Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Tigers\]\s+260\s+heads\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Tigers\]\s+260\s+heads\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [Tigers] 260 heads (score: 1): Author: kevin beck <kevinteresa.beck74@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 11:51:36 -0400; I have been talking to a guy about my 260 heads my motor has 3 freeze plugs per side I guess some had 2, my heads valves are 167-145 ,I believe the same as the non 289hp. Is there a difference in the; /html/tigers/2009-09/msg00067.html (7,143 bytes)
2. Re: [Tigers] 260 heads (score: 1): Author: " Ron Fraser" <rfraser@bluefrog.com>; Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 12:06:08 -0400; The 260 heads C40E-A have the larger valves; 1.67 & 1.45. This change was made in Feb 1964. The valve size is the same as the 289 in this time frame. The 289 went to a 1.78 intake valve April 1964 i; /html/tigers/2009-09/msg00068.html (8,031 bytes)
3. Re: [Tigers] 260 heads (score: 1): Author: michael king <michael.s.king@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 10:48:24 +1000; Wasn't that the slip up in homologation that caught rootes out on the monte rally where they were disqulaified for having smaller valaves than the homologation papers said.. they were using the old; /html/tigers/2009-09/msg00086.html (7,131 bytes)
4. Re: [Tigers] 260 heads (score: 1): Author: " Ron Fraser" <rfraser@bluefrog.com>; Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 08:35:39 -0400; I'm not familiar with the disqualification matter but there seems to be some intended fuzzy information in the homologation papers or is it fuzzy interpretation. The small valve 260 heads are C3OE-B; /html/tigers/2009-09/msg00087.html (8,227 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]