HiPo 289 A66 date code - not right

[6s1640]

Hi all,

I came across this fan blade.  It does not look OEM.  The part number and date code stamping are not consistent with other blades I have observed.  The seller does not claim original, but "Used", which could be interpreted by an unsuspecting bidding as original.  I believe it is a reproduction.  The seller has a second HiPo blade dated coded F92 which is definitely a reproduction.

A66 = https://www.ebay.com/itm/154878793471?hash=item240f7ed6ff:g:V24AAOSwlo5iH6kT

F92 = https://www.ebay.com/itm/154878791340?hash=item240f7eceac:g:fPsAAOSwfBliH6oe

Comments?  (I'll add image when I figure out how to.)

Cory

[Bob Gaines]

Hi all,

I came across this fan blade.  It does not look OEM.  The part number and date code stamping do not consistent with other blades I have observed.  The seller does not claim original, but "Used", which could be interpreted by an unsuspecting bidding as original.  I believe it is a reproduction.  The seller has a second HiPo blade dated coded F92 which is definitely a reproduction.

A66 = https://www.ebay.com/itm/154878793471?hash=item240f7ed6ff:g:V24AAOSwlo5iH6kT

F92 = https://www.ebay.com/itm/154878791340?hash=item240f7eceac:g:fPsAAOSwfBliH6oe

Comments?  (I'll add image when I figure out how to.)

Cory

Yes it is a repro based on how the center is riveted to the fins.

[hertz1966]

Hello,

I looked at the pictures and in my opinion they are different from my original 289 hipo fans.
1. There should be a stamped Fomoco script on the fan blades.
2. The aluminum blade geometry is different, where the blade attaches to the outer most rivets the blade is flared up on my original fan vs straight in the ebay add.  You can look at images on google search and compare.
3.  The stamping looks off in my opinion.
The last fan I purchased was $600. 
Anyway good luck on your search.

Tim

[s2ms]

For reference here are the stampings on my original A66 dated HiPo fan...

[Bob Gaines]

Hi all,

I came across this fan blade.  It does not look OEM.  The part number and date code stamping do not consistent with other blades I have observed.  The seller does not claim original, but "Used", which could be interpreted by an unsuspecting bidding as original.  I believe it is a reproduction.  The seller has a second HiPo blade dated coded F92 which is definitely a reproduction.

A66 = https://www.ebay.com/itm/154878793471?hash=item240f7ed6ff:g:V24AAOSwlo5iH6kT

F92 = https://www.ebay.com/itm/154878791340?hash=item240f7eceac:g:fPsAAOSwfBliH6oe

Comments?  (I'll add image when I figure out how to.)

Cory

Yes it is a repro based on how the center is riveted to the fins.

I didn't bother to even look at any of the markings because given the way it was put together told me that it was a repro which also meant that any other detail about it had to be a repro too. Now if it is put together right (which I haven't come across a repro yet that has) , then that is the time the other details need to be authenticated just to be on the safe side. No use wasting time if the most visible detail IMO is not right.

[gt350hr]

   +1 Great info Bob. + the stamping is done by hand. The originals were "rolled" onto the blade and do not have depressions from hand stamping . FAKE

[6s1640]

Hi guys,

Thanks for your input.  You have confirmed my thoughts exactly.  Unfortunately someone tried to make look OEM with date code A66 and last I checked was up to $248.46 for a fake.

Thanks

Cory

[6s1640]

Unbelievable!  The fake A66 sells for $257 and F92 sells for even more, $308.52.  I don't understand.  Are the repops no longer available?

Cory