I guess that's where the apparantly erroneous info about "boring out a
260 to get a 289" got started? I remember reading that one of the Tiger
tuning books recommended that and a bunch of people messed up their
engines doing so.
Regards
David Sosna
S4 GT V6
Pasanville@aol.com wrote:
>
> --part1_c.8feaafe.26c0678c_boundary
>
>
>
> --part1_c.8feaafe.26c0678c_boundary
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> Return-path: <Pasanville@aol.com>
> From: Pasanville@aol.com
> Full-name: Pasanville
> Message-ID: <e1.826d700.26c0676c@aol.com>
> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 15:26:36 EDT
> Subject: Re: New engine
> To: rpalmer@ames.ucsd.edu
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 120
>
> Listers,
> Being one who restores Mustangs (Vintage). I can say that the 289 and 302
> have the same block. As a mater-of-fact the only difference was the 302 did
> have a longer stroke 3.0 versus 2.870 inches. By the way the 260 had a 3.80
> bore with a 2.870 stroke.
> Pete Sanville
> 66 Alpine
> B395004314
>
> --part1_c.8feaafe.26c0678c_boundary--
|