tigers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 289's

To: FHSLOTH@aol.com
Subject: Re: 289's
From: brockctella@juno.com
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 07:30:39 -0700
STOP SHOUTING!!!

On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 08:41:24 EDT FHSLOTH@aol.com writes:
>WHEN I REPLACED THE STARTER MOTOR ON MY MK1 A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, I 
>ASKED THE
>PARTS MAN AT MY LOCAL STORE FOR A STARTER FOR A 289, THINKING THAT HE 
>WOULD
>NOT HAVE A STARTER FOR A 260..
>
>AFTER FIGHTING WITH IT FOR AN HOUR, I WENT BACK AND COMPLAINED THAT HE 
>HAD
>GIVEN ME THE WRONG STARTER. HE CHECKED HIS PARTS BOOK AND SAID IT WAS 
>THE
>CORRECT ONE. I TOOK THE OLD STARTER WITH ME AND WE COMPARED THE 
>PHYSICAL
>DIMENSIONS OF BOTH.
>
>IT TURNS OUT THE 260 STARTER MOTOR IS SHORTER IN THE STROKE OF THE 
>GEAR THAT
>ENGAGES THE FLYWHEEL, AND THE HOUSING AROUND THIS GEAR HAS A THINNER 
>WALL
>THICKNESS THAN THAT FOR THE 289. NO WONDER I COULDN'T FORCE IT IN 
>PLACE.
>
>MY PARTS GUY (WITH 25 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN THE BUSINESS) ALSO SAID THE 
>289 HAD
>A DIFFERENT OIL PUMP ASSEMBLY.
>
>HE DID HAVE THE 260 STARTER IN STOCK, IT WAS CHEAPER THAN THE 289 
>MOTOR, AND
>FIT RIGHT IN PLACE.
>
>I DON'T KNOW IF THIS HELPS WITH THE 260/289 DEBATE, BUT IT IS ONE AREA 
>IN
>WHICH I FOUND A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BLOCKS.
>
>FRED BAUM
>9470768 MK1
>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>