Bob,
I had no idea what a controversy I was getting into when I started this.
The heads on my car do not have screw in studs, and as previously mentioned,
have the smaller 1.67" intake valves. I am not sure what you mean by cast in
seats, I am picturing a hardened steel seat that was cast in place. I do not
remember anything similar to that, I think the springs seat against the cast
iron. It has been about a year since I have seen any of this, the engine has
been reassembled and installed in the car. This also covers Mr. Mannel's
question about the heads being available for inspection, I do not believe
anything can be seen without some disassembly, and I am not willing to
remove the head for inspection. I cannot swear that "289" is not cast into
the head anywhere, but I am pretty certain that I would have noted &
remembered that. I cannot be completely certain that these heads are
original, but I am certain they have been on the car since the early 70's,
and the engine block and cylinder heads were both C4OE castings. I have no
reason to believe the engine assembly is not what was delivered in the car
when new.
I cannot prove it with certainty, but I am convinced that Mr. Mannel is
incorrect on this point.
Doug Leithauser
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Palmer" <rpalmer@ucsd.edu>
To: "Doug & Rett Leithauser" <dleit@worldnet.att.net>; <rpalmer@ucsd.edu>
Cc: "Tiger List" <tigers@autox.team.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 3:11 PM
Subject: RE: 260 cylinder heads
> Doug,
>
> Thanks for your very interesting and informative response. I have now
> compared Mannel's and Monroe's casting number application information and,
> other than some omission's, Monroe's data agrees with Mannel - except
> glaringly in the case of the '64 260 head. Monroe says C4OE-B whereas
Mannel
> (and another book I have confirms this) has C4OE-A as the 260 head. The
> truth of this is actually confirmed by your statement that your combustion
> chambers look like photos B or C in Monroe's book, which are clearly
> distinguishable from the 260 chamber design, an early example of which is
> shown in photo A. I will not speculate on how your 260 came to have 289
> heads, but your engine clearly does not have "260" heads, even if they are
> what Ford delivered to Rootes. I have read in several places that 289 HiPo
> heads can be uniquely identified by the C4OE-B casting number, but I have
> never seen a caveat that this casting number could be confused with 260
> heads. If your heads are really HiPo 289 heads, then they will also have
> screw in rocker arm studs and recessed valve spring seats. Mannel's book
> doesn't say explicitly if the C4OE-B heads had "289" cast in them, but the
> regular '64 289 heads had "289" cast in two places, and the '63 & '65 HiPo
> heads also had "289" cast, so it does seem curious that they wouldn't have
> cast "289" somewhere on the C4OE-B heads as well. If, as you say, these
> heads don't have "289" cast in them and also don't have screw-in studs (or
> were added later) and, more tellingly, recessed valve spring seats, then
> perhaps we've uncovered an as yet undocumented head.
>
> I look forward to hearing if your heads have the cast-in valve spring
seats
> or not. I expect not, otherwise this would have been an obvious tip-off
that
> you would have mentioned previously.
>
> Bob Palmer
> rpalmer@ucsd.edu
> robertpalmer@paulhastings.com
> rpalmerbob@adelphia.net
|