OK, this will require a response from me. I do indeed love
these LBC's, basically in any form. The Tiger itself is, as you put it,
a bastardization of the Alpine. A small American V-8, Falcon sprint
Firewall, an American rear end, pretty much British everything else. In
England, there is a long tradition of modifying the car(s) that you own,
and engine swaps are great part of that tradition. There are numerous
magazines that discuss the restoration of British cars. Some for purity
of the factory delivered model, and others for the performance gains or
safety improvements. Engine swaps have been going on since Time began,
(around the 1930's). Look at the British Auto makers themselves.
Jensen, Interceptor (Chrysler 440 Magnum V-8), Jensen Healey (Lotus 1800
Big Valve Twin Cam), TVR (more engine combinations than I can count),
Triumph TR-8 (Buick based Rover 3500 V-8), Morgan +8 (same Rover engine
again), and the list goes on. Although these are factory combinations,
the end driver community is no different. People have been swapping
engines, transmissions, seats, rear ends, etc. for years and years. To
the owner of an Old Triumph herald with an MG 1800 in it, it's still a
Triumph Herald, just powered by the MG engine.
If I do a very clean and factory appearing engine conversion to
the Rover 3500 (Buick 215), with a GM 5 or 6 speed tranny, I'm not going
to call it an Atherton 3500, it will still be a Sunbeam Alpine, simply
powered by Rover. Obviously, there will be a substantial performance
increase, but the appearance of the car will be unchanged. I agree,
there should always be some original examples of what the factory
produced, but please don't ridicule those who wish to customize or
personalize their cars. I have to admit that all of the time and effort
that Jim Barnet (351-C) has put into squeezing the Cleveland engine into
his Tiger seems a bit excessive, but it is HIS car. Even though I would
never go to that extreme, I'd still like to see and drive what he has
built. I kept all of his lengthy posts about what he did to strengthen
his frame and suspension, because this is VALUABLE information for us
all. I would like to think that he might be interested in driving mine
with the high winding 215 when ever I actually complete it. Of course I
have to start the project first!
How many of the Tigers owners here have show room factory stock
Tigers? No LAT options (I know they were dealer options, but I'm making
a point here), Stock Air cleaners on 2 bbl carbs with points and
generators. Not very many. It's not in our nature to leave things
alone. A Factory car is a compromise of everything that someone would
want. Sure, the street Racers want 4.11 rear ends, but the cruisers
want the revs in the 2,000 range when on the freeway, and on and on. So
if your a street racer, your going to want to go to the 4.11 gears.
It's what we do, and its why there is a HUGE automotive after market for
performance goodies. A 4 bbl Tiger is Better than a stock one, but they
didn't come that way.
I saw a 71 Opel GT about a year ago that someone had taken to
California and had the car converted into a convertible. Now sawing the
roof off of a car is drastic, but it looked fabulous. It was an
incredibly cool looking LGC (Little German Car). It was for sale but
sold before I could even take a drive in it. Oh well. It's just one
more example of someone improving what they have. It's the owners
option. No one is going to buy a perfectly restored Alpine and then gut
it to drop in a big V-8. They'll buy one that is in desperate need of
restoration. Don't condemn them for wanting to do what they want to the
car that THEY own. Nuff said.
Rich
> ----------
> From:
> mmcewen@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca[SMTP:mmcewen@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca]
> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 1997 9:58 AM
> To: Richard Atherton (Entex)
> Cc: alpines@autox.team.net
> Subject: RE: Woooh! Can of worms!!
>
> > >"why not just junk the old British steel bodies and buy a
> >kit-built
> > >something-or-other from Taiwan. Hell, if we bolt Sunbeam
> >Alpine on it, who
> > >will know the difference?
> > >
> > >John McEwen"
>
> Hello Richard and List:
>
> I guess my biggest problem with many of the Alpine postings on this
> list -
> and one which my limp sarcasm failed to adequately probe - is that the
> major goal seems to be the major modification of all existing vehicles
> into
> something non-original. I don't have a big quarrel with reversible
> modifications. But I do feel that many of us are trying to turn
> vintage
> sports cars into modern, fast light cars in an attempt to say "Look
> what I
> did".
>
> We who "live and breathe LBCs" should realize that during our short
> lives
> we are in actuality stewards of the old vehicles which we temporarily
> own -
> just as we are stewards of the natural resources of our countries.
> This
> reckless pressure to modify engines, chassis and interiors in a
> foolish
> attempt to make a leather purse out of a cow's ear is rapidly
> destroying
> what we believe in. When we are dead what will be left?
> Buick-engined
> Alpines? Ford-engined Alpines? V-6- engined Alpines? Sure the old
> four-banger is no ball of fire but it was plenty good enough 35 years
> ago.
> Why is everyone trying to make a 1997 car out of something built in
> 1962?
>
> My advice to all of you is to buy a new Neon or a Sunbird. It will go
> as
> fast as your heavily-modified Alpine. It will probably be cheaper and
> infinitely more reliable than your bastardized LBC and will fetch a
> decent
> resale price when you are tired of playing with it. Leave the old
> cars
> alone. Restore them to their original specs and enjoy them for what
> they
> are.
>
> I would like to think that our children and their children will be
> able to
> enjoy an LBC too. If you must have a go-fast sports car, buy a kit or
> hotrod a Miata. It is the height of hypocrisy to proclaim LBC love
> while
> destroying the very character you apparently so revere.
>
> "It's my car so I can do whatever I want to it. Just butt out!"
>
>
> John McEwen
>
> See what I mean?
>
>
> >
> > Answer: Everyone who lives and breathes LBC's. !!!!!
> >
> >
> > When I do My V-8 conversion to the Buick 215 Aluminum block,
> >I'll probably go get a newer Rover block not because it's better,
> (there
> >are some structual impovements), but BECAUSE it will be a British
> >Engine. Although, I'll still use my cool Offenhauser aluminum valve
> >covers.!! I will use an American gearbox because they are much
> better
> >than the British ones that will fit.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> >
> >> ----------
> >> From:
> >> mmcewen@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca[SMTP:mmcewen@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca]
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 1997 4:01 PM
> >> To: alpines@autox.team.net
> >> Subject: Re: Woooh! Can of worms!!
> >>
> >> >matthew.c.jennings wrote:
> >> >>
> >> > I am offended that we are wasting time and energy on
> >> >> polluting this forum with remarks such as this.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Here, Here - lets get back to Ring Gear Bolts, guys!!
> >> >Tony
> >>
> >> Or possibly a continued discussion on the merits of modifying all
> >> existing
> >> engines into 200 HP turbo Porshe fighters. How about throwing away
> >> the
> >> body and the engine and hanging Sunbeam letters on a Fiero?
> Perhaps
> >> we
> >> should consider a spirited examination of the benefits of V6 or V8
> >> engines
> >> which can be welded and bolted into Sunbeam bodies in order to
> destroy
> >> any
> >> possible vestige of British engineering. We all know that the only
> >> reason
> >> for restoring a Tiger to stock is because the owner can't afford
> the
> >> necessary modifications to make it a modern, competitive street
> car.
> >> In
> >> fact a stock Tiger is about as rare as a stock Harley-Davidson.
> >>
> >> After we've followed the collective wisdom of the list regarding
> >> engine,
> >> electrical, suspension, wheel/tire, and interior modifications or
> >> outright
> >> changes, why not just junk the old British steel bodies and buy a
> >> kit-built
> >> something-or-other from Taiwan. Hell, if we bolt Sunbeam Alpine on
> >> it, who
> >> will know the difference?
> >>
> >> In complete agreement with Tony,
> >>
> >> John McEwen
> >>
> >>
>
>
|