Doug,
Here is what I believe to be reliable information from the Bob Mannel Book.
On page 3-15 he shows pictures of the 221 and 260 cylinder heads. The 221
and 260 both have the same casting number, C3OE. At the other end of the
casting is "A" for the 221 and "B" for the 260. This makes the point that
the same four-digit alpha-numeric doesn't pin down the head all that much.
On page 4-9 he shows the combustion chambers of the 1964 260 with the larger
valves (1.67"/1.45") compared with the '63 combustion chamber. At the bottom
of the page he has pictures of the '64 260 head showing "C4OE" at one end of
the casting and "A" at the other end. On the next page are pictures of the
early '64 289 head, which was the same as the '63, then in Feb/March they
changed the combustion chamber shape slightly and increased the intake to
1.78". The shapes of these two combustion chambers are distinctly different
than the 260 and 221 chambers. Finally, on page 4-11 there are comparison
pictures of the early and late '64 HiPo combustion chambers. Mannel writes:
"The 289 HiPo also received the larger intake valve size about April 1964.
However, when this occurred, Ford also abandoned the old, smaller chamber
design (a) in favor of the same shape and volume as on the standard 289 V8
heads (b)." The "old design" is obviously the HiPo version you are equating
to the Tiger C4OE 260 heads. However, there is no confusing the distinctly
different combustion chamber shapes of the 260 and 289 heads. Likewise, the
intake and exhaust runners are also different. I also believe that Tom
Monroe is simply wrong when he says the 260 and 289 shared the same head.
BTW, do your original heads have "289" cast anywhere on them?
Bob Palmer
rpalmer@ucsd.edu
robertpalmer@paulhastings.com
rpalmerbob@adelphia.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-tigers@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-tigers@autox.team.net]On
Behalf Of Doug & Rett Leithauser
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 4:05 PM
To: rpalmer@ucsd.edu
Cc: Tiger List
Subject: 260 vs HiPo 289 cylinder heads
Bob, and listers,
I believe at least some of the Tiger 260 heads are very similar to the HiPo
289, sharing the same casting as the HiPo 289.
My own original, 3 core plug 260 has cylinder heads with casting # C40E-B.
Monroes book indicates that some 1964 HiPo 289's use these same castings.
With ports & combustion chambers being unfinished castings, it appears that
the ports are the same, chamber is the same, but the HiPo 289 uses a larger
intake valve. The early versions of the 260 appear to have used a head more
similar to the 221, but the later version shared the 289 head.
It is interesting to note that the horsepower rating of 260 & the HiPo 289
does not change, though during their production runs, each engine was built
with at least 2 different cylinder heads.
This leads me to believe that once a number is chosen, h.p. ratings stay the
same even though major changes are made to the engine.
None of this changes my original comment, that the aftermarket heads are
not generally suitable for a 260.
Doug
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:41:45 -0800
> From: "Bob Palmer" <rpalmer@ucsd.edu>
> Subject: RE: 260 cylinder heads
>
> Doug,
>
> You raise an interesting question regarding the similarity of the Tiger
and
> HiPo heads. After looking into this in some detail, I actually don't
think
> that the stock Tiger 260 heads are comparable to the HiPo 289 heads.
> Referring to Bob Mannel's book Mustang & Ford Small Block V8, on page 3-15
> he has pictures of the first 289 2V heads introduced in Dec. 1962 and a
> comparison with the 221/260 heads intake ports. Referring to the 289 head,
> Mannel writes, "This head featured larger valves and larger intake runners
> than in the 221/260 heads. Shown in comparison, the 289 intake runner
> cross-sectional are measure 1 13/16" x 15/16" (d), whereas the 221/260
> runners were 1/4" shorter in height and i/8 narrower in width. (e). Doing
> the math, that makes the 221/260 intakes 1 9/16 x 13/16", or 1.563" x
0.812"
> versus 1.812" x 0.938" for the 2V 289. The 289's intakes were later
further
> increased to 1.94" x 1.04". On page 30, Gordon Chittenden's book, gives
> diagrams of the Tiger intake and exhaust ports. He shows the intake as
1.61"
> x 0.85". Long story short, Tiger 260 heads are much more restrictive than
> 289's, especially the HiPo and later heads. Incidentally, at page 34 of
his
> book Monroe writes: "1963 289 heads are the same as the 260, but with the
> 1.67" and 1.45" valves and 0.3420" and 0.3410" stems. The 260 shared this
> head in 1964-1965." I was once confused by the fact that the original
heads
> on my Tiger had "289" cast in the rocker area, but this apparently
explains
> it.
>
>
> Bob Palmer
> rpalmer@ucsd.edu
> robertpalmer@paulhastings.com
> rpalmerbob@adelphia.net
>
> - -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-tigers@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-tigers@autox.team.net]On
> Behalf Of Doug & Rett Leithauser
> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 6:37 AM
> To: Tiger List
> Cc: tgifford@dee-inc.com
> Subject: 260 cylinder heads
>
> When rebuilding my 260, I reached the conclusion that pretty much ALL of
the
> aftermarket heads are sized for the bore size & displacement of the 302
and
> are really not suitable for a 260. The stock Tiger heads really are not
too
> bad for feeding the smaller engine, The castings are the same ones as the
> 289 K motor, per Monroes "how to rebuild small block Fords", and the small
> chambers help keep the already low compression up.
>
> Happy Motoring
> Doug Leithauser
|