Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Tigers\]\s+Shelby\s+Tigers\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Tigers\]\s+Shelby\s+Tigers\?\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [Tigers] Shelby Tigers? (score: 1): Author: Steve Laifman <SLaifman@SoCal.rr.com>; Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:13:03 -0700; Lot's of back and forth about Shelby and Tigers. Here are a few points to consider: Firstly, Carroll put a 260 cid engine in his first creation, as a 289 was not available until later. The original c; /html/tigers/2009-08/msg00029.html (10,713 bytes)
2. Re: [Tigers] Shelby Tigers? (score: 1): Author: "Bob Hokanson" <tgrrr@peoplepc.com>; Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 13:31:34 -0700; I have always been particularly fascinated by the reference in Mike Taylor's book regarding where on Shelby's recommendation, Rootes chose the 260 engines for the Le Mans Tigers whereas Shelby used t; /html/tigers/2009-08/msg00031.html (6,638 bytes)
3. Re: [Tigers] Shelby Tigers? (score: 1): Author: " Ron Fraser" <rfraser@bluefrog.com>; Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 17:21:10 -0400; Yes the 289 was available; 289 was first cast in Dec 1962. The first Tiger 260 engine group was T15KL = Aug 8, 1963. Rootes history states that Lord Rootes called Henry Ford to acquire V8 engines fo; /html/tigers/2009-08/msg00032.html (10,673 bytes)
4. Re: [Tigers] Shelby Tigers? (score: 1): Author: Tony Somebody <achd73@yahoo.com>; Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 14:45:42 -0700 (PDT); Ron- I have no idea what protocol was used to decide on the 260 BUT if CS had installed a 289, then we might not have ever seen a 260 and that was my unproveable gut feeling and what I think CS would; /html/tigers/2009-08/msg00033.html (12,687 bytes)
5. Re: [Tigers] Shelby Tigers? (score: 1): Author: "Smit, Theo" <Theo.Smit@dynastream.com>; Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:12:47 -0600; As I understand it, many (all?) of the cast-aluminum Ford manifolds and dress-up parts were were produced by Buddy Bar, and they did use inserts as required to brand-engineer the manifolds, valve cov; /html/tigers/2009-08/msg00034.html (8,712 bytes)
6. Re: [Tigers] Shelby Tigers? (score: 1): Author: Tony McNulty <bamcnulty@optonline.net>; Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 19:10:53 -0400; Norm should kick in here -- I thought that 260 engines were kicked over to some sort of "industrial block" division of Ford. Correct me if I'm wrong. Tony Mc -- Original Message -- From: "Ron Fraser"; /html/tigers/2009-08/msg00036.html (12,461 bytes)
7. Re: [Tigers] Shelby Tigers? (score: 1): Author: " Ron Fraser" <rfraser@bluefrog.com>; Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 19:51:15 -0400; All the Tiger engines were built at the Cleveland Foundry as far as I can tell. The order for these engines were processed through the Ford Industrial Division. They handled the Special Order engine; /html/tigers/2009-08/msg00040.html (8,432 bytes)
8. Re: [Tigers] Shelby Tigers? (score: 1): Author: " Ron Fraser" <rfraser@bluefrog.com>; Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 20:11:05 -0400; I think you can look at it from this perspective; in the March, April timeframe for the Tiger prototype, CS had a few 289's on hand and they were showing promise. You don't give away your future. Th; /html/tigers/2009-08/msg00041.html (8,887 bytes)
9. Re: [Tigers] Shelby Tigers? (score: 1): Author: Tony Somebody <achd73@yahoo.com>; Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 17:22:30 -0700 (PDT); Ron- we can agree to disagree. If Shelby had sent the Lord 289s in the prototype, I think we would have had 289s in the first Tiger but as you say, that information is burried somewheree in the UK an; /html/tigers/2009-08/msg00042.html (10,225 bytes)
10. Re: [Tigers] Shelby Tigers? (score: 1): Author: Stephen Waybright <gswaybright@yahoo.com>; Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 18:15:36 -0700 (PDT); I don't think Lord Rootes would have even known there was more than one version of the engine. Based on my reading of practices in the British Car industry at the time, and of bean counters in partic; /html/tigers/2009-08/msg00044.html (12,279 bytes)
11. Re: [Tigers] Shelby Tigers? (score: 1): Author: "Teepen, Jere" <jteepen@usatoday.com>; Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:55:22 -0400; I accidentally deleted the e-mail regarding why the 260 was used for the Le Mans Tigers versus the 289. Production Tigers at that time came with 260 engines, the Le Mans regulations would have dictat; /html/tigers/2009-08/msg00051.html (11,357 bytes)
12. [Tigers] Shelby Tigers? (score: 1): Author: John Crawley <alittlemoreink@hotmail.com>; Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 18:05:35 +0000; Hi All: One more unsubstantiated bit to the TIGER story . . . I was visiting the Miracle of America Museum in Montana about 10 - 12 years back and I met an old English chap who was visiting from acro; /html/tigers/2009-08/msg00055.html (8,940 bytes)
13. Re: [Tigers] Shelby Tigers? (score: 1): Author: "Thomas Witt" <atwittsend@verizon.net>; Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:15:54 -0700; Seems there could be a number of reasons for the 260 vs the 289: Cost - 260 might = cheaper Availability - Ford might have accounted their own needs for all the 289's available. Track record - The 28; /html/tigers/2009-08/msg00056.html (10,351 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 13
Page: [1]