tigers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Tigers] Tigers Digest, Vol 7, Issue 171

To: tigers@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: [Tigers] Tigers Digest, Vol 7, Issue 171
From: Lance Beauchamp via Tigers <tigers@autox.team.net>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 14:46:11 -0400
Delivered-to: mharc@autox.team.net
Delivered-to: tigers@autox.team.net
Still have my original tiger with the260 ,air cleaner, tranny, and rear, and 
still runs great. Love the car, oh and the right color. Beau 9470951.

tigers-request@autox.team.net wrote:

>Send Tigers mailing list submissions to
>       tigers@autox.team.net
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>       http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>       tigers-request@autox.team.net
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>       tigers-owner@autox.team.net
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of Tigers digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Tiger on eBay (Tod Brown)
>   2. Re: Tiger on eBay (Stephen Waybright)
>   3. Re: Tiger on eBay (Tom Witt)
>   4. Re: Tiger on eBay (michael king) (Smit, Theo)
>   5. Re: Tiger on eBay (michael king) (Tod Brown)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 15:02:47 -0400
>From: Tod Brown <todbrown@roadrunner.com>
>To: tigers@autox.team.net, Ron Fraser <rfraser@bluefrog.com>
>Subject: Re: [Tigers] Tiger on eBay
>Message-ID: <55622057.8010600@roadrunner.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
>Ron:
>
>Your're correct, of course about it being a 289. Strange to claim that 
>it is an "original" car
>with a 289? And what's up with the oil filter, certainly not original 
>either.
>
>Tod
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL: 
><http://autox.team.net/pipermail/tigers/attachments/20150524/be72436f/attachment-0001.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 22:08:41 +0000 (UTC)
>From: Stephen Waybright <gswaybright@yahoo.com>
>To: Tod Brown <todbrown@roadrunner.com>,  "tigers@autox.team.net"
>       <tigers@autox.team.net>,  Ron Fraser <rfraser@bluefrog.com>
>Subject: Re: [Tigers] Tiger on eBay
>Message-ID:
>       <26214543.726586.1432505321049.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>I'm guessing the intended meaning of "original" in this case must be that it's 
>an authentic Tiger. The fact that they say it's a 289 shows they have no idea 
>of the details that would demonstrate the car to be original, and there are a 
>lot of questionable details jumping out of the pictures to shows it's not. The 
>BRG looks more like my car's Jag BRG than Sunbeams lighter/yellower Forest 
>Green. It really seems to be an older, partial restoration to non original, 
>"personalized" specs.??Stephen Waybright
>
>      From: Tod Brown via Tigers <tigers@autox.team.net>
> To: tigers@autox.team.net; Ron Fraser <rfraser@bluefrog.com> 
> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 2:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [Tigers] Tiger on eBay
>   
>  Ron:
> 
> Your're correct, of course about it being a 289. Strange to claim that it is 
> an "original" car
> with a 289? And what's up with the oil filter, certainly not original either.
> 
> Tod
>  
>_______________________________________________
>
>tigers@autox.team.net
>
>Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
>Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
>Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
>Unsubscribe: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/tigers/gswaybright@yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>  
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL: 
><http://autox.team.net/pipermail/tigers/attachments/20150524/ea18606b/attachment-0001.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 17:01:20 -0700
>From: "Tom Witt" <atwittsend@verizon.net>
>To: <tigers@autox.team.net>
>Subject: Re: [Tigers] Tiger on eBay
>Message-ID: <912F7AB6891F47EAA57ABA40E26CB951@user1PC>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>I?d interrupt ?...never been restored? as an ?after the sale? don?t come 
>complaining if you find issues (what would you expect for a 50 year old car). 
>On the other hand..., the selling agent is probably hoping a ?before the sale? 
>buyer will see it as, ?the condition is so good it STILL doesn?t need 
>anything.?
>
>None of this is meant to disparage the car (or its owner). It is just meant as 
>?Buyer Beware? because sometime words have two meanings. And as some have 
>already observed the wording and the pictures aren?t a total match.
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL: 
><http://autox.team.net/pipermail/tigers/attachments/20150524/4567f819/attachment-0001.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 01:18:18 +0000
>From: "Smit, Theo" <Theo.Smit@garmin.com>
>To: "rfraser@bluefrog.com" <rfraser@bluefrog.com>, 'Tod Brown'
>       <todbrown@roadrunner.com>, "tigers@Autox.Team.Net"
>       <tigers@Autox.Team.Net>
>Subject: Re: [Tigers] Tiger on eBay (michael king)
>Message-ID: <D187CFCF.1C1E8%theo.smit@garmin.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
>Hi Ron,
>Certainly that is the case now ? if one had the original block for a given 
>Tiger, it would be worth it to sleeve the block if necessary in order to 
>preserve the originality for a stock restoration, rather than putting in a 289 
>for ?appearance-correct? restoration.
>
>In the past, though, I?m sure lots of the 260?s were removed and discarded 
>even if they were running fine, just to get the extra cubes available in a 289 
>or 302.
>
>For what it?s worth regarding serial numbers, build sequence, etc: My Tiger is 
>the second-last Mk1A by VIN, and I still have the original HEH-E gearbox for 
>it with the correct (per TBON) ID number. A previous owner substituted a 5 
>bolt 289 for the 260 at some point and the original engine was gone long 
>before I got the car. It was built after they had started the Mk2 production 
>line, presumably to use up Mk1A parts? and drivelines. Any story about late 
>Mk1A Tigers with factory 289?s ignores the fact that the Mk2 Tigers had 6 bolt 
>289?s and wide ratio HEH-CF (or HEH-B?) gearboxes, and the Rootes production 
>line would (should?) never have been supplied with 5-bolt 289 engines paired 
>with close ratio HEH-E gearboxes unless Ford made a major mistake.
>
>Cheers,
>Theo
>
>Date: Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 11:47 AM
>Subject: Re: [Tigers] Tiger on eBay (michael king)
>
>Tod
>
>    Just because they say it is a 289 doesn't make it so.
>
>I did not look so I can't say for sure on this Tiger but the only way to know 
>to be sure is by the block casting number.
>
>IMO it is a shame to change out an original 260 engine unless it broke badly.
>
>Ron Fraser
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tigers [mailto:tigers-bounces@autox.team.net] On Behalf Of Tod Brown via 
>Tigers
>Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 10:47 AM
>Subject: Re: [Tigers] Tiger on eBay (michael king)
>
>And, of course, it has a 289.
>
>Interestingly (at least to me), this car's serial number is only 10 after mine 
>(2394 vs. 2384).
>
>Cheers,
>
>Tod
>B382002384LRXFE
>TAC 864
>original rivets
>original engine
>
>________________________________
>
>CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of 
>the intended recipient(s) and contain information that may be confidential 
>and/or legally privileged. If you have received this email in error, please 
>notify the sender by reply email and delete the message. Any disclosure, 
>copying, distribution or use of this communication (including attachments) by 
>someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. Thank you.
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL: 
><http://autox.team.net/pipermail/tigers/attachments/20150525/7de48f36/attachment-0001.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 23:57:42 -0400
>From: Tod Brown <todbrown@roadrunner.com>
>To: "Smit, Theo" <Theo.Smit@garmin.com>,  "rfraser@bluefrog.com"
>       <rfraser@bluefrog.com>, "tigers@Autox.Team.Net"
>       <tigers@Autox.Team.Net>
>Subject: Re: [Tigers] Tiger on eBay (michael king)
>Message-ID: <55629DB6.5010107@roadrunner.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
>
>On 5/24/2015 9:18 PM, Smit, Theo wrote:
>> Hi Ron,
>> Certainly that is the case now ? if one had the original block for a 
>> given Tiger, it would be worth it to sleeve the block if necessary in 
>> order to preserve the originality for a stock restoration, rather than 
>> putting in a 289 for ?appearance-correct? restoration.
>>
>> In the past, though, I?m sure lots of the 260?s were removed and 
>> discarded even if they were running fine, just to get the extra cubes 
>> available in a 289 or 302.
>>
>> For what it?s worth regarding serial numbers, build sequence, etc: My 
>> Tiger is the second-last Mk1A by VIN, and I still have the original 
>> HEH-E gearbox for it with the correct (per TBON) ID number. A previous 
>> owner substituted a 5 bolt 289 for the 260 at some point and the 
>> original engine was gone long before I got the car. It was built after 
>> they had started the Mk2 production line, presumably to use up Mk1A 
>> parts? and drivelines. Any story about late Mk1A Tigers with factory 
>> 289?s ignores the fact that the Mk2 Tigers had 6 bolt 289?s and wide 
>> ratio HEH-CF (or HEH-B?) gearboxes, and the Rootes production line 
>> would (should?) never have been supplied with 5-bolt 289 engines 
>> paired with close ratio HEH-E gearboxes unless Ford made a major mistake.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Theo
>>
>> Date: Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 11:47 AM
>> To: 'Tod Brown' <todbrown@roadrunner.com 
>> Subject: Re: [Tigers] Tiger on eBay (michael king)
>>
>> Message
>> Tod
>>     Just because they say it is a 289 doesn't make it so.
>> I did not look so I can't say for sure on this Tiger but the only way 
>> to know to be sure is by the block casting number.
>> IMO it is a shame to change out an original 260 engine unless it broke 
>> badly.
>> Ron Fraser
>>
>>     -----Original Message-----
>>     *From:* Tigers [mailto:tigers-bounces@autox.team.net] *On Behalf
>>     Of *Tod Brown via Tigers
>>     *Sent:* Sunday, May 24, 2015 10:47 AM
>>     *Subject:* Re: [Tigers] Tiger on eBay (michael king)
>>
>>     And, of course, it has a 289.
>>
>>     Interestingly(at least to me), this car's serial number is only 10
>>     after mine (2394 vs. 2384).
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>
>>     Tod
>>     B382002384LRXFE
>>     TAC 864
>>     original rivets
>>     original engine
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the 
>> sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contain information that may 
>> be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you have received this 
>> email in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the 
>> message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this 
>> communication (including attachments) by someone other than the 
>> intended recipient is prohibited. Thank you.
>Theo:
>
>Despite the rumors to the contrary, I tend to agree with Ron's 
>conclusion that there were never any MkIA's provided with 289's from the 
>factory. There certainly have never been any documented cases of such 
>and the evidence from your car of it being a 260 (originally) with the 
>HEH-E gearbox bears this conclusion out. I find it very interesting that 
>the build date on yourcar is after the startup of MkII manufacture. It 
>doesn't seem that there is any other logical explanation for such cars 
>to have the 260/HEH-E combination except to use up existing stock. Of 
>course, the operational word here is "logical". There is an awful lot of 
>history regarding Tiger production that we just don't know and maybe 
>never will. At the same time, things do gradually come out, even after 
>fifty years. Some recent investigations by Graham Vickery in England and 
>Buck Trippel in the Rootes archives and elsewhere hold some promise of 
>new discoveries. Stay tuned!
>
>Cheers,
>
>Tod
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL: 
><http://autox.team.net/pipermail/tigers/attachments/20150524/7d0e4064/attachment.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Subject: Digest Footer
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tigers mailing list
>Tigers@autox.team.net
>http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of Tigers Digest, Vol 7, Issue 171
>**************************************
_______________________________________________

tigers@autox.team.net

Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
Unsubscribe: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/tigers/mharc@autox.team.net


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [Tigers] Tigers Digest, Vol 7, Issue 171, Lance Beauchamp via Tigers <=