I noticed that there were two "Tigers" listed on eBay, both with very low "Buy Now" price. Looks like both sold the same day there were listed.
The first was http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1965...&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:US:1123&forcev4exp=true. It was item number 251194598213. It was listed as a Tiger Mk I, but no VIN was listed, nor was there any photos of the VIN plate. It sold for $17,000. Looks like it has some sort of fuel cell was mounted in the trunk and it had louvers on the hood. The listing stated it had a 289.
The second was http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1967...&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:US:1123&forcev4exp=true. It was item number 150959166814. It was listed as a Tiger, with no Mark number listed. Again, there was no VIN number listed nor any photos of the VIN plate. It sold for $15,000. I hope it was a typo where the listing said the drive type was FWD.
If these two cars were truly Tigers, the buyers got very good deals, unless it was only the paint holding the rust together everywhere.
David
The first was http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1965...&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:US:1123&forcev4exp=true. It was item number 251194598213. It was listed as a Tiger Mk I, but no VIN was listed, nor was there any photos of the VIN plate. It sold for $17,000. Looks like it has some sort of fuel cell was mounted in the trunk and it had louvers on the hood. The listing stated it had a 289.
The second was http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1967...&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:US:1123&forcev4exp=true. It was item number 150959166814. It was listed as a Tiger, with no Mark number listed. Again, there was no VIN number listed nor any photos of the VIN plate. It sold for $15,000. I hope it was a typo where the listing said the drive type was FWD.
If these two cars were truly Tigers, the buyers got very good deals, unless it was only the paint holding the rust together everywhere.
David