260 vs 289

L

leepear

Gold forum user
Messages
299
I took off my valve cover and intake today to determine if I have a 289 or 260. Then I went to the web for the confusing discussions which really did not help me. I see no 289 anywhere cast into the block. Please refer me to a good discussion to help me or a picture. A picture is worth a million words. I sent warren a picture but we are still both stumped. Thanks Lee

owner 1965/6 white was midnight blue transition car
 
leepear said:
I took off my valve cover and intake today to determine if I have a 289 or 260. Then I went to the web for the confusing discussions which really did not help me. I see no 289 anywhere cast into the block. Please refer me to a good discussion to help me or a picture. A picture is worth a million words. I sent warren a picture but we are still both stumped. Thanks Lee

owner 1965/6 white was midnight blue transition car
Click to expand...

I usually keep the following link handy for referal:

http://www.mre-books.com/interchange/interchange2.html
 
Thanks for the information. Looks like I cannot tell from above if it is a 260 or 289. Lee
 
casting

I was under the impression that 289s had the number cast into the head under the valve cover. The no casting 289 in the head or the block seems to equal 260. It is hard to tell from a little phone pic. Can you see the build date?
The same goes for the copy of the book attached in a previous reply. Having been the only other Tiger I have driven other than mine all I can say is,,
"Captain we need more power"
 
Drive it

If you pull the starter you might get a clue from casting code on the block?

I assume it is a 5 bolt and could be a 260? Call it a 260 and drive it.

Do not tear it down to answer this question. Drive and enjoy it. Wear it out and have an excuse to rebuild it. Then you can measure the bore before buying new rings.

But you already pulled the manifold? From HP-Books and Tom Monroe. Page 27 How to rebuild SBF Engines:

"Beginning with the 289 , the engine displacement is cast in the block between the lifter bores for easier identification."

Rick
 
Warren Cucarullo said:
I was under the impression that 289s had the number cast into the head under the valve cover.
Click to expand...
The later 260's used the exact same heads as the early 289's (larger valves). The casting numbers on the heads will tell you which heads you have but won't tell you which engine it is.
 
Ditto

wag123 said:
The later 260's used the exact same heads as the early 289's.
Click to expand...

I've got sets of heads here from 260/289 , they are exactly the same critters. Now the Hi-Po heads, wether original or service casting are a bunch different.
 
I tore it down to do some general maintenance on the engine. The water pump was toast and it had a Ford early Mustang cast iron 4bb intake that although period correct doesn't help me with an attempt to get a few cheap horsepower out of the engine. I figure the f4b (I already had) should give me 15 horsepower and some better low and mid range power. I tent to drive my Tiger hard and the new Tiger lacks the juice to make my juices flow. Now Mike our prez has a Tiger that I hitched a ride and that is more like what fun factor is.........I thought if I could identify the engine as a 260 or 289 this would be the time to do it. The information on the internet is not good and the bore or starter option is not in the cards for me for now. I am with Rick, plan to button it up and drive it till it breaks. Good discussion but still the information is a bit grey on an easy way to tell the difference. I will send Warren some more pictures prior to assembly.

Lee
 
I cant do that quote thing but this is the page I tried to copy. And Rick also quoted it.
But you already pulled the manifold? From HP-Books and Tom Monroe. Page 27 How to rebuild SBF Engines:

"Beginning with the 289 , the engine displacement is cast in the block between the lifter bores for easier identification."

If the manifold is off, look at the lifter valley if there is a 289
thats what it is. If there is no number it is a 260.
 
Those 289 heads would be 1965, notice the push rod guides are cast in the head. About late 1967 or so when the 302 came out the push rod holes were large ( like the 351 picture) and push rods were held in place with the rocker arm which now had rails on it to keep it on the valve stem. The pair of 65 289 heads I have are a bit different that my 260 heads. The intake valve is larger and the intake port is a bit larger (taller). There is also more casting around a couple of the intake manifold bolt holes.

Rick
 
This is now one of the best discussions on the web to tell the difference between a 260 and a 289 and even includes pictures. Thanks for your efforts.

I have a sneaking suspicion my car has the original 260 which is not a bad thing since it has the correct number matching trans and rear. The 289 is not in either of the places in the discussion. There is some blue on the heads which could have been a valve job sometime in the past. I think most machine shops painted these ford blue.

Lee
 
Last edited:
I posted the pictures of my engine to see of someone in this discussion could take a final look and give me your best guess although I am pretty sure it is a 260. This will put this discussion to bed......thanks for your help.

Lee
 
Your heads look like my 260 heads. In the one pic I can see the intake manifold bolt hole. My 260 heads look like that. My 65 289 heads have casting that runs between the intake ports making it look substantially stronger. They also have "289" cast between the rockers. Years ago I did see a pair heads still on a 64 289 and the intake mount was the same as the 260 heads. Been so long ago I don't remember if the intake port was the same or not. couldn't see the valves. My money is on it being a 260.
Rick
 
Block ID confusion

Took off the offenhauser intake last night...

From the gist of this thread, and most that I'd read online, the lack of "289" inside the valley, would seem to indicate 260.

Dad "badge engineered" FORD/289 on the trunk though... so the heads only may be 289? Yet to pull vc's...

Also confusing to me, I can read what looks like "3 >o- 2" near the rods(?) The ">o-" symbols look more like an arrow than a zero (0) to me... But of course makes me wonder...

Final pic of near starter/distributor, wasn't sure where to look. Could make out a strange casting/dimple. Could not ID that mark either. Kindly disregard old skivvies... Not that I'm doing any kind of prep to prevent crud from falling in there...

As a total resto rookie, I'm just taking s--t apart and asking you guys. So, thanks for your continued suggestions.

Derek

DD (CA)
 
Taking them apart is always more fun then reassembling them--at least for me. Found this pic in my Ford parts interchangeability book. Does your head have this?

2r3uh4g.jpg
 
haven't pulled valve covers..

maybe tonight's fun?

But that also won't solve the block mystery question...

Thanks,
Derek
DD (CA)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top