260 V8 Engines In here- Need Help

[64point5]

I am new to this site and am in need of some help. My 1964.5 coupe is now "done" and I want to up the power some. It has the original 260 two barrel still in it. I have some definite mods I want to do and some potential mods:

Definites:
F4B intake
570-600 carb
Tri Y headers
Flowmaster mufflers
Electric fan
3.55 gear

Possibles:
Upgraded heads or port stockers
Camshaft

My question is about what heads can I use on this 260 and what camshaft would work well. I want it to sound like it has a decent cam in it.

I have seen some 260hp 260s in Tigers so I know that some "decent" power can be made.

My engine code is: 4D11
C4OE-6015B

Recommendations and sharing of your experiences is appreciated.

 

[rbohm]

build it like you would a 289 except for the heads. i would find a set of GT40(NOT the P heads) heads and use them as that is all you need, and the valve sizes fit the 3.80 bore. otheriwse use the cam, headers, intake and carb you have selected. go no bigger than 600cfm though.

 

[D.Hearne]

build it like you would a 289 except for the heads. i would find a set of GT40(NOT the P heads) heads and use them as that is all you need, and the valve sizes fit the 3.80 bore. otheriwse use the cam, headers, intake and carb you have selected. go no bigger than 600cfm though.

Ditto............................especially pay attention to the valve size vs bore clearance with the smaller bores

 

[danny clemens]

If you have the extra pennies lying around you could just pull the 260 (save it because there doesn't seem to be that many around) and put a 302 in it. You could then do the mods on it.

I'm sure that the Tiger weighs quite a bit less than a Mustang so the 260 is better suited to that car. Shelby also put 260's in some of the early AC Cobras and they would haul.

 

[brianj5600]

It should have a 5 bolt bell housing. If you could get a 4" bore block, I think you would be a lot better off. I don't know how easy it would be to find a 5 bolt 289. If you can't find one reasonable, It is not that hard to also change the bell to a 6 bolt. If you are looking for less than 500hp, get a roller block from an 85+ mustang.

 

[rbohm]

remember guys he is only giving up 27 cubes to my 289, and that engine makes decent power(about 300 when done). i think the 260 will make a real nice daily driver engine that will make about 250-270hp when all is said and done, especially if he uses a retrofit roller cam from comp cams, and the crane retrofit link bar roller lifters. the cam that will go in my 289 has .480 lift and 260 advertised duration. it makes for a real nice street cam that has the balls to get the car down the track well also.

 

[64point5]

Actually, I already have a nicely ported set of GT40 (not P heads). I was not positive that they would work with the 3.80 bore beacuse of the bore size and maybe different cooling passages?? If you are positive that they will work, then I am ecstatic! Can you confirm that this has been done before and it will work for me? Thanks for the input....I really appreciate it.


[/I]

build it like you would a 289 except for the heads. i would find a set of GT40(NOT the P heads) heads and use them as that is all you need, and the valve sizes fit the 3.80 bore. otheriwse use the cam, headers, intake and carb you have selected. go no bigger than 600cfm though.

 

[rbohm]

the valve sizes of the gt40 heads are right at the maximum for the bore size.

 

[D.Hearne]

The P heads should fit like the std GT40 head--- same size intake valves: 1.84 and smaller exhaust: 1.48. The spark plug angle is the sticky point here. The drawback to any though is the larger combustion chambers, 58-61ccs vs your 53-55 ccs. That's gonna drop your compression a point. Doesn't take as many ccs to do that as it does with a 302.

 

[64point5]

The P heads should fit like the std GT40 head--- same size intake valves: 1.84 and smaller exhaust: 1.48. The spark plug angle is the sticky point here. The drawback to any though is the larger combustion chambers, 58-61ccs vs your 53-55 ccs. That's gonna drop your compression a point. Doesn't take as many ccs to do that as it does with a 302.

I actually have the GT40 (NON-P heads) which have a 64cc combustion chamber. The best bet for me if I want to keep the 260 in it might be to get the 58cc "P" heads and have them shaved down to 53-54cc combustion chambers and use the headers for the GT40P heads.

OR:

I can get the stock heads fully ported and put a decent cam in it.

Or something else..... What do you guys think?

 

[D.Hearne]

Be easier to get the 260 heads ported, that way you won't have to mill to regain the compression. You could upgrade to larger valves too. Or better yet, start with a set of C6OE 289 heads, same small chamber but the larger valves--1.78/1.48. Find a set that have been rebuilt and you'll have better heads for practically nothing in cost. Loof at the pre april 66 heads only, these will have the slots to guide the pushrods like your heads do now. Only mod that you might need to do is screw in studs for a more agressive cam.

 

[64point5]

Thanks for the input. I guess I will be selling the GT40 heads and looking for some C6OE heads. I will pay attention to the date codes.

Thanks again.

QUOTE=D.Hearne;7222904]Be easier to get the 260 heads ported, that way you won't have to mill to regain the compression. You could upgrade to larger valves too. Or better yet, start with a set of C6OE 289 heads, same small chamber but the larger valves--1.78/1.48. Find a set that have been rebuilt and you'll have better heads for practically nothing in cost. Loof at the pre april 66 heads only, these will have the slots to guide the pushrods like your heads do now. Only mod that you might need to do is screw in studs for a more agressive cam.[/QUOTE]

 

[brianj5600]

remember guys he is only giving up 27 cubes to my 289, and that engine makes decent power(about 300 when done). i think the 260 will make a real nice daily driver engine that will make about 250-270hp when all is said and done, especially if he uses a retrofit roller cam from comp cams, and the crane retrofit link bar roller lifters. the cam that will go in my 289 has .480 lift and 260 advertised duration. it makes for a real nice street cam that has the balls to get the car down the track well also.

I am not sure about the math there, but it still represents more than a 10% increase. A 302 would be 42 more cubes or 16% increase. To me, that is a substantial amount. I wonder how much flow would be lost due to shrouding. I have never seen a test with a 3.80 bore. If I wanted more performance, I would not spend anything on a 260 when 302's are so plentiful. If I was looking for a stock rebuild it would be different.

 

[D.Hearne]

I'd do the 260 just to do something different. Imagine beating the pants off some Chebby guy with his 350 and then telling him it's only a 260 V8.

 

[64point5]

That is king of what I am thinking D. Hearne...

Brianj5600--- You are absolutely right on with your comments, and I have enought stuff laying around to put together a 300+hp 302 (Ported GT40 stud mount heads, roller rockers, cam, lifters, etc..) but that isn't the purpose for this car..

I already have a 88 hatchback that is a mid 9 sec. (1/4mi.) car. It has a 393w in it with a 5 speed and some nitrous when I want to go "fast" and plow through some gears...

I really want to keep the 260 in the 64 just for that reason.....originality, and to do something different, for example, a "period correct" performance 260. As you all know, I'm sure, Shelby put a 260 in the first Cobras and the Sunbeam Tigers had 245hp-260+hp options available called LAT options (Los Angeles Tiger). Gordon Chittenden won an AHRA class in the early sixties in a 260 powered Tiger (12.95 @ 108). You know the tires they had back then........that 108 mph is good for mid to low 12s.

I want to put something together that will be peppy and sound good with a decent lope to the cam...

I sold the GT40 heads last night
I am going to go ahead and do the carb, intake, headers, mufflers, electric fan and a 3.55-3.70 gear while I am looking for the right 289 heads and camshaft. Any idea where I can find a set of those 289 heads?

Thanks for the input and quick responses...I appreciate the comments/suggestions......keep them coming..

I'd do the 260 just to do something different. Imagine beating the pants off some Chebby guy with his 350 and then telling him it's only a 260 V8.

 

[Helmantel]

A bit over simplified, but a (stock 289/302) 1.78" intake valve is to a 260 as a 2.06" valve to a 302. So, a stock 289 valve is not as small as it seems in terms of valve area per cubic inch.

Also, the 1.78" valve is as close to the wall of a 3.80" bore as a 1.98" valve is to a 4.00" bore, which is a bit worse than common 1.94" valves, but better than (also rather common) 2.02" valves.

I don't see a real reason why a 260 shouldn't be able to perform well. At least, in terms of HP/CID.

 

[Edster]

Gee let's just put dual turbos on and a water to air inter cooler

Just bein a clown
I think it will be a fun little ride, real torquey. I would get the thing professionally balanced so ya can wrap it up a bit. even with a rad cam and some gears around 3:50 to 3:73 ya could have some zing and still run on the highway w/ little worry since the engine is so small. I reckon it 'll sound awesome and be a really fun ride.

Oops I saw ya had the gears in consideration. Tr a performer RPM air gap, much like the old F4B but designed with current flow technology.

 

[D.Hearne]

C6OE 289 heads come up on ebay all the time. Plus everywhere else where some one has replaced them with aftermarket heads. Shouldn't be hard to find.

 

[danny clemens]

64point5, I don't know where you're located but there's an all Ford swap meet this weekend in Columbus Ohio. You should be able to find 289 heads there. You can find just about any Ford part there. It's worth going to just to see all of the Ford parts in one location. They have it twice a year. Thanksgiving weekend and I think one weekend in April.

 

[64point5]

Updated my profile and added location....

Thanks for the input on the valve sizes and the correlation to a 302. I had not thought of it that way....which raised a question for me about piston to valve clearance, so I kept digging for information and I just found a site that compares the 164hp 260 to the Shelby 260hp 260. The standard 260 valves are: 1.662 intake and 1.442 exhaust. The Shelby valves are only slightly bigger at 1.6787 intake and 1.457 exhaust. I wonder if he put in only slightly larger valves because of the piston to valve clearance. I understand that the 260 has flat top pistons with no valve reliefs. The LAT 20 camshaft (a Shelby item) also seems to have quite a bit of duration (272) compared to the lift (.450 at the valve). I wonder if this was done because of Piston to valve clearance limitations? I have heard that the LAT20 camshaft is identical to the 271hp HiPo 289 camshaft?? Does anyone have the 271hp HiPo 289 camshaft specs?

I am now leaning toward a full port job, shave heads, and competition valve job on the stock 260 heads with the 260 valves and upgraded springs for a solid lift cam...that is, IF the 289 heads and/or valves will not work due to clearance.

Anybody have the 271hp HiPo 289 cam specs?

What do you guys think?