Bob,
I had hoped to access Bob Mannel's Mustang and Small Block Ford V8 book,
but I have not been able to beg, borrow or steal a copy. I did not resort to
buying one.
If you are correct, and Tom Monroe's book is incorrect about the
cylinder head casting being shared between the 269 and the 289 K motor, then
I am wrong, as Monroe's book is my only source on that point. The 289K heads
that I believe to be similar (same casting, not identical, the intake valves
are larger in the 289K) would be the ones that you mention as having been
introduced in Feb/March of 1964 with the 1.78" intake valve.
What I can say with certainty, is that the heads on my Tiger are the
C40E-B casting. This is the only 1964 casting that Monroe lists as having
been used on the 289K. Nowhere on these heads did I find "289" cast. These
heads have a combustion chamber that is different than what is pictured in
Monroes book on pg 36, photo A. These heads look more like the photo B or
C. The valves in these heads measure 1.67" intake and 1.45" exhaust. I did
not measure the port size, but the gasket set I used was a standard 289
gasket set and the intake & exhaust ports were not significantly smaller
than the gasket. If the standard gasket is made to fit ports as large as
1.94 x 1.04, I cannot believe that the ports in my heads are (make that
were, they match the gasket now) as small as 1.61 x 0.85. I do not know if
all Tigers have these heads, but my car is a MK 1 so I suspect that few
eariler built 260's made it into the Tigers.
Happy Motoring
Doug Leithauser
|