Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Engine\s+Block\s+I\.D\.\s+needed\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Engine\s+Block\s+I\.D\.\s+needed\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. Engine Block I.D. needed (score: 1): Author: "Tom Witt" <wittsend@jps.net>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 21:10:35 -0700; Well after having my Tiger for a year and a half I finally got the back end down on the ground and immediately proceeded to jack up the front. This availed me the opportunity to pull the starter and; /html/tigers/2001-05/msg00110.html (7,982 bytes)
2. RE: Engine Block I.D. needed (score: 1): Author: "Frank Marrone" <marrone@wco.com>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 22:22:41 -0700; I thought that the only difference between a hi-po block and a regular block was that hi-po blocks were hand picked from the lot of production blocks for thicker casting (visual?) I though the only d; /html/tigers/2001-05/msg00112.html (9,145 bytes)
3. Re: Engine Block I.D. needed (score: 1): Author: Steve Laifman <SLaifman@SoCal.RR.com>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 22:34:46 -0700; There were 2 HiPo 289's. One a 5 bolt C3OE-B, C4OE-B casting ('63, '64) The 6 bolt HiPo's casting number was C5AE-E ('65-'68) Other "tell-tales on inside of block (thicker main bearing cap, color sp; /html/tigers/2001-05/msg00113.html (8,545 bytes)
4. Re: Engine Block I.D. needed (score: 1): Author: Steve Laifman <SLaifman@SoCal.RR.com>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 22:37:42 -0700; Many more differences, including a specially selected crankshaft that came out of heat treat with higher strength from a Brinnel hardness test. Marked orange and sent to HiPo line. -- Steve Laifman <; /html/tigers/2001-05/msg00114.html (9,040 bytes)
5. Re: Engine Block I.D. needed (score: 1): Author: Steve Laifman <SLaifman@SoCal.RR.com>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 22:40:05 -0700; Frank, Brinnel hardness tests of production cranks were used to hand select the higher strength cranks for the HiPo, along with the caps, cams, springs, balance. All the horsepower wasn't from a labe; /html/tigers/2001-05/msg00115.html (9,063 bytes)
6. RE: Engine Block I.D. needed (score: 1): Author: "Frank Marrone" <marrone@wco.com>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 22:51:05 -0700; I thought we were talking about engine block differences. At least I was. Here is a link that I found that gives some of the various non-block related differences, it also claims the block p/n is no; /html/tigers/2001-05/msg00116.html (10,041 bytes)
7. Re: Engine Block I.D. needed (score: 1): Author: Steve Laifman <SLaifman@SoCal.RR.com>; Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 10:12:14 -0700; Thank you for the link, although they are wrong about the HiPo casting numbers, at least the 289 CID versions. Although you may have been talking about the bare block casting, which is not the same; /html/tigers/2001-05/msg00118.html (9,722 bytes)
8. RE: Engine Block I.D. needed (score: 1): Author: Frank Marrone <Fmarrone@turinnetworks.com>; Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 10:14:28 -0700; You may have been answering Toms question about general Hipo identification but you copied my EMAIL in your reply that clearly and specifically only addressed the question of block ID. Also you made; /html/tigers/2001-05/msg00119.html (10,787 bytes)
9. RE: Engine Block I.D. needed (score: 1): Author: Frank Marrone <Fmarrone@turinnetworks.com>; Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 10:17:54 -0700; And while I'm at it, one more point. you say that Tom did not want information about the block design as you put it but if you read Toms EMAIL you will see that he specifically asked about his block; /html/tigers/2001-05/msg00120.html (10,435 bytes)
10. Re: Engine Block I.D. needed (score: 1): Author: Chris Williams <info@bcmustang.com>; Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 13:55:38 -0400; There was a group of casting numbers that ford used for the standard blocks, but only some of these numbers were used on the hi -po block. The hi -po did not have its own special casting number . Kee; /html/tigers/2001-05/msg00121.html (11,607 bytes)
11. Re: Engine Block I.D. needed (score: 1): Author: JHef101@aol.com; Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 16:04:42 EDT; Getting a little testy are we? I have found Laifman to be an invaluable source of Ford and Tiger knowledge, as well as trivia and tidbits. Some times the e-mail word seems more terse and direct than; /html/tigers/2001-05/msg00122.html (8,048 bytes)
12. RE: Engine Block I.D. needed (score: 1): Author: Frank Marrone <Fmarrone@turinnetworks.com>; Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 13:17:18 -0700; No, there is no misperception on your part. I'll try to lighten up. Frank Getting a little testy are we? I have found Laifman to be an invaluable source of Ford and Tiger knowledge, as well as trivia; /html/tigers/2001-05/msg00123.html (8,414 bytes)
13. RE: Engine Block I.D. needed (score: 1): Author: "Bob Palmer" <rpalmer@ucsd.edu>; Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 16:24:49 -0700; The following information is from Tim Monroe's "How to rebuild your SMALL-BLOCK FORD", which we all own a copy of, right? The whole chapter "Parts Identification and Interchange" is interesting, but; /html/tigers/2001-05/msg00125.html (10,450 bytes)
14. Re: Engine Block I.D. needed (score: 1): Author: Steve Laifman <SLaifman@SoCal.RR.com>; Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 17:41:45 -0700; Bob, More from Tom Monroe, for those who do not have the book. (Recommended reading - go buy one!) I believe the statement is usually made that the CRANKSHAFT was "high nodular iron". This is in Tom'; /html/tigers/2001-05/msg00127.html (10,413 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]