All;
-I am supposedly the 3rd owner of our TIGER. The PO had it for about
10 years, as far as he knew it had the "original" 5-bolt engine. When
he rebuilt it, the shop realized it was a 289...not a 260.
-The badges on our car also say "V8" not "260".
-Whether all this is original or added on I don't know.
Phil LeBrun B382002328.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Apocryphal?
Author: "Edmund E. Powell" <102430.3640@compuserve.com> at ~INTERNET
Date: 7/14/96 3:22 PM
Victoria British Ltd., in their 1996 summer edition Sunbeam parts catalog,
claims "the persistent rumor of late 1966 Tigers supplied with 289 CID engines
from the 'factory' is simply not supported by the surviving production records.
The engine numbering system used by Rootes clearly specifies a unique
alphanumberic (sic) identifier for 289's and no entry for a regular production
B3820##### car lists anything but a 260."
Well, that is all fine and good for the records. Nevertheless, I've enjoyed all
289 cubic inches of B382002639 since it left the dealer's lot. The car was
built in 1966, purchased and registered in 1967. Further, Roote's changed one
of the body badges to reflect the change from 260 to 289. The 260's carry a
"260" badge emblem; the 289's carry a "V8" emblem. The emblem switch may not
reflect the exact change in production, but my 289 Tiger came with the "V8"
emblem.
My machine, B382002639, is essentially a MK1A. No wheel well chrome trim, no
oil cooler, etc. But it has always had a 289 CID engine.
Does anyone else have a B3820##### that, without question, left the lot with a
289 engine? And let's not hear any crap about "dealer's changing engines when
they knew the new models would have 289's." Chrysler dealers swapping Ford
engines?--Sure. And that would cost them substantially more than the few bucks
they might have to give up to sell a 260 in the face of 289s.
Any thoughts, gang?
Ed E. Powell, CA
289 CID stock B382002639
|