On 10 May 96 at 0:43, Richard Atherton (Entex) wrote:
> This is one of Several major differences between the Tiger and the
> Alpine. The Alpine's steering is superb!, and the Tigers Sucks. (being
> blunt here!) The Alpine had recirculating Ball steering which was very
> tight and quite responsive, but fairly complicated. The Alpine had a
> turning radius of around...22 feet, as I remember, which is a very tight
> circle. It also had no tire scrubbing at all. The angles on My Alpine
> seemed to be perfect. I could literally drive in circles between the
> curbs on the cul-de-sac road at my parents house. The Tiger has
> something like a 36 to 38 foot turning radius (correct me here please!),
> with a great deal of scrubbing, as do most cars with rack & pinion
> steering mounted in front of the wheels. Mounting the rack behind the
> wheels greatly improves the steering geometry, but this was not an
> option on the Tiger.
> Each of the two prototype Tigers that were built had different
> steering. The first Utilized the fine original steering of the Alpine,
> but had to mount the engine farther forward to accommodate the steering
> gear. Unfortunately, this made the car more front end heavy than they
> wanted.....(Note: It would have worked fine had they used the lighter
> Buick 215 Aluminum V8. Carol Shelby's alliance with Ford prevented that
> for the production cars).
For those of you who would like to build an ALGER, please note that this
same engine in updated EFI form is available in modern Land Rovers,
Discovery's, and Range Rovers in a 3.9 Liter, 182 hp version, and has
variants up to 4.6 L, 221 hp in stock form, and 5.0 L stroker kits are
available.
The other one which was built by Shelby,
> mounted the engine as far back as was possible, which eliminated the
> Alpine's steering as an option. They went to a forward mounted Rack,
> and thus, the problems of the Tigers steering began.
Bowdoin, Maine, USA
|