Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Tigers\]\s+289\s+heads\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Tigers\]\s+289\s+heads\s*$/: 11 ]

Total 11 documents matching your query.

1. [Tigers] 289 heads (score: 1): Author: kevin beck <kevinteresa.beck74@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 21:21:21 -0400; Thinking of putting 289 heads on my 260 partly because of the larger valves, how would this effect my 260 motor? Thanks Kevin _______________________________________________ Support Team.Net http://w; /html/tigers/2009-09/msg00148.html (6,758 bytes)
2. Re: [Tigers] 289 heads (score: 1): Author: "A. C. Tynes" <v8tracker@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 21:31:28 -0500; According to George Reid's "High Performance Engine Parts Exchange" there are number of different head specs for 289's, some with the same size valves as the 260. Some also had larger combustion cha; /html/tigers/2009-09/msg00150.html (8,409 bytes)
3. Re: [Tigers] 289 heads (score: 1): Author: " Ron Fraser" <rfraser@bluefrog.com>; Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:09:32 -0400; A.C. is correct; you need to be aware of the different head configurations. Generally the 289 heads with larger valves and larger ports will give you more HP. You also need to use a 289 intake manif; /html/tigers/2009-09/msg00153.html (10,478 bytes)
4. Re: [Tigers] 289 heads (score: 1): Author: Dave Munroe <dave@munroe.ca>; Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:41:14 -0300; I've been reading with interest all the talk about swapping 289 heads onto 260 blocks to get more H.P. It seems to me the context of use of this power needs to be discussed. As I understand it, and; /html/tigers/2009-09/msg00154.html (8,914 bytes)
5. Re: [Tigers] 289 heads (score: 1): Author: "Thomas Witt" <atwittsend@verizon.net>; Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:32:34 -0700; Off hand would you know if the 289 heads with the smaller valves came exclusive with the 5 bolt 289? That is what a previous owner transplanted into my Tiger. My Tiger seems to be a hodge-podge of s; /html/tigers/2009-09/msg00156.html (7,636 bytes)
6. Re: [Tigers] 289 heads (score: 1): Author: " Ron Fraser" <rfraser@bluefrog.com>; Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:01:41 -0400; The 289 was first cast in Dec 1962, the 6 Bolt 289 started in Aug 1964. The intake valve was increased to 1.78" Feb 1964. The small valve heads were produced from Dec 1962 to Jan 1964 and would all; /html/tigers/2009-09/msg00164.html (9,117 bytes)
7. [Tigers] 289 heads (score: 1): Author: Allan Ballard <allanballard@att.net>; Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:07:55 -0400; Is there any performance advantage to 289 heads on a stock 260 Tiger motor? I need to redo my valves to be ready for current unleaded gas, and thought to rebuild 289 heads instead off a 64 1/2 5 bolt; /html/tigers/2010-07/msg00468.html (6,466 bytes)
8. Re: [Tigers] 289 heads (score: 1): Author: Tony Somebody <achd73@yahoo.com>; Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 23:26:41 -0700 (PDT); I have 2 sets of 1965 heads- my machinist, now retired and a Ford man said the 65 heads had a higher nickle content , making them stronger. he replaced the seats and valve guides- the seats for unlea; /html/tigers/2010-08/msg00000.html (7,658 bytes)
9. Re: [Tigers] 289 heads (score: 1): Author: "Thomas Witt" <atwittsend@verizon.net>; Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:32:18 -0700; You might want to look at this link. What I read it seems there is little difference. However, others may have experience to the contrary. I can tell you that neither have hardened seats. Tom _______; /html/tigers/2010-07/msg00469.html (6,897 bytes)
10. Re: [Tigers] 289 heads (score: 1): Author: " Ron Fraser" <rfraser@bluefrog.com>; Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:45:22 -0400; Generally the 289 heads have bigger intake and exhaust ports than the 260 heads. The 289 intake manifold also has bigger ports than the 260 intake manifold. If you are using the 260 intake with the; /html/tigers/2010-08/msg00002.html (8,488 bytes)
11. Re: [Tigers] 289 heads (score: 1): Author: "Scott Hutchinson" <shutchin@netjets.com>; Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:48:45 -0400; I had heard somewhere that the 260 combustion camber was actually quite good. Faced with the same dilemma that you have I went with 289 hipo valves in the 260 head. Very happy with the result, but yo; /html/tigers/2010-08/msg00003.html (7,648 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 11
Page: [1]