Because of the 2.88's and the close ratio transmission all they really
needed was lower gears. I had a 641/2 Mustang with 3.00's and a close ratio
with the engine supposed to put out 210HP. I changed to 3.50's and it was
like I put in an extra engine and went from being just a cruiser to being a
very viable opponent on the streets. The dead start hookup was phenomenal
in comparison. My car became legendary when it was only gears and a
hydraulic valve adjustment so the valves wouldn't float along with a simple
flexible steel fishing leader I put on the carburetor to override the vacuum
secondary. That model had the smaller head ports too, probably the same
ones that the 260's had. I would assume that the Tigers were a bit lighter
also. I will have to agree that the rice rockets with the watermelon
launcher on the exhaust do make more noise but it would be hard to drive
with a hood over my head so I wouldn't be recognized. -- Bill --
Steve, I doubt very much that a stock Tiger could turn 93 in the quarter.
They were real accelerating dogs w/that 288 rear and an optimistic 164hp
rating.
The 2bb carb didn't add to the fun, either. I think one of today's 4-door
econobox imports w/fart can exhaust extensions could show a stocker its
taillights.
That's exactly why they get modified--all for the better, IMO.
Al J
>
> Since I have not raced any cars since 1954, I can only go back to that
> time.
>
> Then, the speeds were noted, but not the time.
>
> At the Orange County Drag strip:
> In 1953, my warmed-up MG-TD ran 72 mph, winning the under 1500 cc class
> with a trophy and beating the '52 Porsche 356.
> In 1954, my stock Jaguar XK120M ran 93 mph.
> The Tiger is significantly faster than either of these.
>
> ___
> Steve Laifman
> Editor - TigersUnited.com
_______________________________________________
Tigers@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers
|