They might have had hack/re-engineer things pretty good. You can get some
general dimensions here...
http://www.westechperformance.com/pages/Tech_Library/Popular_Engine_Specs/dimensions.html
Seems like the 273 Commando is in the ballpark but a bit bigger around...
Small Block Ford
A=27.00
B=29.00
C=22.00
D=22.00
E=27.00
Chrysler Small Block
A=29.50
B=29.50
C=23.50
D=25.00
E=31.00
(you will have to visit the site to see what A, B, C, D, & E corresponds
to)
Paul
>From: "Tom Witt" <wittsend@jps.net>
>Reply-To: "Tom Witt" <wittsend@jps.net>
>To: <tigers@autox.team.net>
>Subject: Re: Chrysler Tiger
>Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 10:49:33 -0800
>
>Mark,
> Being the owner of a 1973 Valiant daily driver with a 318, I just
>measured.
>The outer head to head width of the engine is 20-1/2". Using the narrowest
>of exhaust manifolds that Chrysler offered you need a minimum of 2-1/2" per
>side (5" total). Thus, the grand toal minimum width would have been 25-1/2"
>and that is not accounting for any clearance.
> Sorry I can't give the 260/Tiger specs., but the hood is burried under
>alternative projects #2 thru #99 around here. I would venture to say that
>the 260 with stock exhaust manifolds is about 3"-4" narrower. And, we all
>know how tight that fit is. The Chrysler small block was one of the wider
>small blocks from the big three. Even in the A-bodies (Dart, early Cuda,
>Valiant) Chrysler offset the engine (at least visually) and used a wide,
>driver side exhaust that swept over the steering box to make it fit.
>Tom Witt
>
> > On the subject of Chrysler and not having an engine to fit the
>Tiger....I
> > wonder how much problem it would have been to cut back the bulkhead
>some,
>to fit
> > the distributor. Was the Chrysler 273cu wider than the Ford? It
>definitely
> > had a fan that stuck out about 8" in front which would have to be
>changed.
>In
> > other words, I wonder how hard Chrysler tried
|