My previous reply appears to have been eaten by the internets so I¹ll try
again.
My Tiger is ?2705 (one off from the end of the Mk1A run, but also built at
the very end of 1966 and after the build dates for the first batch of
production Mk2 Tigers).
My thinking on these last few Mk1A¹s was that they were built to consume
the last few Mk1A shells that had already been delivered to Jensen or had
been partially assembled at Pressed Steel, but had been put aside in order
to get the Mk2 production under way. Basically, from their perspective,
anything like that (what we call ³Work in Progress²) represents sunk cost
in that most of the effort¹s been done to get it going, but you can¹t
recover any money unless you finish the job and sell it.
Remember that all these Mk1A¹s still came with close ratio gearboxes (and
my thinking is that the engine/trans driveline were shipped as a unit by
Ford, I¹m pretty sure there is documented evidence for that). The only way
they could have been 289¹s is if they had been built with 5-bolt 289¹s.
Although the engine mine came with is a 5-bolt 289, I never got enough of
the original tags, etc. on my engine to suggest that could have been the
case from the factory.
Best regards,
Theo
On 2016-07-16, 10:54 AM, "Tigers on behalf of Tod Brown via Tigers"
<tigers-bounces@autox.team.net on behalf of tigers@autox.team.net> wrote:
>Norm:
>
>I stand corrected and apologize for the misunderstanding. As I said, I
>had always believed the 289 MkIA's were a myth, so how I misconstrued
>what was said, I cannot explain.
>Mea Culpa!
>
>Tod
>
>
>
>On 7/16/2016 12:38 PM, Norman C. Miller wrote:
>> Sorry Ron,
>>
>> I meant Tod.
>>
>> At 06:59 AM 7/16/2016, Tod Brown via Tigers wrote:
>>> Hi Ron:
>>>
>>> Interesting. I had a conversation with Norm just recently and he said
>>> just the opposite, that there were a few cars that were built by
>>> Jensen at the end of the MkIA run with all of the changes that were
>>> incorporated on the MkII's just to make sure it would all go
>>> together. Those cars carried the MkIA badging. I made a mistake in my
>>> description in my previous email about the specific changes. I
>>> referred to a Watts linkage rear setup. That was incorrect. I meant
>>> to say Panhard rod, as that was the change incorporated into the
>>> MkII's, as you know.
>>>
>>> I suggested to Norm that it would be a good idea for him to publish
>>> what he knows about the MkII changeover process, but have not heard
>>> anything back from him. As you may know, as the editor of Rootes
>>> Review, I ran an ad for the MkII prototype, B382100002 LRXFE in the
>>> June issue past. When I got the info about the car and the request to
>>> run the ad, I was somewhat skeptical since a lot of the MkII trim was
>>> missing, so I contacted Norm. It was the result of our resultant
>>> conversation that he mentioned the MkIA's with the 289s. I was
>>> surprised when he mentioned them because, like you, I had always
>>> believed it to be a myth. However, the oracle has spoken. If Norm is
>>> reading this, I would urge him to weigh in to settle this.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Tod
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>tigers@autox.team.net
>
>Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
>Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
>Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
>Unsubscribe:
>http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/tigers/theo.smit@garmin.com
>
>
________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and contain information that may be Garmin
confidential and/or Garmin legally privileged. If you have received this email
in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message. Any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this communication (including
attachments) by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. Thank
you.
_______________________________________________
tigers@autox.team.net
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
Unsubscribe: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/tigers/mharc@autox.team.net
|