<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<STYLE><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US dir=ltr link=#0563c1 bgColor=white vLink=#954f72>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>Not sure if this post goes through... (to the list) , the past few
haven’t.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It would seem logical that there were a number of Mk 1A’s that were the
pre-production prototypes for the Mk 2. And, it would seem logical that
most eventually found their way into some form of a general sale – even if only
to Rootes employees. Thus, the question is, would they have been sold as
Mk 1A’s or completely updated to Mk 2’s? I’m doubting the latter based on the
alterations needed to hide the beltline trim holes to convert Mk 1A to a Mk 2
(as one point among potentially many). If not updated visually (but were
mechanically) it would seem at least plausible that a few Mk 1A’s were equipped
with 289’s - even if they were not sold through the typical dealership
method. The potential Mk 1A/289 would likely not have been at the
end of the Mk 1A run, but at whatever point the Mk 2 prototype development was
started.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Another potential scenario would regard Rootes not having enough 260’s at
the end of the Mk 1A run. Thus using available 289’s that were either
bought for Mk 2 prototypes, or waiting in the wings for the Mk 2. It would be
interesting to know the number of 260’s ordered/shipped and the number of Mk 1,
1A’s produced. Also a factor would be the 260’s set aside for
development/testing and warranty replacement (if any).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I’m not trying to create an Urban Legend nor support the Mk 1A 289. I’m
only postulating the potential for it to have happened as I obviously have
produced no evidence. With that in mind I’d be happy to see evident that
refutes the above concept and closes the door for thinking in that
direction.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>From: Ron Fraser via Tigers </DIV>
<DIV>Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 5:39 AM</DIV>
<DIV>To: 'Tod Brown' ; tigers@Autox.Team.Net </DIV>
<DIV>Subject: Re: [Tigers] MkII VINs</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Tod</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
I don’t believe any Mk 1A originally came with a 289 engine. I see no
evidence of anything but the B19KC 260 engine group for the last production Mk
1A. Norm Miller calls the 289 engine in Mk 1As a myth. It would be
nice to have real evidence to confirm either position.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>My Original Tiger Engine Study does not contain specific information for
the engines in the last dozen or so Mk 1As produced. Owners lets change
that.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I will gladly accept and examine engine information for any original Tiger
engine. I have a worksheet that is easy to fill out – just ask for
one.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ron Fraser</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>From: Tigers [mailto:tigers-bounces@autox.team.net] On Behalf Of Tod Brown
via Tigers</DIV>
<DIV>Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 7:28 PM</DIV>
<DIV>To: tigers@autox.team.net</DIV>
<DIV>Subject: Re: [Tigers] MkII VINs</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Actually, there were two MkII's assembled by Rootes before production was
turned </DIV>
<DIV>over to Jensen. They carry serial numbers B382100001 and B382100002 but no
JAL</DIV>
<DIV>numbers. The Jensen run began with B382100100 and ended with ...633. See
the</DIV>
<DIV>note in the SS Catalog:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>MARK II PRODUCTION NUMBERS VARY. CARS WITH</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>SERIAL # B382100001 </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>AND #B382100002 EXIST WITH NO JAL #’S (JENSEN ALPINE LTD. BODY #) </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>WHICH INDICATES THE CARS WERE COMPLETELY ASSEMBLED BY ROOTES, </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>NEVER GOING TO THE JENSEN PLANT AND MUST HAVE BEEN A PRE-</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>PRODUCTION PILOT CARS. THE NEXT MK II IS B382100</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>100 WHICH CARRIES </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>A JAL NUMBER, THE FIRST OF THE MK II SERIES.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There were also six (IIRC) MkIA's fitted with the MkII mechanicals (289
block, wide-</DIV>
<DIV>ratio trans, modified Watts linkage, etc.) but were badged as MkIA's at the
end of</DIV>
<DIV>the MkIA run at Jensen. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Tod Brown</DIV>
<DIV>B382002384LRXFE</DIV>
<DIV>TAC 864 </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>