Viewing 14 reply threads
  • Author
    • #57471

      Hi everybody. I am trying to figure out the potential problems with upgrading my MK1A 260 Tiger to a 289. I have been reading everything I can get my hands on and it seems like everyone says that the simplest solution is to find a 5 bolt block, or a rare bell housing to accommodate the narrow top loader transmission. OK, I got that. My question is: If the MK2 Tiger came with a 6 bolt 289 and a top loader transmission, then why can’t I do the same thing in my MK1A? I mean, why not use a 6 bolt 289 or 302 and mate it to a wide top loader transmission? Would this work? If so, what is the exact type of transmission that came with the MK2 Tiger? Was there a part number that identified it? Thanks a lot for the help!

    • #63334

      I think it was HEH-CF, while the Mk1/Mk1A toploader is HEH-E. The critical differences are:
      – The gear ratios are different. The Mk2 Tiger’s first gear ratio is 2.78 to 1 while the Mk1/1A is 2.32 to 1. The general consensus is that the wider mk2 ratios produce a more street-drivable car especially if you’ve still got the 2.88 rear end.
      – The front ears on the case match the wider bellhousing bolt pattern that was adopted in 1965.
      – The input bearing retainer has a slightly larger diameter. Dunno if the input bearing was also made larger. In any event, the input bearing retainer OD has to match the ID of the bellhousing.
      – The bellhousings have the wider bolt pattern on the rear, a larger input bearing register, and the 6-bolt pattern for the engine block flange.
      – The 5-bolt bellhousing clutch release cylinder mount won’t fit on the 6-bolt bellhousing. Since the Tiger’s use of hydraulic release lever actuation was uncommon, you have to do some searching to find a suitable mount or make your own. The other alternative is to use a hydraulic throwout bearing.

      The tailshaft and tailshaft housing are not exactly unique to Tigers (I think) but they are somewhat uncommon. If you’re trying to build up a transmission from parts then it’s probably best to talk to David Kee at David Kee Toploaders or one of the other toploader specialists.

    • #63335

      If you are going to a T5 Mustang tranny from 65 to 93 for you 6 bolt 269/302 you can use a Neals or Wilwood universal pull type slave cylinder.Costs about 75.00.make a simple mounting bracket to bolt the slave to and attach to the activating arm of the bell housing.Easy to adjust by 1/ inch wrench.Virtually bulllet proof. I had 177000 miles on the one I used in the 62 V6 before I went to a 302.I put a new one in at that time.rebuilt the old one to have a spare.The one behind the 351 in the Lister is still 100% .Kits are available.I came up with this idea in 1979 and now the dark siders with their Alpine V6s have this as a standard part of their conversion

    • #63336

      That was a 1/2 inch wrench.Hope that little error didn’t scare you

    • #63404


    • #63405

      Hi there. During all this time that has passed, I have been lucky enough to locate and buy a nice, original Mark 2 engine out of a wrecked Mark 2 Tiger, and an original Mark 2 wide ratio transmission (HEH-CF) to go with it. One interesting element of the Tiger engine is the rare 160 tooth flywheel I had never even heard of. To put it all together, I have also gotten a 65DA-6394-A bell housing, a Mark 2 clutch slave cylinder bracket, a Spicer Powr-Lok LSD (rebuilt) with a 3.07 ring gear and pinion, and bolt-on Traction Masters to keep the rear wheels down. Once I rebuild this engine, I think this setup should kick some butt (in vintage terms). At least, I’m having fun pulling all this stuff together. Of course, the original numbers matching engine and transmission will be safely stored, and will never be separated from the car. When I have the front cross member out of the car, I will have it reinforced by a friend of mine that’s been around these cars since 1965. The car is completely rust free and still has its tired, original Mediterranean blue paint. To be honest, the car is a bit cosmetically challenged (it really just needs new paint), but I sort of prefer the car flying beneath the radar (for now anyway). That’s a euphemism to say I can’t afford new paint. With the hotter engine/transmission/rear setup and the completely redone interior, I can pretend the car looks brand new while I’m driving it. 🙂

    • #63927

      I see references to the MK II transmission as HEH-CF – but the Workshop Manual
      and other sources indicate it is HEH-B.

      Elsewhere I’ve seen mention of the MK II correct bell-housing as one that was drilled for use with either a 5 bolt or a 6 bolt 289.

      Can anyone say whether this is correct?

      Secondly, did the MK II Tigers come with a 5 bolt or a 6 bolt 289, or a mixture of the two?


      Allan Ballard
      MK1a Tiger
      SIV Alpine

    • #63928

      Back in ’67 I swapped the original 260 from my 1965 Tiger with the 289 from my wife’s 1965 Mustang and vice versa. The 260 Tiger engine and bell-housing bolted right up to the Mustang 3 speed transmission, the 289 Mustang engine and bell housing to the four speed, not so good.

      I ended up having an adapter plate made up. I believe the adapter went between the bell housing and the transmission. Can’t remember now, but may not been able to use ALL the bolts. I was lucky enough that the transmission mount still lined up and there was enough clearance for the drive shaft in the tail housing in spite of the thickness of the adapter. Bob

    • #63929

      That’s an interesting story about the engine bolting up tot the three speed transmission. That never would have occurred to me.

      SIVAllen, I have zero doubt that the correct MKII transmission is the HEH-CF, and the 289 in those cars was definitely a six bolt, not five bolt. The six bolt bell housing used was the 65DA-6394-A. These parts are all exceptionally hard to find. The only other car I know that used the HEH-CF transmission was the TVR Griffith, of which very few were ever made. I know this not only from numerous conversations with the "gurus", but because I’ve "dissected/inspected" a Mark II that was all original but was allowed to rust away, and this is the original equipment in the car. Also, Norm Miller says clearly in some of his writings that the information out there that the HEH-B was the transmission in the MKII was wrong. Someone in the past made a mistake. The good news is that I think the HEH-B has the same specs as the HEH-CF, but is still not "correct" for the MKII Tiger, only because of the ID plate number. I hope that helps. Cheers.

    • #63930

      The someone in the past that is alleged to have made a mistake is the factory on page 17 of the Tiger’s Workshop Manual.

      Others who indicate HEH-B include Taylor in his "Tiger The Making of a Sports Car." On page 101 Taylor references a TIGER II project intention paper which includes HEH-B; then on page 217 Taylor refers to David Barraclough for the same conclusion <reprinted edition>.

      Richard Lagsworth in "Tiger, Alpine, Rapier" presents HEH-B on page 137 without attribution.

      Clymer’s "Performance Tuning the Sunbeam Tiger" likewise presents HEH-B (page 37), &&& etc.

      I’d certainly take Norman’s pronouncement of a correction if one is actually available.

      I’ve heard of the dual nature bell-housing but have not seen one. I believe they exist and hook to either a 5 bolt or 6 bolt motor. However such a bell-housing could indicate a number of possibilities, including modification of inventory to fit the 6 bolt motor, for cost reduction purposes…


    • #63931

      Here’s the way I see it. The workshop manual got it wrong (it can happen) and the other authors just did not do their research and just repeated what was written there. Every actual MkII I’ve ever seen has the HEH-CF transmission on it, so it make little sense to me that the HEH-B was the one on the MkII. The only possibility is that some had the HEH-B or, vice versa, some had the HEH-CF. But with Norman saying the HEH-CF is correct and every MkII I’ve seen having the HEH-CF on it, I have to believe the HEH-B is not the right gear box. Regarding the bell housing, I think there may be some confusion. The wide ratio transmission had both the narrow and wide bolt patterns, and the six bolt bell housing could accept both. I do not think, though I never checked it on my car, that these would bolt to either five or six bolt patterns on the engine side.

      I’ll look for Norman’s statement and post when/if I can find it. Cheers.

    • #63932

      Taylor did not reference the WSM, but did reference other sources.

      Perhaps a definitive statement from the author of the BON will surface and verify the literature if not clarify it.

      Good luck with the search.


    • #63936

      I wouldn’t think a 5 bolt bellhousing would fit to a 6 bolt block, or the other way round. 6 bolt used a slightly larger flywheel and the flange around the back of the block followed a larger "circle" due to this. So the 5 bolt bell wouldn’t be as wide and possibly cause fouling problems with the flywheel and clutch as well as not matching the block’s mounting curve.

    • #63944

      Someone more knowledgeable than me will need to respond regarding the dual use bell-housing; all I can provide is "hearsay."

      However regarding the HEH-B question, I don’t have a Book of Norman but do have some notes which I dug out.

      The "BON" references use of HEH-E or HEH-B for all Tigers with a serial # B9470057 up (p. 57). This is followed on p. 60 with a reference to the Tiger II’s V8 and matching HEH-B transmission. The planned Mark II 1/2 is subsequently referenced on p. 61 as with HEH-B.

      Perhaps additional information will surface but that’s all I have for now.

    • #63945

        The ‘special’ dual pattern bell housing is for a 6 bolt block only. My buddy bought one to use in his Tiger build but I’ve convinced him to go to a T5 and he is using the 5.0 liter bell so it’s taking up space in his garage now.
        It has mounting holes to mount either a wide pattern or narrow pattern top loader. I haven’t measured the center hole but I would assume it’s for the slightly larger bearing retainer. I had to change the retainer to mate up my early top loader to a Lakewood bell which also has the dual pattern. I think it was about $50 from Dan Williams Toploaders. No other mod is needed to the trans…


    Viewing 14 reply threads
    • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.