tigers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 289's

To: FHSLOTH@aol.com
Subject: Re: 289's
From: Bob Palmer <rpalmer@ames.ucsd.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 08:20:32 -0700
Fred,

I am aware that there are two Ford Windsor small block starters that are
only slightly different. I never figured out why Ford, in its infinite
wisdom, found it necessary to have two so similar. The usual scenario is to
break off one of the "ears" while bolting the wrong one in place because it
doesn't seat square against the block like its supposed to. You apparently
were astute enough to notice this misfit before breaking it and making it,
therefore, unreturnable.  I am a bit skeptical about your conclusion,
however. Both 260's and 289's were made concurrently in '63-'65. In later
years the 289 block was changed to the 6-bolt version. I am not sure what
the right answer really is, but at least as a point of logic, finding that
a starter for a "generic" 289 doesn't fit your particular 260 doesn't
support the generalization you make. In fact, we also have to take you
parts man as gospel that the first starter he gave you would actually fit a
289 - any 289 - or even some particular 289. Or maybe somebody packed the
wrong starter in the box at the rebuild factory, or --- ??  This question
wouldn't be any big deal per se, except that there are a few Tiger owners
that swear up and down that they have 289's for various reasons - like
"It's got three freeze plugs, so it has to be a 289!! Haven't you read
Chittendon's book!!!!" Now you are suggesting a new reason; namely, "It's a
289 because it takes a 289 starter!!!"  This is likely to lead people
farther astray rather than your well-meaning intent, which I am sure was to
provide a valid point of verification. (rhymes with authentication!)

The bottom line is, I suggest we continue to take the Laifman's recent
posting as the definitive criterion on this question.

Bob



At 08:41 AM 8/17/98 -0400, you wrote:
>WHEN I REPLACED THE STARTER MOTOR ON MY MK1 A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, I ASKED THE
>PARTS MAN AT MY LOCAL STORE FOR A STARTER FOR A 289, THINKING THAT HE WOULD
>NOT HAVE A STARTER FOR A 260..
>
>AFTER FIGHTING WITH IT FOR AN HOUR, I WENT BACK AND COMPLAINED THAT HE HAD
>GIVEN ME THE WRONG STARTER. HE CHECKED HIS PARTS BOOK AND SAID IT WAS THE
>CORRECT ONE. I TOOK THE OLD STARTER WITH ME AND WE COMPARED THE PHYSICAL
>DIMENSIONS OF BOTH.
>
>IT TURNS OUT THE 260 STARTER MOTOR IS SHORTER IN THE STROKE OF THE GEAR THAT
>ENGAGES THE FLYWHEEL, AND THE HOUSING AROUND THIS GEAR HAS A THINNER WALL
>THICKNESS THAN THAT FOR THE 289. NO WONDER I COULDN'T FORCE IT IN PLACE.
>
>MY PARTS GUY (WITH 25 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN THE BUSINESS) ALSO SAID THE 289 HAD
>A DIFFERENT OIL PUMP ASSEMBLY.
>
>HE DID HAVE THE 260 STARTER IN STOCK, IT WAS CHEAPER THAN THE 289 MOTOR, AND
>FIT RIGHT IN PLACE.
>
>I DON'T KNOW IF THIS HELPS WITH THE 260/289 DEBATE, BUT IT IS ONE AREA IN
>WHICH I FOUND A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BLOCKS.
>
>FRED BAUM
>9470768 MK1
> 

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