Have a question about engine rebuilding options. I have a 1966 Mk 1A that I thought had an original drivetrain, and intended to keep the 260 stock. Needs a rebuild. Once taken apart, I find it is a 5 bolt 289, but already bored 40 over. No fatal flaws, but will have to be bored to 60 over. My question, is whether to bore 60 over, or sleeve it back close to regular bore. My machinist also has a 302 roller block, bored already 30 over, with the one piece rear seal. This would need new bellhousing, crank, rods, flywheel, clutch lever mounts, and transmission mods to bolt up. I plan to use aluminum heads either way, and a WR trans. . Looking for a tractable engine, not full out power. Thoughts? Thanks, David
Engine question
- Thread starter unbeam
- Start date
- Messages
- 4,326
It is my understanding that 60 over on a 260 is a problem, not sure on the 289's.. but might be worth checking.
You can run a 289 with a stroked 302 crank... i guess that gives you period correct block and the larger displacement and saves the bellhousing.
You can run a 289 with a stroked 302 crank... i guess that gives you period correct block and the larger displacement and saves the bellhousing.
I have had a lot of SBF over the years , Ford marketed the 221 -260-289 and the rest as thin wall casting motors. Thats great for manufacturing and weight reasons , but bad if you are trying to go .60 over . Also I have found the position of the cast cylinder in the blocks to be less than consistent meaning that they work ok with stock bore but when you enlarge them the wall on one side gets thinner than the other , not all blocks have this issue some are spot on.
Tigers run hot and .60 over on a 289 about as far as it goes, so IMHO if this is a street car dont do it , either sleeve or just build a 302 , you can get used blocks all day long for 200 - 300 a lot cheaper than sleeves . Just my 2 cents .
Tigers run hot and .60 over on a 289 about as far as it goes, so IMHO if this is a street car dont do it , either sleeve or just build a 302 , you can get used blocks all day long for 200 - 300 a lot cheaper than sleeves . Just my 2 cents .
- Messages
- 2,968
Good Posts Ditto
Good advice & opinions so far above. Experience has taught me to worry after .030 on old sand castings. Sleeves are great if the block is sound and the machinist knows how (important). My 2-cents would be to find an unmolested block and start fresh if your sticking to stock-ish components. The $$$ still add up but no where near building a 302 plus the adaptive changes.
Good advice & opinions so far above. Experience has taught me to worry after .030 on old sand castings. Sleeves are great if the block is sound and the machinist knows how (important). My 2-cents would be to find an unmolested block and start fresh if your sticking to stock-ish components. The $$$ still add up but no where near building a 302 plus the adaptive changes.
Warren
Gold forum user
- Messages
- 3,872
260 v 289
There has been several for sale locally of either flavor. Like anything else you buy used it takes a lot of picking to find, 1 a seller who knows what he has AND has what he says.
A couple of "stock" Tiger 260 have been sold on lately one by Cobrakidz and one locally that started at 3000 and is now at 2000 for a unproven unverified pig in a poke with a possible numbers matching valve cover to some car out in Tigerland. All you can do is check casting number against the data bases believed to be correct on WWW and then check build date on deck.
To respond directly to your question, the motor guru engineer types I talk to have said 60 over can be done but is not the best choice. It also seems if you built moderately, and ran a bigger radiator bigger fans and a heater core that would be good insurance on the thin walled motor.
If you have not the 260 vs 289 is a good thread on CAT
Cobrakidz's 1000 dollar pick was sold on and may be on eBay still, the fella according to auction "rebuilt" meaning took it apart and rebuilt it with whatever he deemed needed.
http://losangeles.craigslist.org/sgv/cto/4515560914.html
There has been several for sale locally of either flavor. Like anything else you buy used it takes a lot of picking to find, 1 a seller who knows what he has AND has what he says.
A couple of "stock" Tiger 260 have been sold on lately one by Cobrakidz and one locally that started at 3000 and is now at 2000 for a unproven unverified pig in a poke with a possible numbers matching valve cover to some car out in Tigerland. All you can do is check casting number against the data bases believed to be correct on WWW and then check build date on deck.
To respond directly to your question, the motor guru engineer types I talk to have said 60 over can be done but is not the best choice. It also seems if you built moderately, and ran a bigger radiator bigger fans and a heater core that would be good insurance on the thin walled motor.
If you have not the 260 vs 289 is a good thread on CAT
Cobrakidz's 1000 dollar pick was sold on and may be on eBay still, the fella according to auction "rebuilt" meaning took it apart and rebuilt it with whatever he deemed needed.
http://losangeles.craigslist.org/sgv/cto/4515560914.html
- Messages
- 936
In our vintage racing world we usually draw the line at boring a 289 at 30 thousandths. Many are racing 289s with the bore at 4.030".
Just a little clarification: since Ford stopped using 260s about the time the first Tigers were built, there are changes incorporated in later Tiger 260 engines that differ from the Ford predecessor.
I owned a 64 Ranchero with a factory 260 and a T10. When we passed it on it had about a half million miles on it. Along the way I paid attention to Ford 260s and I agree that punching them out to about 30 was considered the max. However some 260 Tiger owners have been able to bore out their stock 3.800" bores all the way to 4.000", the size of a stock 289! That's 200 thou.
It appears that Ford used the 289 inner core when they cast certain Tiger 260s. (Perhaps this was because after Ford stopped using the 260 that the 289 inner cores were the only ones readily available.)
If you look through the center freeze plug hole and the gap between cylinder walls is about the thickness of pencil, you have an engine built with that 289 core. Maybe some Ford expert can clarify but so far all of the Tiger 260s I've pulled apart have had these thick cylinder walls. I don't know if only some Tiger engines were like this or if all were. I just don't know. Anyone? (Maybe this is a question for Dan Walters.)
bt
at the beach
Just a little clarification: since Ford stopped using 260s about the time the first Tigers were built, there are changes incorporated in later Tiger 260 engines that differ from the Ford predecessor.
I owned a 64 Ranchero with a factory 260 and a T10. When we passed it on it had about a half million miles on it. Along the way I paid attention to Ford 260s and I agree that punching them out to about 30 was considered the max. However some 260 Tiger owners have been able to bore out their stock 3.800" bores all the way to 4.000", the size of a stock 289! That's 200 thou.
It appears that Ford used the 289 inner core when they cast certain Tiger 260s. (Perhaps this was because after Ford stopped using the 260 that the 289 inner cores were the only ones readily available.)
If you look through the center freeze plug hole and the gap between cylinder walls is about the thickness of pencil, you have an engine built with that 289 core. Maybe some Ford expert can clarify but so far all of the Tiger 260s I've pulled apart have had these thick cylinder walls. I don't know if only some Tiger engines were like this or if all were. I just don't know. Anyone? (Maybe this is a question for Dan Walters.)
bt
at the beach
TigerBlue
Gold forum user
- Messages
- 827
Tiger 260
Our Black Tiger has a 260 which was a virtual gift (cheap) from a friend who had an aborted Dad Son project on a '64 Mustang. We got the 30 over block and pistons in good shape. A "performer" cam and put it together with matching performer low rise manifold and carb. Also found and topped it with some HiPo 289 heads and it really does perform above expectations.
Getting back on topic? Maybe part of the seemingly better than expected go power is that the older Mustang block is lighter than an under bored 289? That was the goal of thin wall casting! Wonder how much?
Rick
Our Black Tiger has a 260 which was a virtual gift (cheap) from a friend who had an aborted Dad Son project on a '64 Mustang. We got the 30 over block and pistons in good shape. A "performer" cam and put it together with matching performer low rise manifold and carb. Also found and topped it with some HiPo 289 heads and it really does perform above expectations.
Getting back on topic? Maybe part of the seemingly better than expected go power is that the older Mustang block is lighter than an under bored 289? That was the goal of thin wall casting! Wonder how much?
Rick
If you are going 302 and need all the guts, just get a 347 kit from Probe.
http://www.probeindustries.com/Ford_302_Street_Fighter_Engine_Kits_s/30125.htm
Easy, easy low stress for the engine HP with stock external looks.
http://www.probeindustries.com/Ford_302_Street_Fighter_Engine_Kits_s/30125.htm
Easy, easy low stress for the engine HP with stock external looks.
TigerBlue
Gold forum user
- Messages
- 827
Different strokes
For different folks.
I read his original posting as not looking for a monster motor and satisfied with the potential of a nicely tuned 289. Why suggest a 347? Are you serious or padding post count? Rick
For different folks.
I read his original posting as not looking for a monster motor and satisfied with the potential of a nicely tuned 289. Why suggest a 347? Are you serious or padding post count? Rick
If he is going with a 302 and has to source all the internals, just get a 347 kit. Don't have to make it a monster engine. Tune it to an easy 300 HP or so. 347 CI will produce that much easier than a 289. 58 more CI is really not in the "monster" category.
Moondoggie
Gold forum user
- Messages
- 569
I would have to disagree with you Duke.....347 is pretty much the mechanical limit on a 302 block and what you are giving up is longevity. If you want just 300 hp keep the 302 and put in a mild cam and a set of good heads and you are there no need for the extra cubes in this case.
Moondoggie
I would agree with this statement in the early days of stroking a 302. Now with specifically designed cranks, rods and piston for the 347, there are no longevity trade offs. The biggest limit to the 302 block is exceeding 500 HP, they tend to split in half. A World Block or BOSS 302 block fixes that too.
engine question
Thanks for all the reasoned replies, they have been really helpful. Update- my machinist called, and on closer inspection, thinks he can clean up the cylinders and keep it at 40 over. Apparently it had few miles since last bore. Will go that way, seems a reasonable risk for my goals (smooth, torquey, with smooth idle) adn avooid risks adn costs of sleeving. . Will use block off plates, shroud, 6 blade fan, etc. Question about intake-I have both 2 and 4 barrel cast iron Fomoco intakes, and an aluminum Performer 289. Is there any rationale to use a 2 barrel or the cast iron manifold? Clearly the aluminum is much lighter. As I understand it, the original carb/intake/exhaust setup worked pretty well, and is still being used by many members. And carburetion- Autolite vs Edelbrock? Thanks again for all the help. David
Thanks for all the reasoned replies, they have been really helpful. Update- my machinist called, and on closer inspection, thinks he can clean up the cylinders and keep it at 40 over. Apparently it had few miles since last bore. Will go that way, seems a reasonable risk for my goals (smooth, torquey, with smooth idle) adn avooid risks adn costs of sleeving. . Will use block off plates, shroud, 6 blade fan, etc. Question about intake-I have both 2 and 4 barrel cast iron Fomoco intakes, and an aluminum Performer 289. Is there any rationale to use a 2 barrel or the cast iron manifold? Clearly the aluminum is much lighter. As I understand it, the original carb/intake/exhaust setup worked pretty well, and is still being used by many members. And carburetion- Autolite vs Edelbrock? Thanks again for all the help. David
Install Edelbrock 289 Performer manifold with Edelbrock 500cfm carb, along with Pertronic Ignition and you will be happy with the car. You can look into roller chain, cam and lifters for more money but then you have to add a spacer/double gasket to fit the valve covers on the heads. If you have the stock air cleaner use a taller element by buying a round paper element and shape it into an oval to fit.