Gary,
I can confirm the same finding as Paul. There is a difference. I
have built at least 10 different Tiger 260s and various 5 and 6 bolt 289s
over the years for different cars and have another 8 core blocks.
Consistently the unbored 260s have about the same wall thickness as the
unbored 289s. You can see and measure that through the holes in the top of
the block that go into the water jacket. Therefore if someone did bore one
of those 260s out to 289 there would be very little meat left in the
cylinder walls and significantly less than a normal 289 block. I have also
heard that the wall thickness is not totally consistent in a single block
and you could actually bore into the water jacket in certain places.
Anyway in my experience with quite a few blocks they are different.
Who knows though with the thousands of 260s if somehow in some limited
production run that Ford might have used 289 cores for 260s. However I doubt
it and I have never seen one either in a Tiger I 260 engine or any other
260. It does not seem logical to me because I would think that there would
be very different heat transfer and cooling qualities between engines if one
type of 260 had a very different wall thickness than another.
Dave
At 08:54 PM 9/11/97 -0700, Gary A Winblad wrote:
>
>Paul Reisentz showed me two blocks, one a Tiger 260 and one a 5 bolt
>289. Like all the knowlegable Tiger people have been saying, there is
>a definite difference. Some 260's can be bored to 289 but it must be
>hit or miss. A Tiger I stock motor is a true 260. It has 3 freeze
>plugs.
>260s did come with 2 freeze plugs and the narrow motor mount bosses
>but I don't think any came in Tigers, if they did it would only be in
>real
>early cars. Norm says in his book that even he bored his 260 and
>RUINED it. After seeing two blocks side by side, I believe him!
>If anyone tried the trick today, he would have to be nuts.
>
>Gary Winblad
>B9470622
>
>
|