StandardShift.com

You are really making me wish the guy would have been willing to meet up on a road course.

Urs4guy wrote:I would also add that the 0-60 specs quoted above are off by 2 seconds. The generally accepted number for a Mark I tiger (260 cubic inch) was 0-60 in 7.8 seconds.

You might be thinking of the Tiger II, which was available in 1967. It came with a 200-HP 289 cubic inch V8 (instead of the 260 cubic inch in the original Tiger), as well as a larger clutch, and improved ratios in the 4-speed gearbox. It also got a revised rear suspension. The 0-60 time after all the improvements was 7.5 seconds, which is much more respectable than the original Tiger.

Source: http://www.classictiger.com/magazines/rt967.html

Here's an interesting article on improving the braking system of the Tiger. They installed a Wilwood brake system in the car and then performed brake performance testing. The car managed 60-0 stops in the 150-160 foot range, which they called "big improvement over the stock brakes." So I can only imagine what the numbers looked like for the stock brakes. Unfortunately, I can't find a road test that includes braking figures.

For comparison purposes, the published 60-0 braking figures for my car are in the 105-110 foot range. I was watching the Road and Track video where they compared the new Mustang (with Track Pack) to the BMW M3 (Competition Pkg) and both of those cars fell into the same range as well.

Anyway, it has been fun researching the Tiger. At least I know something about them now...

Braking article: http://classicmotorsports.net/project-c ... ing-tiger/

Yup, regardless of whether or not he agrees to drive (still think it'd be fun to watch) I can say I had never heard of this car before this thread. Now I know more random trivia. Jeopardy? Win.

I really like that motor sports series on the tiger. Old iron is fun. Just rode around in a friends stroked 3.8 litre BMW Bavaria (1972) Today. Real sleeper. Definitely not a new car though!

Urs4guy wrote:I really like that motor sports series on the tiger. Old iron is fun. Just rode around in a friends stroked 3.8 litre BMW Bavaria (1972) Today. Real sleeper. Definitely not a new car though!

I know, I read the entire series too. I love finding sites like that featuring old cars that are being restored or improved upon during the process. I've always toyed with the idea of building a Cobra kit car (I love the Factory 5 kit) some time in the future. The kits today are very high quality, but still affordable. It may not really be an old classic, but it's probably the next best thing!

I dreamed for years of driving a 427 cobra, and I was totally crushed when i got to drive a freind's replica cobra. Extremely well done with a real 427 side oiler in the engine bay. I could barely fit in the danged thing, and my clutch leg was up around my ear every shift. I'm 6'2, and it just wasn't happening. However, my god that car squatted down and went when you hit the loud pedal. He had a number of 12 second timeslips from the local strip, but maintained he "never pushed it that hard." despite the fit issues, I had a giant smile after an hour's thrash.

Hmm...well, I'm only 6'0". I've never even sat in a Cobra, so I hope it fits! But if you are two inches taller and you were very cramped, now I'm wondering if I'll be cramped too.

Some of the kits have elongated foot wells. I would be really sure before taking the plunge. The one I drove was an exact replica.

Shadow wrote:
I know, I read the entire series too. I love finding sites like that featuring old cars that are being restored or improved upon during the process. I've always toyed with the idea of building a Cobra kit car (I love the Factory 5 kit) some time in the future. The kits today are very high quality, but still affordable. It may not really be an old classic, but it's probably the next best thing!

I hope to build a Factory 5 Cobra someday, too. I don't like convertibles, but for that car, exceptions can definitely be made.

Looks like the new mark iv factory five has significant increase in driver and passenger footbox dimensions. Didn't want to crush your dream.

eggwich delfiero wrote: I hope to build a Factory 5 Cobra someday, too. I don't like convertibles, but for that car, exceptions can definitely be made.

That's a car that doesn't need a roof or side windows. And air conditioning in those cars should be against the law! LOL

Just give me a V8 and a manual transmission and I'll be happy behind the wheel. I wouldn't even install a radio because I'd be too busy listening to the V8 music playing out of the side pipes.

Little late here but do you or the other guy have any track experience? If the cars are anywhere remotely close (which they might be, assuming that car is only making 165hp is like assuming the guy has a mustang 5.0 that only makes 150hp) it could easily come down to the driver.

The fact that one car has a more primitive suspension then the other could be irrelevant. When I tracked my 1st gen rx-7 (with stock live rear axle, stock puny ass brakes), I was much much faster in the turns and on the brakes then a lot of guys with much more modern performance cars. And, there are still many guys that could further outdrive me in that car. A guy with no track experience and little knowledge of racing compared to just an average racer can be a HUGE difference!

Even if his car is "stock" consider tires. just an "r-comp" tire is a few seconds a lap on a typical road course over a street tire. Race pads, even with stock calipers, rotors, etc. can make a difference too.

The sunbeam tiger, making say just 200hp with race tires and pads and an average racer, vs. the stock A5 with an inexperienced driver, I will easily take the sunbeam. If the inexperienced guy is in the tiger, I will take the A5 anyday. Actually I would take a Yugo over it b/c the inexperienced guy in the tiger probably wouldn't make it a full lap without crashing when the pressure is on.

Considering he challenged you, maybe he had something up his sleeve - either a not so "stock" car or significant track experience. This is a total coincidence but I once thought about hustling 1k out of a guy on another forum this exact way but he ended up backing down, and I would have felt bad taking his money anyway!

ra64t wrote:Little late here but do you or the other guy have any track experience? If the cars are anywhere remotely close (which they might be, assuming that car is only making 165hp is like assuming the guy has a mustang 5.0 that only makes 150hp) it could easily come down to the driver.

The fact that one car has a more primitive suspension then the other could be irrelevant. When I tracked my 1st gen rx-7 (with stock live rear axle, stock puny ass brakes), I was much much faster in the turns and on the brakes then a lot of guys with much more modern performance cars. And, there are still many guys that could further outdrive me in that car. A guy with no track experience and little knowledge of racing compared to just an average racer can be a HUGE difference!

Even if his car is "stock" consider tires. just an "r-comp" tire is a few seconds a lap on a typical road course over a street tire. Race pads, even with stock calipers, rotors, etc. can make a difference too.

The sunbeam tiger, making say just 200hp with race tires and pads and an average racer, vs. the stock A5 with an inexperienced driver, I will easily take the sunbeam. If the inexperienced guy is in the tiger, I will take the A5 anyday. Actually I would take a Yugo over it b/c the inexperienced guy in the tiger probably wouldn't make it a full lap without crashing when the pressure is on.

Considering he challenged you, maybe he had something up his sleeve - either a not so "stock" car or significant track experience. This is a total coincidence but I once thought about hustling 1k out of a guy on another forum this exact way but he ended up backing down, and I would have felt bad taking his money anyway!

Well, it doesn't really matter at this point because the guy just disappeared completely. I think he realized that I was actually up for a little track fun and he probably wasn't serious in the first place.

As for your question, I actually have quite a bit of track experience. I'm definitely rusty though...I haven't tracked a car in quite some time. As I said earlier, my old M3 (which was an E36 - 1999) was the last car I've run on any track that's not a drag strip;) That wouldn't stop me though, because experience is experience, even if it's not recent. I'm not saying that I'm the best driver in the world, but I think he'd have to be to have any chance of beating me, considering the vehicles we'd each be driving. But I guess we will never know for sure...

Without significant modification the Tiger's front discs and rear drums are its biggest liability in a prolonged track dual. Fade becomes a huge problem after repeated hard braking. However, I agree that experience trumps hardware. Knowing how to take a line and how deep you can go before braking shaves off a lot more time than the hardware does. If you can work the understeer/oversteer paradox in the Tiger, for example, you can get very deep in a corner and still pull though with heavy throttle applied just so at the apex. Of course if you screw up, life gets way too interesting in a hurry! One thing modern sedans like the audi bring to the party is reliability, predictability and repeatability, which means if you have your line figured, you can work it for a long time before you have to worry about things like fade. You also get to listen to great tunes with the ac on while making your moves. ;0)