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
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
Unsubscribe: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/tigers/mharc@autox.team.net
|