- 1. 260 Buildup Part 1 (score: 1)
- Author: "Ronak, TP \(Timothy\)" <Timothy.Ronak@crna.akzonobel.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:57:55 -0400
- I needed to shorten this one so here goes ... Bugz, I too have my 260 on the floor and plan on someday perhaps 'tricking it out' but at this point I do not have it apart. While I have not built my 2
- /html/tigers/2007-06/msg00092.html (10,103 bytes)
- 2. RE: 260 Buildup Part 1 (score: 1)
- Author: "Smit, Theo" <Theo.Smit@dynastream.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:21:53 -0600
- Hi Tim, I've heard that Doane built his "260" using a sleeved 289 block. That approach gives you significantly thicker effective cylinder walls and would allow notching of the bores at the top withou
- /html/tigers/2007-06/msg00094.html (6,802 bytes)
- 3. RE: 260 Buildup Part 1 (score: 1)
- Author: Sjhcobra1@cs.com
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:43:32 -0400
- When we rebuilt the 260 in my Mk1A we went with 289 heads and Chevy 1.90" valves. The 260 heads have somewhere between 17 and 20 % less volume than the 289 heads. We bored my block to .030" over and
- /html/tigers/2007-06/msg00095.html (7,236 bytes)
- 4. RE: 260 Buildup Part 1 (score: 1)
- Author: "Greg Koss" <Greg.Koss@trw.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:34:14 -0400
- and was running between 13 and 14-1/2 to 1 compression. Hi Tim, I've heard that Doane built his "260" using a sleeved 289 block. That approach gives you significantly thicker effective cylinder wall
- /html/tigers/2007-06/msg00096.html (7,439 bytes)
- 5. RE: 260 Buildup Part 1 (score: 1)
- Author: garywinblad@comcast.net
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:33:15 +0000
- IIRC, it was a 260 block and the sleeves extended above the deck to effectively o-ring it..?? It definitely was 260 CID. The high compression must have made the power...?? Gary -- Original message --
- /html/tigers/2007-06/msg00102.html (7,769 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu