Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*260\s+Vs\.\s+289\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*260\s+Vs\.\s+289\s*$/: 17 ]

Total 17 documents matching your query.

1. 260 vs. 289 (score: 1): Author: Reid Trummel <AHCUSA@excite.com>; Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 09:30:23 -0700 (PDT); Hi folks, I just subscribed to this list moments ago, so please excuse me if I'm asking a question that has already been beat to death. I'm considering buying a Tiger, and basically I want to know if; /html/tigers/2001-08/msg00111.html (7,532 bytes)
2. RE: 260 vs. 289 (score: 1): Author: "Bob Palmer" <rpalmer@ucsd.edu>; Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 09:46:05 -0700; We really have to break this question into two parts. First, the only Tigers that came with 289's were the last, and rare, Mk II models. These are the most valued Tigers, but it isn't because of the; /html/tigers/2001-08/msg00112.html (7,941 bytes)
3. Re: 260 vs. 289 (score: 1): Author: Steve Laifman <SLaifman@SoCal.RR.com>; Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 10:05:03 -0700; Reid, This is all a matter of how you feel about originality. If you are into customizing, and want performance, the 289 or 302 make more power and better performance, but are not original, except fo; /html/tigers/2001-08/msg00114.html (10,197 bytes)
4. RE: 260 vs. 289 (score: 1): Author: Tom Hall <modtiger@home.com>; Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 10:08:05 -0700; clip Sacrilege aside, your good. That's the best, most concise analysis I've seen on this list in a long time. Congrats Tom; /html/tigers/2001-08/msg00115.html (7,015 bytes)
5. Re: 260 vs. 289 (score: 1): Author: SFordRB@aol.com; Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:32:46 EDT; Following up on Steve's comments.... Remember that the structural components were marginal in the Tiger with the 260. Increased horsepower/torque require careful planning as to not, how should I put; /html/tigers/2001-08/msg00118.html (7,303 bytes)
6. Re: 260 vs. 289 (score: 1): Author: "Stu Brennan" <stubrennan@mediaone.net>; Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 14:04:41 -0400; One item not mentioned so far: Mk2's with the 289 came with a wider set of transmission ratios than the narrow ratio set in the earlier 260 Mk1's. A bit more power, and a better first gear ratio make; /html/tigers/2001-08/msg00121.html (7,792 bytes)
7. Re: 260 vs. 289 (score: 1): Author: Don Daves <dondaves@pacbell.net>; Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 22:37:49 -0700; Reid, If no one else has said it - Welcome to the Tiger list! For any listers who may not know, Reid is one of the long-time leaders of the Austin Healey Club, USA. Though I've lost touch with the cl; /html/tigers/2001-08/msg00128.html (7,531 bytes)
8. Re: 260 vs. 289 (score: 1): Author: Larry Paulick <larry.p@erols.com>; Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:00:14 -0400; Reid, if you have not already, read the United site, as it contains a wealth of info. Larry; /html/tigers/2001-08/msg00137.html (7,848 bytes)
9. 260 Vs. 289 (score: 1): Author: deldredge@acl.nyit.edu; Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 10:56:24 -0500; I have recently acquired what I believe to be a 1967 Tiger with the VIN 382001816. I have been told that it has a 289, not a 260. Is this accurate. The Tiger does have the small Chrysler emblem on fr; /html/tigers/1997-01/msg00336.html (7,267 bytes)
10. Re: 260 Vs. 289 (score: 1): Author: rootes1@best.com (Norman Miller); Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 10:25:06 -0800 (PST); It is more than possible to install a 289 in place of the original 260. However, B382001816 was shipped from the "factory" with 6563 B19KC as its 260 engine. Further, it is not a 1967 Tiger. The prod; /html/tigers/1997-01/msg00337.html (8,011 bytes)
11. Re: 260 Vs. 289 (score: 1): Author: Paul Burr <tigerpb@ids.net>; Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:51:59 +0000; /html/tigers/1997-01/msg00339.html (7,476 bytes)
12. Re: 260 Vs. 289 (score: 1): Author: LeBrun@hii.hitachi.com; Date: Thu, 30 Jan 97 14:50:51 PST; This must BE OUR PAYBACK for all the discussions a few days ago about a "stock" 1966 TIGER with a 289! I have recently acquired what I believe to be a 1967 Tiger with the VIN 382001816. I have been t; /html/tigers/1997-01/msg00340.html (7,654 bytes)
13. Re: 260 Vs. 289 (score: 1): Author: wickland@eng.adaptec.com (Steve Wickland x3128); Date: Thu, 30 Jan 97 18:40:05 PST; I have received this message about 15 times. It's funny because our sys-admin types have been sending all sorts of mail tests all day. I thought it was our mail system again. Five times was funny, 1; /html/tigers/1997-01/msg00344.html (7,354 bytes)
14. RE: 260 Vs. 289 (score: 1): Author: "Lloyd,Norm [Cal]" <Norm.Lloyd@ec.gc.ca>; Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 21:31:30 -0700; ENOUGH ALREADY!; /html/tigers/1997-01/msg00346.html (7,803 bytes)
15. Re: 260 Vs. 289 (score: 1): Author: Paul Burr <tigerpb@ids.net>; Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 10:05:57 +0000; Uh, Del, we got this the first 200 times! Uh, Del, we got this the first 200 times! Uh, Del, we got this the first 200 times! Uh, Del, we got this the first 200 times! Uh, Del, we got this the first; /html/tigers/1997-01/msg00350.html (8,201 bytes)
16. Re: 260 Vs. 289 (score: 1): Author: nicholsj@oakwood.org; Date: Fri, 31 Jan 97 11:07:17 EST; I already received this 12 times today. Enough is enough! Jeff I have recently acquired what I believe to be a 1967 Tiger with the VIN 382001816. I have been told that it has a 289, not a 260. Is thi; /html/tigers/1997-01/msg00352.html (7,594 bytes)
17. Re: 260 Vs. 289 (score: 1): Author: tjhiggin@alpine.b17a.ingr.com (T.J. Higgins); Date: Fri, 31 Jan 97 10:18:11 CST; I think we're all getting them, I certainly am. I'm working to determine/correct the problem. -- T.J. Higgins tjhiggin@ingr.com Huntsville, AL; /html/tigers/1997-01/msg00353.html (7,294 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 17
Page: [1]