260 Items
- Thread starter Cal44
- Start date
- Messages
- 189
Since these don't seem to be "numbers correct" cars moving to a 289 or 302 seems to have no negative impact on the value of the car. I went to a 289 because I wanted the extra cubes. I think you're also limited on piston selection for the 260's vs the 289's.
That being said I've got my cars original 260 stored in my garage....just in case. I see 260 parts/engines for sale in the NorCal area quite often. They are usually very cheap or even free.
Doug
That being said I've got my cars original 260 stored in my garage....just in case. I see 260 parts/engines for sale in the NorCal area quite often. They are usually very cheap or even free.
Doug
cadreamn67
Platinum Forum Member
- Messages
- 608
The stock 289 had an advertized net BHP of 174 and net torque of 252. The 260's numbers were 136 and 226 respectively. The 289 also had a 9.3 (standard) compression ratio versus 8.8 for the 260.
As far as I know, the biggest difference other than the bore to get the larger displacement (stroke is same) is in the cylinder heads. Bigger exhaust valves (1.442" versus 1.381") and a much more efficient combustion chamber design. The 289 heads were said to breath much better. They also have a better spring valley design, and I believe screw-in rocker arm studs. The 260 heads have pressed in studs.
So when it comes to doing a rebuild, or getting a rebuilt motor, you get more for the same amount of money with a 289. In the earlier days, swapping the 289 heads onto the 260 block was an acknowledged "sleeper" upgrade. So why spend the same amount of money on a rebuilt 260 head as you would on a 289 head?
Doug is right about piston choices. I looked into getting higher compression 260 pistons about 10 years ago. They would have had to be custom made and cost about $800. I doubt things have gotten better since then.
I cannot comment on how much better the 302 motor is than the 289. Firing order is different and I think they may sound a bit different. I do know you can get later versions of them that are specifically designed for a roller cam. Earlier versions, as well as the 289 can be adapted to a roller cam set-up, but I believe the selection of cams is also specialized and perhaps a bit more limited.
One thing to keep in mind for originality purposes is that our 260 blocks have three freeze plugs on each side whereas the Falcon and Fairlane versions had only two. So an old, rebuilt block from one of those is not desirable from that viewpoint.
In the early days some said our OEM block is really a 289 block with a 260 bore. (They were supposedly made in Canada in an industrial engine plant since by the time Rootes got around to ordering them Ford had already moved on to the 289 for its US cars.) Others said they could not be bored out to 289's, despite the identical external appearance. Does anyone know definitively?
Cheers, Gene
PS: People have also built up strokers based on the 289 ( to 331's) and 302 blocks (to 347's). I have started and almost finished a 347 but have it on hold. Should get about 350 horses and 400 ft. lb. torque. I told my son the other day that the 260 is running so sweetly these days, I really do not need a 347. He responded that "Dad, no one needs a 347..."
As far as I know, the biggest difference other than the bore to get the larger displacement (stroke is same) is in the cylinder heads. Bigger exhaust valves (1.442" versus 1.381") and a much more efficient combustion chamber design. The 289 heads were said to breath much better. They also have a better spring valley design, and I believe screw-in rocker arm studs. The 260 heads have pressed in studs.
So when it comes to doing a rebuild, or getting a rebuilt motor, you get more for the same amount of money with a 289. In the earlier days, swapping the 289 heads onto the 260 block was an acknowledged "sleeper" upgrade. So why spend the same amount of money on a rebuilt 260 head as you would on a 289 head?
Doug is right about piston choices. I looked into getting higher compression 260 pistons about 10 years ago. They would have had to be custom made and cost about $800. I doubt things have gotten better since then.
I cannot comment on how much better the 302 motor is than the 289. Firing order is different and I think they may sound a bit different. I do know you can get later versions of them that are specifically designed for a roller cam. Earlier versions, as well as the 289 can be adapted to a roller cam set-up, but I believe the selection of cams is also specialized and perhaps a bit more limited.
One thing to keep in mind for originality purposes is that our 260 blocks have three freeze plugs on each side whereas the Falcon and Fairlane versions had only two. So an old, rebuilt block from one of those is not desirable from that viewpoint.
In the early days some said our OEM block is really a 289 block with a 260 bore. (They were supposedly made in Canada in an industrial engine plant since by the time Rootes got around to ordering them Ford had already moved on to the 289 for its US cars.) Others said they could not be bored out to 289's, despite the identical external appearance. Does anyone know definitively?
Cheers, Gene
PS: People have also built up strokers based on the 289 ( to 331's) and 302 blocks (to 347's). I have started and almost finished a 347 but have it on hold. Should get about 350 horses and 400 ft. lb. torque. I told my son the other day that the 260 is running so sweetly these days, I really do not need a 347. He responded that "Dad, no one needs a 347..."
- Messages
- 222
Gene,
Tell your son that I really do NEED my 331 stroker!!!
Gary
Tell your son that I really do NEED my 331 stroker!!!
Gary
Just a couple of points abount the above info. The only factory 289 heads with srew in studs and cast in valve spring seats were on the hi performance 289 that Ford rated at 271hp. That engine also had other special (now rare)parts that the other 289s didn't have. The other 289s were a 4 barrel carb premium fuel rated at 225hp and the 2 barrel carb regular fuel 200hp. The 260 Ford rated at 164hp and the Tiger block did have 3 freeze plugs on each side like the 289. Don't know about being able to bore it to 4.00".
The firing order on the 302s was the same as the 221, 260 and 289 up to the 1980s when Ford made the 302HO for the Mustangs. About the same time the flywheel counter weight changed from 28oz to 50oz. I think it was around 85 or 86 when the roller cams were introduced. Lots of differences in evolution of the small block Ford.
Rick
The firing order on the 302s was the same as the 221, 260 and 289 up to the 1980s when Ford made the 302HO for the Mustangs. About the same time the flywheel counter weight changed from 28oz to 50oz. I think it was around 85 or 86 when the roller cams were introduced. Lots of differences in evolution of the small block Ford.
Rick
cadreamn67
Platinum Forum Member
- Messages
- 608
Gary, my son stands happily corrected about "need" regarding a stroker motor and has quickly added your testimonial to his arguments for finishing and installing mine now!
Rick, thanks for adding the substantial additional information missing from my own storehouse of knowledge!
Best regards to all, Gene
Rick, thanks for adding the substantial additional information missing from my own storehouse of knowledge!
Best regards to all, Gene
- Messages
- 4,142
I would say depending on the "260" parts being offered it might be worth grabbing them.
Its my understanding there are not a huge amount of 260 specific parts available.. especially hot up goodies (as mentionend pistons) so those itmes if cheap might be worth having on the shelf.. also depending on what you want to do many "stock" racing calsses require tigers to run 260s.. not sure about the staes but can be the case in the UK and other places..
The 260 has a more limited supply of parts and ultimately some down sides in terms of performance and core plugs etc as mentioned.. but they are the correct motors for the car, and if you dont want big HP they can be just fine.
At worst... you might be able to help someone else out in the future looking for 260 parts...
just my .02c
NOTE: re 260 being bored to 289.. have heard of people doing it.. it is possible.. from what i am lead to believe the issue is bore centres and the 260 will end up running hot as the 289 had the bore offset differently to allow for better cooling.. then again.. perhaps that is urban myth...
Its my understanding there are not a huge amount of 260 specific parts available.. especially hot up goodies (as mentionend pistons) so those itmes if cheap might be worth having on the shelf.. also depending on what you want to do many "stock" racing calsses require tigers to run 260s.. not sure about the staes but can be the case in the UK and other places..
The 260 has a more limited supply of parts and ultimately some down sides in terms of performance and core plugs etc as mentioned.. but they are the correct motors for the car, and if you dont want big HP they can be just fine.
At worst... you might be able to help someone else out in the future looking for 260 parts...
just my .02c
NOTE: re 260 being bored to 289.. have heard of people doing it.. it is possible.. from what i am lead to believe the issue is bore centres and the 260 will end up running hot as the 289 had the bore offset differently to allow for better cooling.. then again.. perhaps that is urban myth...
- Messages
- 907
As CAL44 initially asked, I've gone the route of going to 289s in all three of our Tigers but each one is built differently.
The pretty street car is a typical 6 bolt with a Holley 600 cfm and a moderate hydraulic cam. It runs fine. The race car's 289 engine is absurd with well over 400 HP.
The ugly street car is my test bed. Currently equipped with a HI-PO with a hotter cam and a T-5, it achieves 24 MPG on the highway. I'm working on improving that but I know that if it were a 260 instead of the 289 that I'd already be over 26mpg. The Tiger is so easily driven it only takes about 40HP to run at 70mph. The Ford small block V-8 (260 or 289) makes that much HP at a fast idle. Any RPMs above that are just wasting gas. (Think about that when you're cruising down the freeway and the tach says 3K. The revs up to 1500 produce the HP you need to move that fast while the next 1500 just produce excess noise and heat.) If fuel efficiency becomes a concern I might next build a custom 260 engine. One that get power from revs, not from cubes.
The pretty street car is a typical 6 bolt with a Holley 600 cfm and a moderate hydraulic cam. It runs fine. The race car's 289 engine is absurd with well over 400 HP.
The ugly street car is my test bed. Currently equipped with a HI-PO with a hotter cam and a T-5, it achieves 24 MPG on the highway. I'm working on improving that but I know that if it were a 260 instead of the 289 that I'd already be over 26mpg. The Tiger is so easily driven it only takes about 40HP to run at 70mph. The Ford small block V-8 (260 or 289) makes that much HP at a fast idle. Any RPMs above that are just wasting gas. (Think about that when you're cruising down the freeway and the tach says 3K. The revs up to 1500 produce the HP you need to move that fast while the next 1500 just produce excess noise and heat.) If fuel efficiency becomes a concern I might next build a custom 260 engine. One that get power from revs, not from cubes.
Boring 260 to 289 is not somethiong I would try. That is 3.80" to 4.00"bore. A standard overbore is .020" or .030" and the machine shop I deal with won't take a small Ford any larger than .040" due to the thin wall casting process that Ford used. He said at .060" it will run hot because the cylinder walls are too thin. Boring one would be 5 times his limit and would likely go right into the water jackets.
The bore centers are the same, the 289 and 260 crankshafts are interchangable, basically the same part except for the hi-po crank which was brinnel tested qualify for hi-po use.
Rick
The bore centers are the same, the 289 and 260 crankshafts are interchangable, basically the same part except for the hi-po crank which was brinnel tested qualify for hi-po use.
Rick
cadreamn67
Platinum Forum Member
- Messages
- 608
Rick, that is great feedback. The mystery is that the Tiger blocks look exactly like 289 blocks with the three freeze plugs on each side. As the pictures in "Performance Tuning the Tiger" book show, the Tiger 260 block is also almost straight across at the top, whereas the Falcon is "W" shaped. Hence the puzzlement over whether they might really be 289 blocks that only had been bored to 260 specs. Remember that supposedly these were special run blocks after Ford had stopped its main line 260 production.
Anyway, I understand there is a nondistructive testing process that can determine how thick are the cylinder walls. That would definitively answer the question. It is rather expensive, by my standards anyway ($1,000?). A friend of mine had it done on his 351 Cleveland Pantera motor in anticipation of a rebuild. I was hoping maybe someone had actually done either an actual rebore to test the theory, or maybe the testing to determine if the rebore was possible.
Makes for interesting speculation anyway!
Cheers, Gene
Anyway, I understand there is a nondistructive testing process that can determine how thick are the cylinder walls. That would definitively answer the question. It is rather expensive, by my standards anyway ($1,000?). A friend of mine had it done on his 351 Cleveland Pantera motor in anticipation of a rebuild. I was hoping maybe someone had actually done either an actual rebore to test the theory, or maybe the testing to determine if the rebore was possible.
Makes for interesting speculation anyway!
Cheers, Gene
- Messages
- 907
Most just pop off some freeze plugs and look how tight the space is between the cylinders and compare it to a traditional 5 bolt 289.
bt
bt
Gene, I would imagine that cooling problems might exist with thick cylinder walls as well as thin walls. The amount of material to be removed is real close to 1/8" on the radius to get to a standard bore 289. I sure wouldn't do it without checking the wall thickness. I have had engine builders tell of core shifting and end up going through one side and not the other. It has been a long time since I had them side by side, as I remember my 260 block looks just like my 289 block, other than the bore the only difference is the letter suffix at the end of the part number.
Off to bed, have to get up early TGIF
Rick
Off to bed, have to get up early TGIF
Rick