I don't think you'll be happy with the 260. If you want a high winding small displacement go with a 289. I'm not going to get into the differences, I'll leave that for others to do, but I think that you'll be money ahead going to the more common bore block, it opens up a bunch more options for heads.
Thank you for the input. Even though I'm most experienced with the BBF, I am pretty familiar with the capabilities of the various SBF's, and I realize the limitations of the 260. For this application, the 260 should be more than enough, even without having all of the head and piston options of the 289 or 302. The reason that I have the 260 available to use is that a 289 is going into the 260's original home in my 1963 Fairlane. I've been driving it with the 260 in it for many, many years and found it more than adequate in power and torque, even in the relatively heavy Fairlane. I'm a big believer in using what you've got! This is not going to be a racecar, anyway. I know my original question was not too well written. To clarify, what I was trying to ask was really about using the 221 heads on the 260, not whether to use the 260.
I sure don'r want to hijack or misdirect this thread, but I am need of a 5 bolt bellhousing so I can pop in a C4 auto gearbox behind an early 289. Can anybody out there help? Will buy or...... will trade the complete three speed w/OD setup for one.
The 260 ford has the same stroke (2.87) as the 289 but a smaller bore(3.80). The 260 and pre 65 289 have five bolt bell housings. The 260 motor mount bolt spacing is also different. The 260 has a six inches bolt spacing and the 289 303 are seven inches bolt spacing. Also the 260 has a lower compression ( 8.7:1)
Later 260's also have the seven inch spacing. My May 1963 assembled 260 has the seven bolt spacing. Not sure of the exact date of the change over.
260s are not the same as a 302. Physically yes but the cylinder casting is different . You cannot bore a 260 to a 289 . If you had one of the late 65 blocks that were 289s but only made into a 260 yes but if you try to bore a real 260 block it will go in the water jacket. 260 has the same stroke as a 289 but with a smaller bore.
Just for the record the little 221 W motor has a 3.5" bore. I have read of people stroking the 260 by putting in the 3" stroke 302 crank. The conversion uses the standard 260 pistons but uses the 302 rods and crank to maintain standard deck height. Gives 272 c.i.
I had one in a 64 Fairlane. It was good for what it was.(bone stock) Two things are weak points though. The distributor shaft can wander around over time, which does wonders for your point gap. Also the oil pump shafts can twist and break. Otherwise a very good running engine if you aren't looking for the most bang for the buck. The idea of stroking one with a 302 crank is interesting to me. More bottom end is always nice. And for the most part the bolt on parts are still widely available. Try sticking a 2bbl from a 390 on there, if you want cheap thrills.
If you decide on a 5.0L with a stock roller cam, Make sure you change the distributor gear to a steel one.
The Jalopy Journal
