- 1. [Tigers] 66 or 67? (score: 1)
- Author: Tod Brown <todbrown@roadrunner.com>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:21:06 -0500
- I am in the same category as a couple of others here who have reported Tigers that were manufactured in 1966 but titled as a 1967. In my case, I bought my Tiger new in October of 1966 (it came off th
- /html/tigers/2010-01/msg00233.html (8,151 bytes)
- 2. Re: [Tigers] 66 or 67? (score: 1)
- Author: Tony Somebody <achd73@yahoo.com>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:58:03 -0800 (PST)
- The only thing that I think important to anyone who has owned a Tiger long enough to know lots about the car, is the VIN number and if its TACed or will pass TAC. Others might have questions and need
- /html/tigers/2010-01/msg00234.html (9,746 bytes)
- 3. Re: [Tigers] 66 or 67? (score: 1)
- Author: "Stu Brennan" <stubrennan@comcast.net>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 15:47:19 -0500
- As I recall, Tod and I have serial numbers that are pretty close together, so they were probably built, shipped, or whatever within a couple weeks of each other. Mine didn't get into a customer's han
- /html/tigers/2010-01/msg00236.html (7,558 bytes)
- 4. Re: [Tigers] 66 or 67? (score: 1)
- Author: jhef101@aol.com
- Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:04:56 -0500
- This probably fits better under this threadline, so it is a dual post. I dunno, I have a '65 according to Norm and the Book but it says '64 on the title. What do I have? The title kinda defines the y
- /html/tigers/2010-01/msg00240.html (8,873 bytes)
- 5. Re: [Tigers] 66 or 67? (score: 1)
- Author: <sralsten@ca.rr.com>
- Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 11:41:26 -0500
- Funny but I hae a 65 titled car built in Jul 65 according to BON. but my chassis number is way off yours near the end of Mk1 at 9473720 _______________________________________________ Support Team.Ne
- /html/tigers/2010-01/msg00259.html (10,263 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu