Shocking as it may now seem, when the Tigers were new, they did not sell
very well. They were expensive compared to their competition, a lot more
than a MG or Triumph, and getting close to Jaguar territory. About the same
as a Corvette, I think. The high price, combined with rather quirky
handling and probably the prejudice of Brit car lovers against the American
engine, and American car lovers against the Brit car, made for slow sales.
But don't feel too bad, I used to have a 58 Mercedes that was titled as a
59, so it's not just our Tigers that languished in showrooms.
Doug Leithauser
----------
> From: steve&diane <dsalata@umich.edu>
> To: dleit@mintcity.com
> Subject: Re: Greetings Tiger Owner...
> Date: Friday, February 06, 1998 11:59 PM
>
> Doug & Rett Leithauser wrote:
> >
> > My Tiger is also a MK1, titled as a 66, but really a 65, something I've
> > never tried to correct....
>
> It sounds like our cars and ownership might have similar histories.
> I've wondered why mine was titled as a'66. Only sure way this could
> have been done was if it was first sold in 1966, the dealer could get it
> re-titled as a 1966. Since it was built in January 1965, why did it
> stay unsold so long? My VIN number is B9472076. Is it close to your
> VIN number? Some day I'll do a title search to see who the first few
> owners were. Maybe it was a dealer demo or a press car.
|