Bob, and listers,
I believe at least some of the Tiger 260 heads are very similar to the HiPo
289, sharing the same casting as the HiPo 289.
My own original, 3 core plug 260 has cylinder heads with casting # C40E-B.
Monroes book indicates that some 1964 HiPo 289's use these same castings.
With ports & combustion chambers being unfinished castings, it appears that
the ports are the same, chamber is the same, but the HiPo 289 uses a larger
intake valve. The early versions of the 260 appear to have used a head more
similar to the 221, but the later version shared the 289 head.
It is interesting to note that the horsepower rating of 260 & the HiPo 289
does not change, though during their production runs, each engine was built
with at least 2 different cylinder heads.
This leads me to believe that once a number is chosen, h.p. ratings stay the
same even though major changes are made to the engine.
None of this changes my original comment, that the aftermarket heads are
not generally suitable for a 260.
Doug
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:41:45 -0800
> From: "Bob Palmer" <rpalmer@ucsd.edu>
> Subject: RE: 260 cylinder heads
>
> Doug,
>
> You raise an interesting question regarding the similarity of the Tiger
and
> HiPo heads. After looking into this in some detail, I actually don't
think
> that the stock Tiger 260 heads are comparable to the HiPo 289 heads.
> Referring to Bob Mannel's book Mustang & Ford Small Block V8, on page 3-15
> he has pictures of the first 289 2V heads introduced in Dec. 1962 and a
> comparison with the 221/260 heads intake ports. Referring to the 289 head,
> Mannel writes, "This head featured larger valves and larger intake runners
> than in the 221/260 heads. Shown in comparison, the 289 intake runner
> cross-sectional are measure 1 13/16" x 15/16" (d), whereas the 221/260
> runners were 1/4" shorter in height and i/8 narrower in width. (e). Doing
> the math, that makes the 221/260 intakes 1 9/16 x 13/16", or 1.563" x
0.812"
> versus 1.812" x 0.938" for the 2V 289. The 289's intakes were later
further
> increased to 1.94" x 1.04". On page 30, Gordon Chittenden's book, gives
> diagrams of the Tiger intake and exhaust ports. He shows the intake as
1.61"
> x 0.85". Long story short, Tiger 260 heads are much more restrictive than
> 289's, especially the HiPo and later heads. Incidentally, at page 34 of
his
> book Monroe writes: "1963 289 heads are the same as the 260, but with the
> 1.67" and 1.45" valves and 0.3420" and 0.3410" stems. The 260 shared this
> head in 1964-1965." I was once confused by the fact that the original
heads
> on my Tiger had "289" cast in the rocker area, but this apparently
explains
> it.
>
>
> Bob Palmer
> rpalmer@ucsd.edu
> robertpalmer@paulhastings.com
> rpalmerbob@adelphia.net
>
> - -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-tigers@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-tigers@autox.team.net]On
> Behalf Of Doug & Rett Leithauser
> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 6:37 AM
> To: Tiger List
> Cc: tgifford@dee-inc.com
> Subject: 260 cylinder heads
>
> When rebuilding my 260, I reached the conclusion that pretty much ALL of
the
> aftermarket heads are sized for the bore size & displacement of the 302
and
> are really not suitable for a 260. The stock Tiger heads really are not
too
> bad for feeding the smaller engine, The castings are the same ones as the
> 289 K motor, per Monroes "how to rebuild small block Fords", and the small
> chambers help keep the already low compression up.
>
> Happy Motoring
> Doug Leithauser
|