At 02:50 PM 9/11/97 +0100, you wrote:
>While I've got lots of books, Mr. Chittenden's is not among them. I
>think that's what I back-ordered at Amazon.Com. Does it say what S/N a
>"late casting" is? While I have read many sources that say a "thin wall"
>meansijust what it says. This is the first print reference to this
>"thick wall" casting.
>
>I am going to call a few large scale engine rebuilders to find their
>experience. If anyone else knows a few more rebuilders, or specialty
>speed machine shops, do a little telephone detective work and find out
>when they had to use sleeves.
>
>To my knowledge, all the 260's had the "289" freeze plug count, while
>the 225's did not. Want to make sure that, with all the core shifting
>that happens in production, someone doesn't find out the hard way that
>there wasn't enough "meat".
>
>The cores had to be unique to the 260's, as Ford would not cast the same
>block for either line, and then have to do much more massive machining
>on the 289's in production, so it would have had to be very special
>cores for the 260 only.
>--
>Steve Laifman
>
Steve, Several months ago I sent an extensive list of Ford part numbers of
various 260
, 260/289 , 289 and 302 blocks to the list. When Ford was changing from 260 to
289 cubes they had several 289 blocks that were bored to only the 260 bore.
I assume the Tigers got some of these blocks. All "true" 260 blocks
had 2 freeze plugs per side and the inner edge of the block ( at the
head mounting surface) was scalloped while the 289 block, bored to either
260 size or 289 size was more streight. Unfortunally my hard disk was
killed by a computer repairman and I don't have the old outgoing mail.
I did send it twice with about a month seperation when the same question
came up. I do have the above referenced book. It has a lot of good
info on Tigers ( but little info on the Tiger II).
Jim Barrett Tiger II 351C and others
|