Author Topic: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?  (Read 3227 times)

Jbrooks

  • SAAC Member
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
« Reply #30 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! 
67 GT350 #2260
“If you ain’t first, you’re last”

67350#1242

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
    • View Profile
Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
« Reply #31 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.
67 GT350  SJ 02/01/67  Gray 4spd A/C
67 Coupe  SJ 11/16/66  White Auto A/C PDB

Jbrooks

  • SAAC Member
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
« Reply #32 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). 
67 GT350 #2260
“If you ain’t first, you’re last”

JohnHouston

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
« Reply #33 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

pbf777

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
    • View Profile
Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
« Reply #34 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.

     

               

     

Jbrooks

  • SAAC Member
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
« Reply #35 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?
67 GT350 #2260
“If you ain’t first, you’re last”

pbf777

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
    • View Profile
Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
« Reply #36 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.

Jbrooks

  • SAAC Member
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
« Reply #37 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? 
« Last Edit: August 14, 2020, 09:53:47 AM by Jbrooks »
67 GT350 #2260
“If you ain’t first, you’re last”

1109RWHP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 551
    • View Profile
Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
« Reply #38 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.

Jbrooks

  • SAAC Member
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
« Reply #39 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.
67 GT350 #2260
“If you ain’t first, you’re last”

Jbrooks

  • SAAC Member
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
« Reply #40 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.
67 GT350 #2260
“If you ain’t first, you’re last”

pbf777

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
    • View Profile
Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
« Reply #41 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.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2020, 08:31:33 PM by pbf777 »

Greg

  • SAAC Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 857
    • View Profile
Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
« Reply #42 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. 

Shelby's and Fords from Day 1

TedS

  • SAAC Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 166
    • View Profile
Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
« Reply #43 on: August 19, 2020, 02:39:41 PM »
Jbrooks,
Just wondering, had any success in getting your engine started?

Ted

Jbrooks

  • SAAC Member
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: 289 Starter needs to be changed out, anyone try a mini starter?
« Reply #44 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.

67 GT350 #2260
“If you ain’t first, you’re last”