Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Tigers\]\s+Con\s+rods\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Tigers\]\s+Con\s+rods\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [Tigers] Con rods (score: 1): Author: "Athena Scott" <ascott@globalplastics.co.zw>; Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 14:04:44 +0200; I bought a Tiger with a 260 motor. It could have been raced, and I am told the con rods on the 260 are weak and I should change to 289 con rods. This may have happened already. Can anybody tell me ho; /html/tigers/2009-12/msg00050.html (7,012 bytes)
2. Re: [Tigers] Con rods (score: 1): Author: " Ron Fraser" <rfraser@bluefrog.com>; Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:26:58 -0500; The 62/63 con rod casting # is C2OE-A; the beam of this con rod visually narrows from the crank end to the piston end. The 63, 289 con rod casting # is C3AE-D; this con rod was used on the 64, 260/; /html/tigers/2009-12/msg00051.html (8,381 bytes)
3. Re: [Tigers] Con rods (score: 1): Author: Owain Lloyd <owain.lloyd@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 14:29:47 +0000; i thought 260 and 289 rods were the same with the exception of the 289 hipo? pretty sure they are interchangeable but perhaps the 289 ones were better... others will no doubt chime in with better inf; /html/tigers/2009-12/msg00052.html (8,022 bytes)
4. Re: [Tigers] Con rods (score: 1): Author: Tony Somebody <achd73@yahoo.com>; Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 07:58:36 -0800 (PST); Owain- does the 260 and 289 have the same stroke. I was thinking 260s have i thought 260 and 289 rods were the same with the exception of the 289 hipo? pretty sure they are interchangeable but perhap; /html/tigers/2009-12/msg00053.html (9,219 bytes)
5. Re: [Tigers] Con rods (score: 1): Author: Owain Lloyd <owain.lloyd@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 16:29:53 +0000; 260 = 2.87 stroke / 3.8 bore 289 = 2.87 stroke / 4 bore 302 = 3.06? stroke / 4 bore that's why 260 pistons are hard to get relative to 289 pistons. because 289 has 302 piston sizes. also, i _think_ 2; /html/tigers/2009-12/msg00055.html (11,101 bytes)
6. Re: [Tigers] Con rods (score: 1): Author: " Ron Fraser" <rfraser@bluefrog.com>; Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:12:52 -0500; The 289 hipo con rod is the same casting # C3AE-D; the end cap and bolts are different. The con rod end caps are beefier and the connecting bolts are larger at 3/8". Ron Fraser --Original Message--; /html/tigers/2009-12/msg00056.html (9,438 bytes)
7. Re: [Tigers] Con rods (score: 1): Author: "Scott Hutchinson" <shutchin@netjets.com>; Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:16:21 -0500; Same stroke, bore is the only change. 3.8 vs. 4". 302 has the longer stroke, 4" bore. Scott Hutchinson Director of Operations NetJets Large Aircraft O. 860.292.1191 M. 843.290.2805 ** ** This message; /html/tigers/2009-12/msg00057.html (7,791 bytes)
8. Re: [Tigers] Con rods (score: 1): Author: drmayf <drmayf@mayfco.com>; Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 09:23:03 -0800; 302 and 5.0L all have 3.00 stroke _______________________________________________ Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html Tigers@autox.team.net http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers; /html/tigers/2009-12/msg00058.html (12,247 bytes)
9. Re: [Tigers] Con rods (score: 1): Author: "Bob Hokanson" <tgrrr@peoplepc.com>; Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 13:30:36 -0800; There were actually 2 different "Boss" 302 rods... both beefier than stock with the larger 3/8 rod bolts. The C9ZZ-6200-B rods were 5.155 inches center-to-center. Same length as hipo 289. And the ra; /html/tigers/2009-12/msg00060.html (7,924 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]