tigers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Do overbored 260's really overheat? Seeking verified

To: Bob Palmer <rpalmer@ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: Do overbored 260's really overheat? Seeking verified
From: Steve Laifman <SLaifman@SoCal.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 22:49:24 -0800
Bob Palmer wrote:

> The good Mr. Laifman has offered the following: "The scientific explanation
> is that your mechanic is full of sh--.  The 260 block has the same OD of the
> cylinder to the water jacket, but a smaller bore, so the walls are THICKER
> than a 289. The factory (FORD) recommendations on boring are a maximum or
> 0.060 inches on the 260, and 0.040 inches on the 289."

Actually, Bob, if you drew the conclusion that I was claiming the 260's
(and I DO mean the 3 freeze plug models ONLY as on the Tiger, not the
earlier 221 over sized 2 freeze plug), then I mistated my intent. The
REAL intent is to state that the 260, 3 freeze plug model had a thicker
wall than the 289, but not the same OD to the outside of the wall. I
totally agree that it would be very unusual for core shifting to be so
negligible that a bore to the 289 4" would leave a satisfactory wall.

I was only emphasising, for the purpose of the inquiry about 260 boring,
that the FACTORY, and the ROOTES MANUAL (see
http://www.TigersUnited.com) specifically state the overbore limits to
be .060 for the 260, and .040 for the 289. THAT IS ALL. And Doug should
NOT listen to his "expert mechanic's" incorrect data. I thorough
examination of the block for miscast originals with out-of-tolerance
walls is never a bad idea, though.



> There are two distinct schools of thought on this, those that think Steve is
> the one "...full of sh--", and those who don't. Amongst the many standing in
> opposition to Steve is the following from an "official" Ford FAQ's Website:
> 
> "Many 289/302 parts fit earlier 221/260 engines (which had smaller bores).
> They also has less metal around the bores, so you can't overbore to come up
> with a 289."

Never believed you could, either. Just that the 260's had a thicker wall
than the 289's, not the same outside diameter. I probably made a wrong
statement about the absolute wall thickness ("The scientific explanation
is that your mechanic is full of sh--.  The
260 block has the same OD of the cylinder to the water jacket," should
have read:

"The 260 block has a thicker cylinder wall than the 289, allowing for
more meat for a bore"

I stand corrected on this error of typing too fast. The conclusions,
however, stand as specified in the manual. I apologize for the
mis-statement on the wall OD, but not the conclusions or recommendations.

Steve
-- 
____________________________
Steve Laifman
Editor
<http://www.TigersUnited.com>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>