Bob, et Listers,
Dick "TigerCoupe" Barker has discreetly informed me that I have pulled a
"Chittendon" with respect to misidentification of "260" versus "289" heads.
The problem I have can be traced back to an experience I had many years ago
that brought me to a slightly erroneous conclusion. The incident occurred
when I replace the original 260 in my Tiger with a 289 I reworked the
original "260" heads with much the same stuff as you did, Bob; screw in
studs, etc., plus some porting work I did myself. I do remember distinctly,
though, that these heads had "289" cast in them. What I realized quite some
time later when comparing them with "real" 289 heads is that they had
smaller valves and much smaller intake ports. I can't verify the difference
in intake ports, but here is what I believe is the evolution of the 260/289
heads. As per The Book of Norman (TBON), the early two-freeze-plug 260's
had 1.59" intake and 1.39" exhaust and the first three-freeze-plug 260's
and 289's had 1.67" intake and 1.45" exhaust. Then, (and this is not
included in the TBON discussion) from mid '64 on until '68 when the 289 was
discontinued, the intake valve was increased to 1.78". This was true of all
289's, 2-V, 4-V, and HiPo. From '64&1/2 on, the intake port size on all
these 289 heads were also the same: 1.04"X1.94". (BTW, the intake port size
of the 351W is almost the same: 1.16"X1.94"). What I have not been able to
corroborate is my recollection of the significantly smaller intake ports on
the early 260/289 heads that came with the Tiger 260 engines - or at least
with mine ;-) Any help in this regard would be appreciated.
So, to correct the record and speaking from experience, I would not
recommend spending lots of money reworking the stock Tiger 260 heads, no
matter what you call them; and properly, they should be called "289" heads
since that's what I believe they have cast on them. Actually, I'm kind of
partial to 351W heads, although if I were to start from scratch I'd
probably go with aluminum TFS or Edelbrock heads.
So, my apologies if I mislead anyone and thanks to Dick for "keeping me
honest" and helping me preempt any flames for misstating the historical facts.
Bob "Chastenedon" Palmer
At 07:43 AM 9/5/00 -0700, Bob Palmer wrote:
>Bob,
>
>Welcome to the List Bob. Your question raises a related one, which is, if
>the engine is really a 260, are they 260 heads as well? Not many people
>would spend a lot of money on reworking the small 260 heads for
>performance. On the other hand, they do make good "economy" heads, it
>that's what you are after. The valves and the intake passages are smaller
>on the 260 heads, and I think the chamber volumes are less too, compared
>with most 289 and 351 heads.
|