Brian,
Thanks for the reference information. However, I don't see that this
information really provides us with anything new that helps resolve the
discrepancy. In fact, the following link also parrots Monroe's head
application numbers. The numbers and sequence (including the omissions) is
identical to Monroe's, so they undoubtedly have a common source, which is no
real corroboration. Without reference to Reid's source, it is also hard to
judge it's reliability. Also, Reid does not say there was any other "260"
head in '64, nor do any of the other references we have mentioned, which
makes me believe that it's either "A" or "B", but not both. Mannel and Bill
Carroll's Fooorrd V8 Performance Guide both give "A" suffix to the C4OE 260
casting. So, why do I believe Mannel et al. over Monroe et al.? First, he
shows pictures of the '63 and '64 260 combustion chambers, which are clearly
260'ish and distinctly not 289 shaped as Doug says his are. Second, he also
shows pictures of the casting numbers, "C4OE" in one photo and "A" in a
separate photo. If we are to believe Doug, then Mannel must be wrong on two
counts; first, the chamber shape (it's really 289 instead of 260 shape) and
second, he mis-associated the "C4OE" and "A" both in the photos and in the
text (two mistakes?). What would really shed some light here is some
information from Tiger owners about heads they are sure are original and
what the casting numbers, combustion chamber shape, etc. are. (It's been
almost 30 years since I last saw mine.)
So, can anyone independently corroborate that their "original" 260 heads
were cast with "C4OE" and "A" or "B" and what is the combustion chamber
shape (contours around the spark plug for 289 or smooth oval for 260)?
http://users.abilene.com/~dkelly/hotrod/engine3.html
Bob Palmer
rpalmer@ucsd.edu
robertpalmer@paulhastings.com
rpalmerbob@adelphia.net
|