Ron,
Very interesting..
Being involved with Tigers since 1971, I have never seen that info
before!
What do you think the "net" rating would be?
Oh, excellent writing.
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Fraser <rfraser@bluefrog.com>
To: 'Tod Brown' <todbrown@roadrunner.com>, tigers@autox.team.net, 'Pointers'
<gpointer@telusplanet.net>
Sent: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 16:28:17 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Tigers] Tigers Digest, Vol 6, Issue 276
Tod
There will always be confusion within the subject until we in the
Rootes community seek out the confusion and make corrections. I find that
writing articles without confusion is difficult for me. I have to edit
multiple times over several days to clarify my written words. Writing is not
easy for me, it never has and then there's punctuation. :(
Typos and clerical errors are another huge problem when it comes to writing.
I have been studying the Stock engine configuration for the Tiger.
The statement that the Tiger 260 engine's horsepower rating is 164 is
somewhat incorrect. This is however the accepted HP rating for the Tiger
260 engine.
Ford only tested the early 260 engine which was based on the 221 engine
configuration @ 164 HP. This was gross HP, the norm for reporting HP
ratings at that time.
The Harrington Tiger in this article indicates it has an F21KA group engine.
This is a later 260 engine configuration similar to the majority of Tiger
260 engines and has larger valves in the head. This engine configuration
was never tested by Ford for HP rating; according to Bob Mannel's Small
Block Ford engine book.
I have never seen independent dyno tests for the stock Tiger engines, 260 or
289; that would be an interesting study.
My guess is that an F21KA 260 engine configuration would have a gross HP
rating around 180 HP.
My 2 cents and yes I had to edit the heck out of even this for clarity.
Hopefully, I accomplished some clarity here.
Ron Fraser
-----Original Message-----
From: Tigers [mailto:tigers-bounces@autox.team.net] On Behalf Of Tod Brown
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 1:15 AM
To: tigers@autox.team.net; Pointers
Subject: Re: [Tigers] Tigers Digest, Vol 6, Issue 276
There is some consistent confusion about this car and a couple of
specific errors
in this piece.
First, there were, indeed, as everyone knows, two prototypes. However,
only one
made the trip to the factory, that being the Shelby prototype, which was the
more highly developed car.
Secondly, although a minor error, the horsepower of the stock engine is 164,
not 166 as stated in the article.
_______________________________________________
tigers@autox.team.net
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
Unsubscribe:
http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/tigers/garywinblad@comcast.net
_______________________________________________
tigers@autox.team.net
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
Unsubscribe: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/tigers/mharc@autox.team.net
|