tigers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: inquiry 071699b Tiger size&drawing

To: "Wright, Larry" <larry.wright@usop.com>
Subject: Re: inquiry 071699b Tiger size&drawing
From: James Barrett <jamesbrt@mindspring.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:26:19 -0400
At 03:49 PM 7/21/99 -0400, you wrote:
>       I was just loaned a copy of the August issue of British 
> Car; the one with the comparison article on the Tiger II, the 
> Triumph TR-6, and the Austin-Healey 3000.
>       I have to admit, I find some of the specifications on 
> page 36 a bit hard to believe. The Tiger is listed as the 
> longest car of the three by half a foot, at 165 inches. 
> Looking at these cars in real life, and as well as the 
> photos, it just seems incredible. Both of the other cars have 
> straight sixes and a very long hood, and the Healey is a 
> four-seater as well. How did the Tiger end up longer? Was it 
> towing a trailer and they included it in the length? By 
> brother-in-law has a TR-6, perhaps I'll ask him to measure 
> it. In addition they state that the TR-6's wheelbase is only 
> two inches longer than the Tiger's 86 inches. Well, my 
> experiences are (very) subjective, for sure, but by looking 
> at them plus the difference in ride suggests otherwise. It's 
> possible, I guess -- but a car six inches shorter than a 
> Tiger with only a 2" longer wheelbase PLUS much taller tires 
> means little space indeed between the front and rear wheel 
> wells and very little overhang. That doesn't sound like a TR-6 to me.
> BTW, on Fri, 19 Feb 1999 James Barrett wrote: Subject: Re: 
> inquiry 021699c
>>    At 08:42 AM 2/16/99 -0500, you wrote:.
> >>PINEWOOD: Didn't someone on the list a year or so back say 
> >>they had some
> >>form of CAD database for a Tiger body, with the car sliced 
>>> up like a loaf of bread? 
>>> Lawrence R. Wright
>> Lawrence,
>>         Yes, I have such a drawing, about 153 layers at 1". 
>> I sent a note to the Pinewood builders.
>> It is in AutoCAD rev 12+
>       That rather implies a length somewhat less than 165 inches.
>       The article says that the Tiger II is absolutely stock 
> except for some aftermarket wheels. The engine bay photo, 
> however, shows a LAT-2 style chromed air cleaner and the 
> washer bottle where a brake booster would normally be. The 
> hoses all look like braided stainless, although that could 
> just be decorate covers. So who knows what lurks in the 
> engine & suspension. Eh, probably much more stock than most 
> Tigers; certainly a nice looking car, regardless.
>       AutoWeek this week had an ad for "XK's Unlimited", with 
> mention of a free catalog on a full line of Smiths gauges. I 
> recall a thread last year where a few of us were interested 
> in perhaps adding a few additional gauges to the cars; 
> perhaps a few of these might match up OK in appearance enough 
> to use. Web address: http://xks.com/index.html  . Hey, the 
> catalog is free.
>
>
>
>Lawrence R. Wright
>Purchasing Analyst
>Andrews Office Products Div. of USOP
>larry.wright@usop.com (new)
>Ph. 301.386.7923  Fx. 301.386.5333

        Lawrence, the overall length of a Tiger (with Bumpers)
 is 156" (per Road and track test). My measurments ( Tiger II) from rubber 
bumper to rubber bumper is also 13 feet or 156 inches. From the center 
of the chrome bumpers the distance is 154 1/2"   The Cad drawing 
does not include the bumpers; therefore the slight difference.  The
 article could have transposed the last two digits i.e 156 and 165. 
 Or maybe the Tiger got wet and swelled up.
        I sent about a dozen copies of my scale drawing to various Tiger
owners.  No one has mentioned that they did any thing with it.

James Barrett Tiger II 351C and others



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: inquiry 071699b Tiger size&drawing, James Barrett <=