Re: 320 bore size
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Forum Ambassador
|
Sounds like you might be confused by 2 entirely different engines, both of which happen to displace 320 cubic inches. The prewar in-line Eight 320 used thru 1939 has a bore of 3-3/16 inch. The 320 of the postwar V8 era has a bore of 3-13/16.
Posted on: 2010/4/12 8:20
|
|||
|
Re: 320 bore size
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
I just bought a nice old 1955-56 Service Manual, and quickly scanning through it noticed the same error in the specifications for the 320 cu. in. V-8 - a bore specification of 3 3/16". Obviously an error. In the back of the manual the bore specification is correct at 3 13/16". I wonder how many problems this typo has cost over the years?
(o{I}o)
Posted on: 2010/4/12 10:22
|
|||
We move toward
And make happen What occupies our mind... (W. Scherer) |
||||
|
Re: 320 bore size
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just popping in
|
Excellent, thanks a lot fellas.
Posted on: 2010/4/12 10:42
|
|||
|
Re: 320 bore size
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Forum Ambassador
|
Interesting little lack of proof reading there. Hopefully not too much damage was done since it looks like most apparently don't read that part--I mean look how long it has been there and just now someone has mentioned it. As you said, correct specs are in the spec section and also service counselors.
Just curious--Think my manual is an early version since it has a big blank spot instead of a picture for figure 3 - longitudinal section. Is yours the second version with something in fig 3 yet still has the error?
Posted on: 2010/4/12 10:50
|
|||
|
Re: 320 bore size
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
My manual has the longitudinal section of the engine in Figure 3.
(o{I}o)
Posted on: 2010/4/13 11:03
|
|||
We move toward
And make happen What occupies our mind... (W. Scherer) |
||||
|