tigers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re[2]: Steam holes

To: Steve Laifman <laifman@flash.net>
Subject: Re[2]: Steam holes
From: nicholsj@oakwood.org
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 97 11:55:07 EST
     
Chittenden's book has a description and photos of the differences between the 
two blocks, the original 260 and the 289 based 260. I don't have the book with 
me, it's at home, but he talks about freeze plug, head design and gasket 
differences.  Photos illustrate the changes from one block to the other. He 
warns that the original 260 block cannot be bored out to 4.00" to change it to a
289 as some people might have done with bad results.  The book has a 1967 
copyright and he mentions the  future Tiger II with a 289 so his information is 
based on the first through the last Tigers built with the 260.  


Jeff

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Steam holes
Author:  Steve Laifman <laifman@flash.net> at INTERNET
Date:    9/11/97 5:48 PM


nicholsj@oakwood.org wrote:
> 
>      a late 260 block bored to 4.00" (no mail please, I've already heard 
>      that it 'can't be done'....)
> 
>      'Performance Tuning the Sunbeam Tiger' by Gordon Chittenden, says you 
>      can bore out a late 260 block to 289 specs since these were in reality 
>      289 blocks that Ford Industrial made to meet Rootes contractual
>      obligations.  According to Mr. Chittenden it is possible
     
>      Jeff
     
Jeff,
     
While I've got lots of books, Mr. Chittenden's is not among them. I 
think that's what I back-ordered at Amazon.Com. Does it say what S/N a 
"late casting" is? While I have read many sources that say a "thin wall" 
meansijust what it says. This is the first print reference to this 
"thick wall" casting.
     
I am going to call a few large scale engine rebuilders to find their 
experience. If anyone else knows a few more rebuilders, or specialty 
speed machine shops, do a little telephone detective work and find out 
when they had to use sleeves.
     
To my knowledge, all the 260's had the "289" freeze plug count, while 
the 225's did not. Want to make sure that, with all the core shifting 
that happens in production, someone doesn't find out the hard way that 
there wasn't enough "meat".
     
The cores had to be unique to the 260's, as Ford would not cast the same 
block for either line, and then have to do much more massive machining 
on the 289's in production, so it would have had to be very special 
cores for the 260 only.
     
Steve
-- 
Steve Laifman         < One first kiss,       > 
B9472289              < one first love, and   >
                      < one first win, is all >
                      < you get in this life. >
     
     
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
     _/                 _/_/_/       _/_/_/       _/
    _/        _/      _/     _/     _/    _/     _/_/_/_/
   _/        _/       _/    _/      _/  _/      _/
  _/_/_/_/_/__/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
                         _/
                    _/_/_/


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>