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

From: Lance Beauchamp via Tigers <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 14:46:11 -0400

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.

[email-masked] wrote:

>Send Tigers mailing list submissions to
>	[email-masked]
>
>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
>	[email-masked]
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	[email-masked]
>
>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 <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked], Ron Fraser <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [Tigers] Tiger on eBay
>Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
>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 <[email-masked]>
>To: Tod Brown <[email-masked]>,  "[email-masked]"
>	<[email-masked]>,  Ron Fraser <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [Tigers] Tiger on eBay
>Message-ID:
>	<[email-masked]>
>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 <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]; Ron Fraser <[email-masked]> 
> 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
>  
>_______________________________________________
>
>[email-masked]
>
>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/[email-masked]
>
>
>
>
>  
>-------------- 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" <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>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" <[email-masked]>
>To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, 'Tod Brown'
>	<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
>	<[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [Tigers] Tiger on eBay (michael king)
>Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
>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:[email-masked]] 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 <[email-masked]>
>To: "Smit, Theo" <[email-masked]>,  "[email-masked]"
>	<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
>	<[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [Tigers] Tiger on eBay (michael king)
>Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
>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' <[email-masked] 
>> 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:[email-masked]] *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
>[email-masked]
>http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of Tigers Digest, Vol 7, Issue 171
>**************************************
_______________________________________________

[email-masked]

Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
Unsubscribe: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/tigers/[email-masked]