Mike,
Not sure whether you are still skeptical or not, and heck, I only know what
I read. However, I believe Norm would be the first to admit that his
historical information has expanded over the years. He well may have
(incorrectly) informed you that "ALL" Tiger engines, or even all 260s were
black. But, he certainly sets the record straight in this regard in his
book, although there are a few other "facts" that have been augmented or
superceded by new information.
At 03:03 PM 10/9/99 -0400, MWood24020@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 10/9/99 11:49:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>rpalmer@ames.ucsd.edu writes:
>
><< It looks to me like the color of the engines is not part of the
> documentation supplied by Ford. It seems surprising to me that the color
> change from black to blue would not have been uniform for all the engines
> produced. However, B382000600 was built in October of '65, long after you
> state that Ford switched the engine color from black to blue . It seems
> doubtful that Jensen was installing engines in late '65 that had been
> manufactured by Ford a full year earlier. My guess would be that the
> "Industrial" engines continued to be painted black until sometime in '65,
> while the engines designated for installation in Ford automobiles were
> painted blue. But my guess is as good as yours. >>
>
>I was under the impression that all Tigers were delivered with engine blocks
>painted black. When I dropped the 302 into my Tiger, with block painted
>later, Ford Blue (lighter color), I was nearly kicked out of the club for my
>glaring error. I just thought it looked better against the satin black (also
>incorrect, of course!) engine compartment and also had some lying around the
>garage. At the time, someone (quite possibly Norm) told me that all the Tiger
>engine blocks should be black.
>Mike
Robert L. Palmer
UCSD, Dept. of AMES
619-822-1037 (o)
760-599-9927 (h)
rpalmer@ucsd.edu
rpalmer@cts.com
|