• Hi Guest!
    You can help ensure that British Car Forum (BCF) continues to provide a great place to engage in the British car hobby! If you find BCF a beneficial community, please consider supporting our efforts with a subscription.
    There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Tips
Tips

Tiger vs E type

Share this page

J

Jerry

Darth Vader
Gold
Country flag
Offline
Here is a loaded question for you. I have a friend that has decided to buy either a tiger or an E type. Do any of you have experience with both that would like to chime in with opinions?
 
The E-type is the iconic british sports car of its era. It is one heck of a sexy beast. It is fast, smooth, and a bit raw (well Series I and II). I want one - in the worst way.

The Tiger is a sleeper, a nice well balanced car and the Ford V-8 (302 I think) under the hood really makes it GO. Ford engine parts are a little easier to get, and maybe somewhat less expensive.
 
I own an EType. I owned a 67 Etype in High School and once raced a Tiger. He blew my doors off. I still prefer the EType, just becaue its just such a sexy beast...oh behave! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif (And it drives like a dream).

BAsil
 
interesting that should make this post. my tiger was my uncle's, purchased new in 67 - his trade in, a 65 E-type OTS. i remember him telling my dad that he pulled in to test drive the tiger on a whim and was blown away by what he thought was better handling and performance. like Basil says, the E-type is a sexy beast and the quintessential brit roadster (and i would love to have one!) but i enjoy driving the powerful unknown sleeper.
 
The only drawback of a tiger is the seats.They could be a bit more comfortable.We spent 18 hours in the 62 alpine but then we had better seats.
hard choice though and if I could I would have both of them
 
[ QUOTE ]
if I could I would have both of them

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the right answer! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
 
Having both in my garage I can tell you that for fit, finish and head snapping performance the Tiger wins hands down. Also is quite comfortable as a cruiser with properly restored seats. The E is the ultimate head turner, good performance and comfortable on trips. Convertible top fit on the E is marginal at best. The Tiger is very water tight. Both cars have been completely restored down to the last nut and bolt and perform as new. I would not part with either, but they are completely different cars. Rick
 
One Word...Corvette

HEHEHE

Zack
 
The thing is if you go to any British car show there will be tons of E-types and one Tiger if any.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The E-type is the iconic british sports car of its era. It is one heck of a sexy beast. It is fast, smooth, and a bit raw (well Series I and II). I want one - in the worst way.

The Tiger is a sleeper, a nice well balanced car and the Ford V-8 (302 I think) under the hood really makes it GO. Ford engine parts are a little easier to get, and maybe somewhat less expensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think most of them used the 260cid version and some later ones the 289cid.
 
All the Tigers produced with the 260 engine are referred to as Mark 1 or the latter ones as Mark 1A. Most all the 260 engines were special, in that they were 289 blocks only bored to displace 260 cu. inches. You can tell these blocks by the three freeze plugs on each side. (Just as all 289's). The stock Ford 260 will have only 2 freeze plugs on each side and can not be bored out to a 289 displacement. As a result many owners when rebuilding these special 260's will punch them out to a 4 inch bore to get the 289 displacement. So many Tigers will be seen with a 289 and have the original block. Bell housings and other brackets are unique to these special 289 blocks. Originality can have a significant effect on value. Rick
Tiger1.jpg
Tigerengine.jpg
 
Nice Tiger
So much like the one I sold.Sort of wish I never but with the Lister and the now the 62 almost mechanically finished I will mamage somehow.
 
I disagree that the Tiger blocks were underbored 289s. These engines came from Ford's Canadian industrial engine unit and although most have 3 freeze plugs the cylinder wall thickness is that for the 260. I have 2 at home as well as a same period 289 and they are different.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The thing is if you go to any British car show there will be tons of E-types and one Tiger if any.

[/ QUOTE ]You need to come to the 24th Annual English Motoring Conclave in Denver next year. This year, we had more Tigers than E-Types, although the total number of Jaguars overall (XKs, saloons, etc.) greatly outnumbered the total number of Sunbeams. And that was out of a total of 550 British vehicles at the Conclave. Maybe we just have more Tiger owners out here than in other parts of the country.
 
Hi Mike, The Tiger engine is well documented in the book "Performance Tuning The Sunbeam Tiger" Some Tigers had the Falcon type 260, but most had the Special 260. In addition to the three freeze plugs the block can be differentiated by the relatively straight surface of the block along the lifter valley, just as all 289's. I just rebuilt my 260 and had opportunity to compare it to a regular 260 cast in 1964. Just as the book shows they are a completely different block. You can see by the picture that this is an under bored 289 by the distance between the cylinder bores and the water jackets. You can also make out where the 260 heads fit to the block. 289 heads would have the same profile as the block along the lifter valley. Rick
Tigerblock.jpg
 
Back
Top