Alpines List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)


--part1_c.8feaafe.26c0678c_boundary



--part1_c.8feaafe.26c0678c_boundary
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-path: <(email redacted)>
From: (email redacted)
Full-name: Pasanville
Message-ID: <(email redacted)>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 15:26:36 EDT
Subject: Re: New engine
To: (email redacted)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 120

Listers,
Being one who restores Mustangs (Vintage). I can say that the 289 and 302
have the same block. As a mater-of-fact the only difference was the 302 did
have a longer stroke 3.0 versus 2.870 inches. By the way the 260 had a 3.80
bore with a 2.870 stroke.
Pete Sanville
66 Alpine
B395004314

--part1_c.8feaafe.26c0678c_boundary--

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

I guess that's where the apparantly erroneous info about "boring out a
260 to get a 289" got started? I remember reading that one of the Tiger
tuning books recommended that and a bunch of people messed up their
engines doing so.

Regards
David Sosna
S4 GT V6

(email redacted) wrote:
>
> --part1_c.8feaafe.26c0678c_boundary
>
>
>
> --part1_c.8feaafe.26c0678c_boundary
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> Return-path: <(email redacted)>
> From: (email redacted)
> Full-name: Pasanville
> Message-ID: <(email redacted)>
> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 15:26:36 EDT
> Subject: Re: New engine
> To: (email redacted)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 120
>
> Listers,
> Being one who restores Mustangs (Vintage). I can say that the 289 and 302
> have the same block. As a mater-of-fact the only difference was the 302 did
> have a longer stroke 3.0 versus 2.870 inches. By the way the 260 had a 3.80
> bore with a 2.870 stroke.
> Pete Sanville
> 66 Alpine
> B395004314
>
> --part1_c.8feaafe.26c0678c_boundary--