I got lost in that "go-around". I believe that Bob Hokanson was biting
his tongue in his cheek when he wrote that reply, I believe, as a joke.
Shelby had NOTHING to do with which Ford engine he got for his early
Cobra's and the Sunbeam Tiger's. At that time, Ford was still
developing the 289 for the Mustang, and wouldn't/couldn't release a
developmental engine that would cripple it's availability for the Mustang.
The negotiations for the Tiger were between Lord Rootes, and Ford, in
any event.
They ALL got 289's, when they became available from production.
Steve
/Steve Laifman/
/Editor - /*/TigersUnited.com/* <http://www.tigersunited.com>
On 1/25/11 8:39 PM, spook01@comcast.net wrote:
> No doubt he was reluctant to allow the SHELBY mustang name to be diluted.
> Sunbeam had already paid him for his prototype and weren't coughing up
>anymore!
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Bob Hokanson"<tgrrr@peoplepc.com>
> Date: Tue, Jan 25, 2011 16:15
> Subject: [Tigers] Factory 289 in Mk1...?
> To: "Tigers"<tigers@autox.team.net>
>
> But didn't Caroll Shelby convince Rootes it would be better to use 260's in
>the LeMans coupes?
>
> I'm sorry, sarcasm is not very becoming of me.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From:<PhastPhill@aol.com>
> To:<allanballard@att.net>;<tigers@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 4:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [Tigers] Factory 289 in Mk1...?
>
>
>> back in the day I worked in a garage that did alot of performance work on
>> Fords. We had a couple of customers with Tigers If they wanted a fast
>> Tiger we did not use the 260 just built them a strong 289 and put it in>
>easier
>> than fooling with the 260. that is what he means . . . .
>> _______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Tigers@autox.team.net
Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
|