be answered: "Is" or "is not" this the flywheel, currently bolted to the back of the engine, "THE" flywheel that was attached to said engine prior to your initial disassembly, with the sole servicing of cleaning, surfacing and a new ring gear installed?  And are you sure?

     Next:  Is the bellhousing currently attached to the back of the engine the one that resided there prior to your initial disassembly?  And again, are you sure?            ???

     Assuming that this vehicle was, as far as the starter cranking the engine over, operating properly before, I'm suspecting that you have the mismatch installation of the 157 tooth flywheel crammed into the 164 tooth application bellhousing?  If your car had a 164 tooth flywheel prior (this is an example of why one should always retain all of the old parts, for reference, at least until the entire repair, restoration, modification, etc. is concluded)  but now has a 157 tooth wheel, then this is the problem!           :o

     And if so, no brand of starter motor is going to work, none!             :(

     Now, this is what one would label as a "wild-ass-guess" (highly techno. terminology   ::)  ), as I'm not there making the observations, but I think I would rule this possibility out, before proceeding in any other venture.

     Perhaps one could acquire the engineering/casting numbers from flywheel and the bell housing in order to aid in its' identification? In the case of the flywheel, look for numbers stamped into the outer inertial ring band facing forward (toward engine block) and exposed to observation thru the starter opening upon rotation of the engine. Of the bellhousing, this may require removal of the transmission, as these numbers if not observed elsewhere, may be present on this rear facing surface currently shrouded by the transmission, but we,re trying to avoid the removal of the engine here.        ;)

     Scott.
           
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: TedS on August 12, 2020, 03:35:23 PM
I'm going to jump in with limited knowledge and crappy memory but here goes:
I once got a replacement starter for my 289 4 speed and the alignment boss on the starter would not go into the hole on the bellhousing plate. As I remember I was given a starter for an auto instead of 4 speed by mistake.  If my memory is correct, could OPs original starter been having bendix issues therefore grinding. The replacement starter was mistakingly for an auto therefore won't fit the whole and won't engage ring gear? I look forward to my failing memory and poor knowledge being corrected where necessary.
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: Jbrooks on August 12, 2020, 04:12:20 PM
     O.K., the first question to be answered: "Is" or "is not" this the flywheel, currently bolted to the back of the engine, "THE" flywheel that was attached to said engine prior to your initial disassembly, with the sole servicing of cleaning, surfacing and a new ring gear installed?  And are you sure?

     Next:  Is the bellhousing currently attached to the back of the engine the one that resided there prior to your initial disassembly?  And again, are you sure?            ???

     Assuming that this vehicle was, as far as the starter cranking the engine over, operating properly before, I'm suspecting that you have the mismatch installation of the 157 tooth flywheel crammed into the 164 tooth application bellhousing?  If your car had a 164 tooth flywheel prior (this is an example of why one should always retain all of the old parts, for reference, at least until the entire repair, restoration, modification, etc. is concluded)  but now has a 157 tooth wheel, then this is the problem!           :o

     And if so, no brand of starter motor is going to work, none!             :(

     Now, this is what one would label as a "wild-ass-guess" (highly techno. terminology   ::)  ), as I'm not there making the observations, but I think I would rule this possibility out, before proceeding in any other venture.

     Perhaps one could acquire the engineering/casting numbers from flywheel and the bell housing in order to aid in its' identification? In the case of the flywheel, look for numbers stamped into the outer inertial ring band facing forward (toward engine block) and exposed to observation thru the starter opening upon rotation of the engine. Of the bellhousing, this may require removal of the transmission, as these numbers if not observed elsewhere, may be present on this rear facing surface currently shrouded by the transmission, but we,re trying to avoid the removal of the engine here.        ;)

     Scott.
           
Scott,

Yes, this is the flywheel that was on my engine before and after the rebuild.  Anything is possible, but the flywheel appeared to be the same one that I dropped off.  It's possible that it was changed out, but there weren't any other 67 Ford blocks being worked on when my motor was there.  I did a quick visual inspection of the balancer, crank, counter weight, and flywheel to make sure they were the same.  I went to the machine shop and found previous flywheel ring and verified that it 157 count.  I check out the stamped numbers that you referenced.  In short, it looks like I'll be dropping the transmission here soon. 

Thanks for the help. 

I'm also going to test the collection of starters that I have now, and see how the bendix is actuating.  In short, I just want to start my dang car...
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: Bob Gaines on August 12, 2020, 06:12:56 PM
     O.K., the first question to be answered: "Is" or "is not" this the flywheel, currently bolted to the back of the engine, "THE" flywheel that was attached to said engine prior to your initial disassembly, with the sole servicing of cleaning, surfacing and a new ring gear installed?  And are you sure?

     Next:  Is the bellhousing currently attached to the back of the engine the one that resided there prior to your initial disassembly?  And again, are you sure?            ???

     Assuming that this vehicle was, as far as the starter cranking the engine over, operating properly before, I'm suspecting that you have the mismatch installation of the 157 tooth flywheel crammed into the 164 tooth application bellhousing?  If your car had a 164 tooth flywheel prior (this is an example of why one should always retain all of the old parts, for reference, at least until the entire repair, restoration, modification, etc. is concluded)  but now has a 157 tooth wheel, then this is the problem!           :o

     And if so, no brand of starter motor is going to work, none!             :(

     Now, this is what one would label as a "wild-ass-guess" (highly techno. terminology   ::)  ), as I'm not there making the observations, but I think I would rule this possibility out, before proceeding in any other venture.

     Perhaps one could acquire the engineering/casting numbers from flywheel and the bell housing in order to aid in its' identification? In the case of the flywheel, look for numbers stamped into the outer inertial ring band facing forward (toward engine block) and exposed to observation thru the starter opening upon rotation of the engine. Of the bellhousing, this may require removal of the transmission, as these numbers if not observed elsewhere, may be present on this rear facing surface currently shrouded by the transmission, but we,re trying to avoid the removal of the engine here.        ;)

     Scott.
           
Scott,

Yes, this is the flywheel that was on my engine before and after the rebuild.  Anything is possible, but the flywheel appeared to be the same one that I dropped off.  It's possible that it was changed out, but there weren't any other 67 Ford blocks being worked on when my motor was there.  I did a quick visual inspection of the balancer, crank, counter weight, and flywheel to make sure they were the same.  I went to the machine shop and found previous flywheel ring and verified that it 157 count.  I check out the stamped numbers that you referenced.  In short, it looks like I'll be dropping the transmission here soon. 

Thanks for the help. 

I'm also going to test the collection of starters that I have now, and see how the bendix is actuating.  In short, I just want to start my dang car...
Before you go to the trouble of dropping the transmission confirm the engineering number on the bellhousing. That will determine if you have the 65-67 or 68 -up bell .They both have C5 numbers but the suffix is different. One version of the bell has the engineering numbers on the driver side and the other on the passenger side. I suspect a different problem and a possible relative simple solution.It is hard to diagnose sometimes by remote especially if you don't have all of the information. I will stand by.
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: pbf777 on August 12, 2020, 07:59:51 PM
       Common examples of the period as I recall, and perhaps there are others:

       Casting/engineering number: C5DA-6394-A, located on the starter cone (right side) and I think I've had them with numbering also on the flange of the starter kick-out, facing rearward;  this should be 157 tooth application.
                                                     
                                                      C5AA-6394-B, located on the bellhousing adjacent fork opening and I have seen examples both on the "bell" and on the flange facing rearward; this should be 164 tooth application.

                                                      These units do not require the removal of the transmission to acquire these numbers, but there are others, although perhaps out of period.           
                                                       
        Over the decades, I quit searching for the numbers (and sometimes they're illegible or missing) as I can discern the 157t vs. 164t application by just looking at it (with good pictures or better with bell in hand).           8)

        But still do try to acquire the numbers (if pressent?) on the flywheel also.                :)

        B.T.W. did you read and follow the instructions for the modification of the electrical wiring strategy for the M-11000-B51 starter assy.?             ???

       Scott.
       
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: 67350#1242 on August 12, 2020, 09:20:52 PM
Quote
To get the car started tonight, I tried a rebuilt starter, but it was 3/100Ē bigger than my original starter and didnít mate up to the flex plate.

Was this rebuilt starter a "long nose" or a "short nose" style? From the pictures the distance from the block plate to the ring gear appears to be about 3/4" which would indicate a long nose style.
The short nose style also has a slightly larger flange on the mounting surface to block plate as you indicate above.
Forget about "auto" and "manual" lingo when describing these starters.  The 157 and 160 tooth ring gears all require the "auto" or "long nose" starters. This applies to both auto and manual transmission.
The only application for the "short nose" or "manual" starter is with the larger diameter 164 tooth flywheel manual trans.  Here is a link to Speedway Motors pdf explaining.
https://static.speedwaymotors.com/pdf/91067430.pdf
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: TedS on August 12, 2020, 10:10:44 PM
Quote
To get the car started tonight, I tried a rebuilt starter, but it was 3/100Ē bigger than my original starter and didnít mate up to the flex plate.

Was this rebuilt starter a "long nose" or a "short nose" style? From the pictures the distance from the block plate to the ring gear appears to be about 3/4" which would indicate a long nose style.
The short nose style also has a slightly larger flange on the mounting surface to block plate as you indicate above.
Forget about "auto" and "manual" lingo when describing these starters.  The 157 and 160 tooth ring gears all require the "auto" or "long nose" starters. This applies to both auto and manual transmission.
The only application for the "short nose" or "manual" starter is with the larger diameter 164 tooth flywheel manual trans.  Here is a link to Speedway Motors pdf explaining.
https://static.speedwaymotors.com/pdf/91067430.pdf

I figured out where I got the auto vs manual lingo. There are numerous threads on the VMF forum on this subject. Those threads say some, perhaps outdated, parts house books had a different part number for each and they were reversed, or in some way wrong which resulted in getting the wrong starter for a manual. The first symptom was it wouldn't fit the whole in the plate.  I had that very experience in about 1970. Long nose vs short nose may also be in that mix.
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: Jbrooks on August 12, 2020, 10:35:13 PM
       Common examples of the period as I recall, and perhaps there are others:

       Casting/engineering number: C5DA-6394-A, located on the starter cone (right side) and I think I've had them with numbering also on the flange of the starter kick-out, facing rearward;  this should be 157 tooth application.
                                                     
                                                      C5AA-6394-B, located on the bellhousing adjacent fork opening and I have seen examples both on the "bell" and on the flange facing rearward; this should be 164 tooth application.

                                                      These units do not require the removal of the transmission to acquire these numbers, but there are others, although perhaps out of period.           
                                                       
        Over the decades, I quit searching for the numbers (and sometimes they're illegible or missing) as I can discern the 157t vs. 164t application by just looking at it (with good pictures or better with bell in hand).           8)

        But still do try to acquire the numbers (if pressent?) on the flywheel also.                :)

        B.T.W. did you read and follow the instructions for the modification of the electrical wiring strategy for the M-11000-B51 starter assy.?             ???

       Scott.
     
Great information everyone (Scott, Bob, 1242, and everyone else), thank you! 

My bell housing code is C5DA-6394-A (see picture).  I did see the wiring instructions, and the bindex was spinning but wasn't contacting the flywheel. 

I also took some new pictures of the starter cone for the starter that was originally on my car.  Any help on getting this car started so I can begin the break-in of the rebuild, I will be so grateful! 
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: 67350#1242 on August 13, 2020, 08:43:53 AM
The bell housing appears to be the correct application.  Also the original starter cone pictured appears to be correct.  Are you sure the starter drive (bendix) on original starter was moving outward upon engagement?
Kurt.
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: Jbrooks on August 13, 2020, 11:15:23 AM
The bell housing appears to be the correct application.  Also the original starter cone pictured appears to be correct.  Are you sure the starter drive (bendix) on original starter was moving outward upon engagement?
Kurt.
Yes sir, because it was grinding when I attempted to start the car for the first time after the rebuild.  Even rotated the engine (via harmonic balancer bolt) to help it engage at a different spot, and the starter was still grinding against the flywheel (luckily no damage was done to the flywheel). 
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: JohnHouston on August 13, 2020, 01:07:07 PM
This is a remote possibility, but I think that is the world you are in now.  I had a beautiful 190sl once upon a time (with Judson supercharger!) . . . and the starter would grind if voltage dropped just a little bit.  12v . . . no . . .. 12.5 . . . worked fine.  After a while of this I bit the bullet and changed the starter.  You might check battery and related issues.

jpd
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: pbf777 on August 13, 2020, 01:20:23 PM
     The bellhousing by the numbers, as stated previously, should be for the 157 tooth application.  Someone else can comment on the correctness for your particular car.

     As far as the stater motor nose casting application, for  the S.B.F. commonly there are the two versions as from the O.E., and as stated by others, the "long" and the "short".

     In general observation of the O.E.M. Ford units some relevant differences would be:

     If one measures the length from the registered mounting flange face to the shaft bushing support nose tip end, the "long" nose unit will appear to be nearly 2-1/2", the "short" nose will appear to be only nearly 2"

     With the starter off for observation, if looking at the unit from a side profile, witnessing plane from a position parallel to the mounting flange, with the open side of the gear/shaft support casting facing you, this presentation, if the "long" nose unit should make visible approximately three-quarters of the length of the pinion gear, if the "short" nose unit one should only see approximately one-quarter of the pinion gear in it's length, the remainder in both instances shrouded by the casting.

     Again, as stated by others, the "register" diameter is different (this being one example of why one should not just alter intended register dimensions to make something wrong fit), if the "long" nose  this dimension is approximately 4.080-4.085" +/-, if the "short" nose unit 4.135"-4.140" +/- some.

     Also, generally in my observations the pinion gear shaft support casting at the end if the nose for the shaft support bushing, if the "long" nose this will be closed ended, if the "short" nose this end is bored thru exposing the end of the shaft and bushing.

     Again, these observations (& memory) are of O.E.M. Ford product, not others which may not be the same.             ;)

     And this all may prove interesting but it doesn't explain why the M-11000-B51 starter didn't work any better?            ???

     So as to conclude the component compatibility relationship let's have the flywheel numbers also, if possible.   

     And, I guess some assumptions have been made, but one hopes your working with a reasonable battery and supplied voltage?           ::)       

     Scott.

     

               

     
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: Jbrooks on August 13, 2020, 02:32:47 PM
We checked the battery right before we started, and it had 13 volts.

Scott,

M-11000-B51 states it has a 3/4" offset.  Would this offset prevent the bendix from contacting the flywheel?
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: pbf777 on August 13, 2020, 05:44:06 PM
M-11000-B51 states it has a 3/4" offset.  Would this offset prevent the bendix from contacting the flywheel?

     This statement, and this offset is correct for the 157 tooth application.            ;)
     
Quote
     I did see the wiring instructions, .............

     "see" and execute per the instructions?           ???

We checked the battery right before we started, and it had 13 volts.

     Also check the voltage for the sum of voltage drop as cranking (or attempting anyway) at the starter/battery terminal on the starter.

     Scott.
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: Jbrooks on August 13, 2020, 09:54:22 PM
M-11000-B51 states it has a 3/4" offset.  Would this offset prevent the bendix from contacting the flywheel?

     This statement, and this offset is correct for the 157 tooth application.            ;)
     
Quote
     I did see the wiring instructions, .............

     "see" and execute per the instructions?           ???

We checked the battery right before we started, and it had 13 volts.

     Also check the voltage for the sum of voltage drop as cranking (or attempting anyway) at the starter/battery terminal on the starter.

     Scott.

Scott, 

I measured my original starter cone vs the mini FP starter, and you can see that the FP one is only 2" long.  I verified the part number, and it matches the one that you have listed.  Is there a mini starter with the 2-1/2" length cone?  It also doesn't explain why my original starter didn't work, since it is the correct length.  On you note about the voltage drop as cranking, I won't be able to do that until the starter engages the flywheel.  The starter hasn't been under load since it's not engage the flywheel. 

So is there a different mini FP with a longer cone that I should have ordered? 
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: 1109RWHP on August 13, 2020, 10:20:53 PM
I am using the M-11000-B50 super high torque ford starter with a 157 tooth flywheel and stock bell.
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: Jbrooks on August 13, 2020, 11:12:22 PM
I am using the M-11000-B50 super high torque ford starter with a 157 tooth flywheel and stock bell.

I can't find the B50, looks like they don't make it anymore.
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: Jbrooks on August 13, 2020, 11:14:36 PM
The bell housing appears to be the correct application.  Also the original starter cone pictured appears to be correct.  Are you sure the starter drive (bendix) on original starter was moving outward upon engagement?
Kurt.

Kurt,

I was having a grinding noise when I tried to start my car, so I'm sure it was engaging but not contacting the flywheel correctly.  I have no clue why, but I've been chasing my tail ever since.
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: pbf777 on August 14, 2020, 02:16:36 PM
     Question:

Quote
I measured my original starter cone vs the mini FP starter, and you can see that the FP one is only 2" long.  I verified the part number, and it matches the one that you have listed.  Is there a mini starter with the 2-1/2" length cone?
So is there a different mini FP with a longer cone that I should have ordered?

     Answer:

Quote
     
     Again, these observations (& memory) are of O.E.M. Ford product, not others which may not be the same.             

     Different question:

Quote
     And this all may prove interesting but it doesn't explain why the M-11000-B51 starter didn't work any better?                       
   

    Still working on the answer for this!  As we've sold for, and bolted-in ourselves that unit maybe 100+ times, and in cars like yours (old Mustangs), with no problems; it's been like a "fail-safe" choice.

I can't find the B50, looks like they don't make it anymore.


     Answer: Obsolete, replaced by the -B51            ;)


     B.T.W., on the subject of assumptions, are the two (2) locating dowels present, press-fit into the engine block casting and engaging the bellhousing and separator plate for accurate positioning, with no intervening items being captured, fastened with the six (6) 7/16" x 14T fasteners torqued?  Separator plate proving the positioning for the starter is hole, not sectioned, bolt holes slotted, or notably bent, with the register for the stater unmodified and of size to function as such?  And the flywheel is registered and bolted (6) squarely and flush to the crankshaft flange?        ???

     And:

     
         So as to conclude the component compatibility relationship let's have the flywheel numbers also, if possible.                 

     ?        ???


     And:
     
             
I suspect a different problem and a possible relative simple solution.It is hard to diagnose sometimes by remote especially if you don't have all of the information. I will stand by.

     Please jump-in! as it will probably turn out to be something simple-stupid, but like you said not being there makes it challenging,.............. and the waters' not that cold!           :)

     Scott.
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: Greg on August 14, 2020, 02:51:48 PM
I had this problem and what I found was that the starters have slightly changed.  What I mean is the "rebuilt" starters you buy have a snout housing that is a few thousands different and will not work properly. 

What I did was take the housing from an original 60's early 70's snout and put it on the new starter housing and bang... worked perfectly.  I think the issue is in the original block plate not the actual bell housing. 

Find a buddy that has a running 289 with no issues, pull the starter and you will see.  Or better yet find a used starter from the early 70's and I bet you will find that is probably the issue. 

Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: TedS on August 19, 2020, 02:39:41 PM
Jbrooks,
Just wondering, had any success in getting your engine started?

Ted
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: Jbrooks on August 22, 2020, 03:20:54 PM
Jbrooks,
Just wondering, had any success in getting your engine started?

Ted
Ted,

I had my original starter looked at, and found that the main field coil wasn't working (I'm not a starter builder, so I'm not worried if I have this wrong).  Where I had my starter, they were able to find a correct field coil and they rebuilt my starter.  I'm out of town right now, but hopefully I will be able to start the car this next week.

Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: tonys_shelby on August 24, 2020, 05:56:22 AM
Am I seeing something wrong but in the pictures it looks like one starter has a bendix gear direction different then the other? One cut clock wise rotation and one cut for reverse?
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: Jbrooks on September 18, 2020, 04:09:09 PM
Well, I finally pulled the transmission and bell housing to find out what the problem was.  The ring gear (part FRG-157N) installed on my flywheel was too small (see picture of the inability of the starter bendix to contact the flywheel - should be the first picture).  To fix the situation, I had a backup 157 tooth flywheel ready to install.  I laid the two flywheels on top of each other perfectly, so that you can see the slight difference in diameters. 

I put everything back together, and I was able to start the car on the first try following the rebuild of the hipo 289.  Looking back, the ring gear was the only thing involving starting the car that changed during the rebuild, but it sure did suck dropping the 4 speed and bell housing after just installing it to get it fixed.  The positive part is, I have learned so much about my car and I have become a master of installing starters.  Thanks for all the help, and I wanted to share what the issue was.   

On the break in of the rebuild the car did great!  It was great to hear the solid lifters tapping.  Now i just need to tweak the timing a little and off she goes!
Title: Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
Post by: tonys_shelby on September 18, 2020, 07:11:20 PM
Glad to hear the news!