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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Tigers\]\s+HIPO\s+289\s+Rods\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [Tigers] HIPO 289 Rods (score: 1): Author: Larry Mayfield <drmayf@mayfco.com>; Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 09:12:15 -0700; Couple of questions: What's the going price for a set of 289 hipo rods these days, without the rod bolts (I have a set of 8 I may want to sell)? How much HP can they handle (I may just put them into; /html/tigers/2011-10/msg00074.html (7,813 bytes)
2. Re: [Tigers] HIPO 289 Rods (score: 1): Author: " Ron Fraser" <rfraser@bluefrog.com>; Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:00:33 -0400; Mayf According to Bob Mannel's book; the std 289 rod, casting # C3AE-D was used in the std and HiPo 289 engines. The difference was the end cap and the bolt. The HiPo uses an end cap with more materi; /html/tigers/2011-10/msg00075.html (9,144 bytes)
3. Re: [Tigers] HIPO 289 Rods (score: 1): Author: Larry Mayfield <drmayf@mayfco.com>; Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:09:55 -0700; Yep, all true. I have the end caps as well. So I would guess that caps and rod make a hipo rod, eh? Yes, for the boss. Same 5.155 inch rod. Didn't know about the 2.3 turbo fitment though. mayf ______; /html/tigers/2011-10/msg00076.html (8,968 bytes)
4. Re: [Tigers] HIPO 289 Rods (score: 1): Author: " Ron Fraser" <rfraser@bluefrog.com>; Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 17:55:31 -0400; Mayf My 1988 Mustang Service Manual shows the length of the 2.3L connecting rods at 5.2031 - 5.2063 (center to center). The 5.0L rods are listed @ 5.0885 - 5.0915; so as always printed material shoul; /html/tigers/2011-10/msg00077.html (9,737 bytes)
5. Re: [Tigers] HIPO 289 Rods (score: 1): Author: "Bob Hokanson" <tgrrr@meadowcrk.com>; Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 10:45:23 -0700; Regular "Boss" rods (C9ZZ-600-B) had a center to center length of 5.155 and 3/8 rod bolts but Ford "Muscle Parts" also put out a short rod (C90Z-600-B) with a center to center length of 5.090 and 3/8; /html/tigers/2011-10/msg00078.html (8,297 bytes)
6. Re: [Tigers] HIPO 289 Rods (score: 1): Author: Larry Mayfield <drmayf@mayfco.com>; Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:02:45 -0700; Both rods look to be a nominal +- 0.003 inches. The typical value for the 5.0 rods is 5.090 and with the + and - 0.003 you have your numbers. I suspect they give the range the rods are acceptable in; /html/tigers/2011-10/msg00081.html (10,988 bytes)
7. Re: [Tigers] HIPO 289 Rods (score: 1): Author: " Ron Fraser" <rfraser@bluefrog.com>; Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 23:52:38 -0400; Mayf My Service manual lists the piston pin diameter at .9096" - .9012"(hmm that looks like a misprint; maybe .9112" for the 2nd #), Crank bearing bore at 2.1720 - 2.1728". Ron Fraser Both rods look; /html/tigers/2011-10/msg00082.html (11,700 bytes)
8. Re: [Tigers] HIPO 289 Rods (score: 1): Author: Larry Mayfield <drmayf@mayfco.com>; Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:21:49 -0700; Ron, some differences in what I found: Major engine specs are .......................................2.0........ .2.3 Early....2.3 Late.....2.5 Bore...............................3.520........3. 780.; /html/tigers/2011-10/msg00083.html (13,969 bytes)
9. Re: [Tigers] HIPO 289 Rods (score: 1): Author: Larry Mayfield <drmayf@mayfco.com>; Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:30:28 -0700; Attempt number 2. reformatted the table a skosh. _______________________________________ Ron, some differences in what I found: Major engine specs are ...................................2.0......2.3; /html/tigers/2011-10/msg00084.html (13,935 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]