At 03:49 PM 7/21/99 -0400, you wrote:
> I was just loaned a copy of the August issue of British
> Car; the one with the comparison article on the Tiger II, the
> Triumph TR-6, and the Austin-Healey 3000.
> I have to admit, I find some of the specifications on
> page 36 a bit hard to believe. The Tiger is listed as the
> longest car of the three by half a foot, at 165 inches.
> Looking at these cars in real life, and as well as the
> photos, it just seems incredible. Both of the other cars have
> straight sixes and a very long hood, and the Healey is a
> four-seater as well. How did the Tiger end up longer? Was it
> towing a trailer and they included it in the length? By
> brother-in-law has a TR-6, perhaps I'll ask him to measure
> it. In addition they state that the TR-6's wheelbase is only
> two inches longer than the Tiger's 86 inches. Well, my
> experiences are (very) subjective, for sure, but by looking
> at them plus the difference in ride suggests otherwise. It's
> possible, I guess -- but a car six inches shorter than a
> Tiger with only a 2" longer wheelbase PLUS much taller tires
> means little space indeed between the front and rear wheel
> wells and very little overhang. That doesn't sound like a TR-6 to me.
> BTW, on Fri, 19 Feb 1999 James Barrett wrote: Subject: Re:
> inquiry 021699c
>> At 08:42 AM 2/16/99 -0500, you wrote:.
> >>PINEWOOD: Didn't someone on the list a year or so back say
> >>they had some
> >>form of CAD database for a Tiger body, with the car sliced
>>> up like a loaf of bread?
>>> Lawrence R. Wright
>> Lawrence,
>> Yes, I have such a drawing, about 153 layers at 1".
>> I sent a note to the Pinewood builders.
>> It is in AutoCAD rev 12+
> That rather implies a length somewhat less than 165 inches.
> The article says that the Tiger II is absolutely stock
> except for some aftermarket wheels. The engine bay photo,
> however, shows a LAT-2 style chromed air cleaner and the
> washer bottle where a brake booster would normally be. The
> hoses all look like braided stainless, although that could
> just be decorate covers. So who knows what lurks in the
> engine & suspension. Eh, probably much more stock than most
> Tigers; certainly a nice looking car, regardless.
> AutoWeek this week had an ad for "XK's Unlimited", with
> mention of a free catalog on a full line of Smiths gauges. I
> recall a thread last year where a few of us were interested
> in perhaps adding a few additional gauges to the cars;
> perhaps a few of these might match up OK in appearance enough
> to use. Web address: http://xks.com/index.html . Hey, the
> catalog is free.
>
>
>
>Lawrence R. Wright
>Purchasing Analyst
>Andrews Office Products Div. of USOP
>larry.wright@usop.com (new)
>Ph. 301.386.7923 Fx. 301.386.5333
Lawrence, the overall length of a Tiger (with Bumpers)
is 156" (per Road and track test). My measurments ( Tiger II) from rubber
bumper to rubber bumper is also 13 feet or 156 inches. From the center
of the chrome bumpers the distance is 154 1/2" The Cad drawing
does not include the bumpers; therefore the slight difference. The
article could have transposed the last two digits i.e 156 and 165.
Or maybe the Tiger got wet and swelled up.
I sent about a dozen copies of my scale drawing to various Tiger
owners. No one has mentioned that they did any thing with it.
James Barrett Tiger II 351C and others
|