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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Tigers\]\s+Original\s+engine\?\s*$/: 37 ]

Total 37 documents matching your query.

1. [Tigers] Original engine? (score: 1): Author: "James E. Pickard" <geowiz.sgy@cox.net>; Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 16:56:16 -0500; I've got a number matching Mk IA, but the original valve covers are hiding a 5-bolt 289. Stashed in the corner of my storage room is what is purported by the PO to be the original 260 engine. I don't; /html/tigers/2009-05/msg00153.html (7,034 bytes)
2. Re: [Tigers] Original engine? (score: 1): Author: " Ron Fraser" <rfraser@bluefrog.com>; Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 09:30:04 -0400; The block casting number is at the starter motor location and you need the casting date code which will be right next to it. All the major engine parts have individual casting numbers and date codes; /html/tigers/2009-05/msg00158.html (8,113 bytes)
3. Re: [Tigers] Original engine? (score: 1): Author: "Thomas Witt" <atwittsend@verizon.net>; Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 08:38:13 -0700; At least as it relates to the Tiger and Ford associated engine products, is it safe to say there is no specific number relating to each individual car, but rather a "time period" of the casting date; /html/tigers/2009-05/msg00164.html (8,035 bytes)
4. Re: [Tigers] Original engine? (score: 1): Author: " Ron Fraser" <rfraser@bluefrog.com>; Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 13:28:34 -0400; There are some specific casting time frames for the Tiger engines and parts, I believe. This is one of the points I wanted to determine with the engine study I started. There are some castings that; /html/tigers/2009-05/msg00168.html (9,264 bytes)
5. Re: [Tigers] Original engine? (score: 1): Author: Tony Somebody <achd73@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 11:43:28 -0700 (PDT); I am a little confused. OK, I admitt, Im often very confused but I am taking meds that are suppose to help. My question is; Does the number on the orginal valve cover not match a number on the engine; /html/tigers/2009-05/msg00169.html (11,905 bytes)
6. Re: [Tigers] Original engine? (score: 1): Author: garywinblad@comcast.net; Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 20:05:49 +0000 (UTC); Tom's right. Corvette's have their body serial number matching their engine number but Ford's don't. Nobody has commented on the most important number though.. that's the engine build date, stamped o; /html/tigers/2009-05/msg00170.html (8,785 bytes)
7. Re: [Tigers] Original engine? (score: 1): Author: "Samouce's" <wsamouce@kc.rr.com>; Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 15:14:15 -0500; My engine info - Block - C4OE 6015E, Date - 5G20 (July 20 1965) Build date - 5K14M (Oct 14 1965) Timing Cover - C4AE 6059B Duke B382002037 --Original Message-- From: tigers-bounces@autox.team.net [ma; /html/tigers/2009-05/msg00172.html (9,878 bytes)
8. Re: [Tigers] Original engine? (score: 1): Author: "steve wick" <srwick@hotmail.com>; Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 15:20:17 -0700; At least from 1968 on, they did. If the VIN is 8R01J123456, as an example, the engine will have 8R123456 stamped in it. My Fords from '68 to '73 all have this. Steve -- Original Message -- From: gary; /html/tigers/2009-05/msg00175.html (10,079 bytes)
9. Re: [Tigers] Original engine? (score: 1): Author: "Hall Motors" <hallmotors@cox.net>; Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 19:50:16 -0500; Thru '67 Ford only stamped VIN's on 289 Hipo engines (yep, not even the dual four 427s). Starting in '68 they stamped them on all their engines. --Original Message-- From: tigers-bounces@autox.team.n; /html/tigers/2009-05/msg00178.html (10,474 bytes)
10. Re: [Tigers] Original engine? (score: 1): Author: " Ron Fraser" <rfraser@bluefrog.com>; Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 08:07:56 -0400; You are correct the build date code is very important and the engine should be have a build date before the assembly date of the your Tiger but if for any reason there was a problem with that engine; /html/tigers/2009-05/msg00179.html (9,557 bytes)
11. Re: [Tigers] Original engine? (score: 1): Author: spook01@comcast.net; Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 14:42:14 +0000 (UTC); as i recall, lord rootes called ford and placed a single order. an educated guess is that ford would have made a "run" of 260's to fill that order, thus making the casting date a narrow band of numbe; /html/tigers/2009-05/msg00186.html (10,159 bytes)
12. Re: [Tigers] Original engine? (score: 1): Author: "Bob Dixon" <bobdixon@frii.com>; Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 12:48:49 -0600; Speaking of original engines. I'm at a point in my restoration where I need to decide to rebuild the original 260 or put in something a bit more peppy such as a 331. If I ever had to sell the car I g; /html/tigers/2009-05/msg00206.html (8,590 bytes)
13. Re: [Tigers] Original engine? (score: 1): Author: " Ron Fraser" <rfraser@bluefrog.com>; Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 15:26:34 -0400; The 260 engine made in 1964 and 1965 were basically 289 engine configurations with a smaller bore; all the other parts were also of the 289 configuration. The HP rating for that configuration 260 wa; /html/tigers/2009-05/msg00207.html (9,663 bytes)
14. Re: [Tigers] Original engine? (score: 1): Author: tigerdan@cavtel.net; Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 19:34:25 +0000; When I rebuilt my 260 I got around 220 HP on the engine dyno. Dan B9470033FE --Original Message-- From: Ron Fraser Sender: tigers-bounces@autox.team.net To: 'Bob Dixon' To: Tiger List ReplyTo: rfrase; /html/tigers/2009-05/msg00208.html (10,098 bytes)
15. Re: [Tigers] Original engine? (score: 1): Author: drmayf <drmayf@mayfco.com>; Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 12:40:47 -0700; Bob, heck, do both of them! If you're just rebuillding the 260 to box stock standards, it really wont cost an arm and a leg. Get the 331 first, rebuild the 260 as you enjoy responsive driving, lol...; /html/tigers/2009-05/msg00209.html (9,132 bytes)
16. Re: [Tigers] Original engine? (score: 1): Author: <sralsten@ca.rr.com>; Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 16:51:30 -0400; I'm a factory original kind of guy, but do see the value in boosting performance and handling too. Unless your intention is a sale why rebuild the car for someone else ? Rebuild it for yourself and k; /html/tigers/2009-05/msg00210.html (8,870 bytes)
17. Re: [Tigers] Original engine? (score: 1): Author: Tony Somebody <achd73@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 13:53:02 -0700 (PDT); Bob- put in the stroker- thats what i would want if I bought the car. put the orginal and rebuildable 260 up to sell with the car IF you ever decide to. I bought my first Tiger in 1972. guess it was; /html/tigers/2009-05/msg00211.html (10,075 bytes)
18. Re: [Tigers] Original engine? (score: 1): Author: <awtiger@cox.net>; Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 17:19:26 -0400; Actually, Steve, your original block was "lost" 32 years before you owned the car...but who's counting!! _______________________________________________ Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.ht; /html/tigers/2009-05/msg00212.html (10,156 bytes)
19. Re: [Tigers] Original engine? (score: 1): Author: <sralsten@ca.rr.com>; Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 17:43:35 -0400; Oh sure Andy burst my bubble. 32 years instead of only 25 ? Now I'll never find it. ;^) And Ron F if you're reading this,this is the reason I never responded to your months ago engine survey, it's go; /html/tigers/2009-05/msg00213.html (10,524 bytes)
20. Re: [Tigers] Original engine? (score: 1): Author: " Ron Fraser" <rfraser@bluefrog.com>; Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 19:38:42 -0400; Not a problem. I think everyone should know the casting numbers, casting dates and build date of their engine, original or not. There is a great deal of history in those numbers; we just need to dig; /html/tigers/2009-05/msg00214.html (11,173 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]