Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Any\s+Truth\s+to\s+the\s+Rumor\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Any\s+Truth\s+to\s+the\s+Rumor\?\s*$/: 20 ]

Total 20 documents matching your query.

1. Any Truth to the Rumor? (score: 1): Author: DCStory@aol.com; Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 01:08:08 EST; I've been told more than once that if I take my 260 engine and replace the crankshaft with a 302 crankshaft and the 302 rods .. But keep my 260 pistons that I will pick up about 12 cubic inches and a; /html/tigers/2000-01/msg00463.html (7,580 bytes)
2. Re: Any Truth to the Rumor? (score: 1): Author: Doug Mallory <rdmallory@earthling.net>; Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 07:48:02 -0500; The deck height on a 260 will not allow a 302 crank. Doug; /html/tigers/2000-01/msg00464.html (8,087 bytes)
3. Re: Any Truth to the Rumor? (score: 1): Author: "cloverdale" <marrone@wco.com>; Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 08:59:16 -0800; All may not be lost. who says you have to use Ford pistons? Maybe with a piston with the right pin height you could pull this off. Of course there are other more radical remedies as well. I assume th; /html/tigers/2000-01/msg00468.html (8,923 bytes)
4. Re: Any Truth to the Rumor? (score: 1): Author: Steve Laifman <Laifman@Flash.Net>; Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 11:39:11 +0000; Don, 221/260/289 stroke = 2.87 inches 302 stroke = 3.00 inches 221/260/289/302 rod and crank journals the same 2.1232 rod, 2.4286 main. 221/260/289 rods center-to-center distance 5.155 with 5/16 bolt; /html/tigers/2000-01/msg00476.html (9,437 bytes)
5. Re: Any Truth to the Rumor? (score: 1): Author: MWood24020@aol.com; Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 15:00:12 EST; << Now, he does NOT say a 302 can't be used in a 289, but deck clearances and deck height are different after the '72 302, which is block related, and not all due to the change in rod length AFTER th; /html/tigers/2000-01/msg00477.html (9,137 bytes)
6. Re: Any Truth to the Rumor? (score: 1): Author: TigerCoupe@aol.com; Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 15:38:49 EST; It is perfectly feasible to install a 302 crank in a 260, resulting in a CID of 273. The deck heights of 8.206 inches on the 221/260/289 and most 302s are identical (the 1973-76 302 was 8.229 inches); /html/tigers/2000-01/msg00478.html (9,992 bytes)
7. Re: Any Truth to the Rumor? (score: 1): Author: Steve Laifman <Laifman@Flash.Net>; Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 13:26:28 +0000; Mike, You are correct about the deck height being the same in the 221/260/289/302 blocks at 8.206 in., BUT only through '72, based on Monroe's table on page 31. After that he lists 8.229 in. on '73-7; /html/tigers/2000-01/msg00480.html (11,154 bytes)
8. Re: Any Truth to the Rumor? (score: 1): Author: FrizBMG@aol.com; Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 16:51:37 EST; << I have been told that early 302's had some problems with the piston skirt lengths, and the end of the bore casting at the bottom. Not sure of the details, but warned to buy the 302 blocks. etc., t; /html/tigers/2000-01/msg00482.html (9,005 bytes)
9. Re: Any Truth to the Rumor? (score: 1): Author: James Barrett <jamesbrt@mindspring.com>; Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500; Don and Doug, The deck height of the 221, 260 289 and 302 were all the same at 8.205 inches. The rods of the 221, 260 and 289 were 5.155 inches. The Rod for the 302 is 5.090 inches. The Compression h; /html/tigers/2000-01/msg00489.html (8,771 bytes)
10. Re: Any Truth to the Rumor? (score: 1): Author: Steve Laifman <Laifman@Flash.Net>; Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 17:18:57 +0000; Jim Barrett wisely cautions care in a 302 crank swap in a 260, and from what I've heard, he is correct. In fact, the same thing can apply to the 289 use. As a matter of interest, I have heard that F; /html/tigers/2000-01/msg00494.html (9,659 bytes)
11. Re: Any Truth to the Rumor? (score: 1): Author: FrizBMG@aol.com; Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 20:52:37 EST; << Tony, Thanks Now, read my latest rumor about pistons. Maybe you have the answer on that too. Steve -- Steve Laifman < Find out what is most > B9472289 < important in your life > < and don't let it; /html/tigers/2000-01/msg00495.html (8,867 bytes)
12. Re: Any Truth to the Rumor? (score: 1): Author: Jim Parent <jparent@yahoo.com>; Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 17:58:48 -0800 (PST); I think you also need to be careful that the rods attached to the 302 crank in the 289 block don't whack the bottom of the cylinders where they decend into the bottom end. More stroke equals wider ho; /html/tigers/2000-01/msg00496.html (8,857 bytes)
13. Re: Any Truth to the Rumor? (score: 1): Author: TigerCoupe@aol.com; Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 23:23:10 EST; bore...... Steve, I think what you meant to say was the longer STROKE, not longer ROD. The rod on a standard 302 (not Boss) is 5.090", SHORTER than the 5.155'" of the 221/260/289. Dick; /html/tigers/2000-01/msg00498.html (8,575 bytes)
14. Re: Any Truth to the Rumor? (score: 1): Author: TigerCoupe@aol.com; Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 23:23:10 EST; This is incorrect. The rods on a standard 302 are 5.090", but Boss 302 rods are 5.155" long, the same as a 221/260/289/289HP. Except for improvements in the machining under the 3/8" bolt heads (spot; /html/tigers/2000-01/msg00499.html (8,876 bytes)
15. RE: Any Truth to the Rumor? (score: 1): Author: "Allan Connell, Jr." <alcon@home.com>; Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 21:44:56 -0800; TRW as I recall. Come in a variety of flavors. But I have heard that they are hard to find. Hope I never need a replacement. Allan B9472373 << Tony, Thanks Now, read my latest rumor about pistons. Ma; /html/tigers/2000-01/msg00501.html (9,234 bytes)
16. Re: Any Truth to the Rumor? (score: 1): Author: James Barrett <jamesbrt@mindspring.com>; Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500; If my message stated "long 5.090" instead of "long 5.155" then I a truly sorry for the error. At least I got the compression height correct. I had intended to indicate that the Boss 302 rods were the; /html/tigers/2000-01/msg00503.html (9,273 bytes)
17. Re: Any Truth to the Rumor? (score: 1): Author: MWood24020@aol.com; Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 13:36:14 EST; << By the way, the Boss 302 had a very bad tendency to break the piston skirts off of the pistons. Later TRW forged replacement pistons had extra re-enforcement to help solve that problem. I had a Bo; /html/tigers/2000-01/msg00504.html (8,557 bytes)
18. Re: Any Truth to the Rumor? (score: 1): Author: Steve Laifman <Laifman@Flash.Net>; Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 13:19:16 +0000; Actually Dick, you are correct, again. I did misspeak. As I said, this was a matter of hearsay, not first hand experience, and I gather that there is some merit to the argument about this. The correc; /html/tigers/2000-01/msg00506.html (10,118 bytes)
19. Re: Any Truth to the Rumor? (score: 1): Author: TigerCoupe@aol.com; Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 23:59:44 EST; Yes James, you did say "long 5.090." That is what generated my reply. I had the same experience with Boss 302 pistons. I tore one down at about 10,000 miles (I forget why now), and the oil pan was f; /html/tigers/2000-01/msg00510.html (7,947 bytes)
20. Re: Any Truth to the Rumor? (score: 1): Author: DrMayf@aol.com; Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 08:57:46 EST; Well, I just got out my old "How to rebuild your Small Block Ford" book by Tom Monroe. Model Bore Deck Height 221 3.50 8.206 255 3.68 8.206 260 3.80 8.206 289 4.00 8.206 289 HP 4.00 8.206 302 4.00 8.; /html/tigers/2000-01/msg00542.html (8,898 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1]