TVR engines. What do we expect?
Discussion
Wacky Racer said:
...It was good enough for Jensen and Marcos
Only it wasn't, was it? Both companies went belly up!
Seriousy, though, I'm not sure whether I agree with you or not, to be honest. If TVR had gone straight from the RV8 to the LS1, I don't think anyone would have batted an eyelid, but now they've got people used to the idea of the company as a manufacturer of their own engines, it may damage their image and credibility to abandon the S6 for a crate motor from GM?
...but there would be a lot to be said for the reliability and running costs!
bosscerbera said:
As the Al Melling talk approaches I question:
1. what do we EXPECT a TVR engine to achieve reliability-wise?
2. what kind of specific output do we expect?
3. what would we be prepared to pay?
Specific output (bhp per litre) is a key to reliability / performance / cost trade-offs. So, last question:
4. should there be an optional 'cooking' 300bhp motor, maybe a de-tuned Speed Six or some Euro/Jap V8?
My two penneth from a year of Tuscan ownership:
1) A level of reliability where I could drive my TVR as an everyday car without the seemingly constant worry of having to have the return journey back on a low loader. This happened three times, and I must have 'limped' back about twice. Also a reliability level which means that there is not the seemingly enevitable loom of £4000 of engine work after an indefinate amount of time. With both of these factors I had constant worry, which sadly tipped the scales in the unhappy direction, despite the great points about owning the car.
2) As for specific output, I feel that the 360bhp was as much as I could ever 'need'. For me personally I would have easily traded 60 horses for much better handling, which would also would have made for a more fun and safer drive which was more 'everyday compliant'.
3) With the amount I would be prepared to pay, I believe that the current bew and second hand prices are just about right. Any more than this it is getting into serious car money. for example, if I had 50k ish to spend on a new Sagaris, I would be very tempted to look the second hand market for a well looked after 550 Maranello or 360 Modena for 10k more...
4) An optional engine or more engine option would be perfect. I realise this was already mentioned but if I could have somehow lifted the 3.2 six from my old M3 I would still have had 321bhp and I would probably never sold my Tuscan. It has to be said that in two years my M3 had no engine problems whatsover, and I was the fouth owner and took the car from 100,000 miles to 130,000 miles. With the Speed 6, if I could have pressed a button to take away 60bhp but simultaneously never have to worry about getting the engine rebuilt, it would remain pressed in.
Whether this is a posibility, but if TVR had an engine choice of their own Speed 6 or the 5.7 Corvette engine, or the BMW M3 engine (with optional paddle shift semi-auto) I think they would appeal to a lot more people. However, I do feel that it may be embarrassing for TVR to release the sales figures of how many people opt for the Speed Six...
I loved my Tuscan. It was often mistaken for an esoteric £100k plus Italian car. The base of the Tuscan or Tuscan II could be taken much further. I know that this has never been TVR's philosophy but think of the Tuscan II with 100,000 mile reliability of the M3, switchable levels of traction control, ABS, Nitrons as standard, airbags, perhaps even the paddle shift gearbox...
Call this a 'cop out' TVR, but of course the individual nature of production means that you could always have one built without all these extras. But, with them in, who on earth would save ten grand and buy a Boxter/S2000 and who would spend 15k more on a 911? A car of that specification with better build quality may also take customers from Ferrari/Lambo/Maserati dealers and the like...
Bottom line is I want a high performing engine that will do 50,000 miles before any major work.
I think other major issues with TVR is that if they do go bang; they are off the road for many, many weeks and have to be shipped to Blackpool. If I could go to my dealer and they do it in 3 days that would be acceptable.
Another issue I have is the zero feedback from the factory to how the they are dealing with the issue. Unfortunately these engines don't gradually deteriorate and tend to fail at 25,000 miles... it’s a complete lottery. How can a brand new re-built engine fail at less than 4000 miles.
Its not rocket science, If you look where TVR have succeeded in the past, they make a cheap high powered sports car. The Griffith and Chimaera hit the right note as you were getting a very fast sports car. 25 grand would get you a reliable (mechanicaly) car that would kill almost anything on the road. The drivers forgave the bad build quality and electrical gremlins because these were the prices you pay for the 'cheapness'
Now you have to spend 40k on a car and possibly 5 grand per anum to get a TVR... as other people have mentioned you are now in the same bracket as Ferrari, Porsche etc.
I would pay 40K for a car that I only needed to service for 5 years (50,000 miles) like any of the classic TVR's
And finaly, to all the people in the know there does seem to be a fix for this, but TVR choose not to implement it WHY? These are the things that make we question TVRs motives and if I want to own one again
>> Edited by Ston on Friday 22 July 07:48
I think other major issues with TVR is that if they do go bang; they are off the road for many, many weeks and have to be shipped to Blackpool. If I could go to my dealer and they do it in 3 days that would be acceptable.
Another issue I have is the zero feedback from the factory to how the they are dealing with the issue. Unfortunately these engines don't gradually deteriorate and tend to fail at 25,000 miles... it’s a complete lottery. How can a brand new re-built engine fail at less than 4000 miles.
Its not rocket science, If you look where TVR have succeeded in the past, they make a cheap high powered sports car. The Griffith and Chimaera hit the right note as you were getting a very fast sports car. 25 grand would get you a reliable (mechanicaly) car that would kill almost anything on the road. The drivers forgave the bad build quality and electrical gremlins because these were the prices you pay for the 'cheapness'
Now you have to spend 40k on a car and possibly 5 grand per anum to get a TVR... as other people have mentioned you are now in the same bracket as Ferrari, Porsche etc.
I would pay 40K for a car that I only needed to service for 5 years (50,000 miles) like any of the classic TVR's
And finaly, to all the people in the know there does seem to be a fix for this, but TVR choose not to implement it WHY? These are the things that make we question TVRs motives and if I want to own one again
>> Edited by Ston on Friday 22 July 07:48
Wacky Racer said:
All TVR have ever needed to do (imo) is design their cars around a big 5 or 6 litre ultra reliable American V8 lump, ....
dinkel said:
. . .
kr and I'm going to sleep now . . . and have some dreams about the Trident Clipper.
That was my wink to TVRs past . . . I think Marcos did the right thing. TVR could follow but that may look like a epigone thing to do.
About the V12 . . . that's a real big step from the S6 . . . and higher cost etc. A beefy 400-500 hp V8 suits TVR. The AJP8 never was meant to be a replacement for the RV8.
Any comment on the Honda suggestion? Let their technicians have a look at that S6 wonder. And develop a nice S5000-ish kinda V8.
*sigh* as ever we get enthusiasts talking about an engineering subject and displaying the usual level of ignorance.
Still at least in one other respect the customers on here are correct...TVR did kind of shoot itself in the foot with the move to inhouse engines. It didnt need to do it. Switching from the RV8 to the LS1 would have worked just fine for the existing customers and saved a lot of money and bad PR. They would have sold a shedload more Tuscans and Tamoras at £5k less.
TVR also need to re-employ some decent engineering talent, esp those with process expertise. It will do wonders for their quality control. First rule of production engineering, genius design is of
all use if your subordinate techies and engineers cannot reproduce it efficiently and consistantly. I have a rather nasty hint that one of the main problems with the Speed 6 is dependant on who built it, which affects how it was built.
Still at least in one other respect the customers on here are correct...TVR did kind of shoot itself in the foot with the move to inhouse engines. It didnt need to do it. Switching from the RV8 to the LS1 would have worked just fine for the existing customers and saved a lot of money and bad PR. They would have sold a shedload more Tuscans and Tamoras at £5k less.
TVR also need to re-employ some decent engineering talent, esp those with process expertise. It will do wonders for their quality control. First rule of production engineering, genius design is of
all use if your subordinate techies and engineers cannot reproduce it efficiently and consistantly. I have a rather nasty hint that one of the main problems with the Speed 6 is dependant on who built it, which affects how it was built.name said:
Back on topic...sort of...
How many miles did you do in the Westfield, though?
And while I accept that bike engined cars are F. quick, we're hardly talking about the same market. My girlfriend nagged me into chopping in my Elise for the Griffith 'cos the Lotus was too raw. She simply refuses to go anywhere near my Sylva (and that's fitted with a car engine!)
Put a Hyabusa engine in 1-ton, 2+2, leather lined and air con'd coupe, and I fear you may be less impressed with its performance.
The Westy covered around 2,500miles with me and had covered just over 4,000miles when I'd bought the engine. Lovely engine.
The big problem with the Westy for me was that it was an awesome track car but awful on the road - 0-60mph in 3.5 secs and 0-100mph in under 8 secs is great fun, but the clonky drivetrain and on/off clutch were tiresome in traffic.
The Cerb is much much better road car and I'll just have to see what it's like on a track day. Feels far less precise than a Westy and rolls more (despite Protech uprated suspension). Above legal limits, though, the Cerb is astonishingly quick - that's where the V8 grunt really shines through (see... back on topic now!).
One thing that annoys me on these forums is how everyone moans about the high rebuild costs of the AJP V8s in the Cerbs. I mean can you name any other V8 supercar engine that is cheap to fix?! Sure an M3 engine might be more reliable, but when it does let go the bill will be equally as large as a TVR engine. At the end of the day any engine developing 350bhp plus isn't going to give Ford Fiesta style repair bills.
I especially like the AJP V8 for its ambitious design - two oil pumps feeding the head and block at different pressures, rifle-bored camshafts etc etc. Rover V8s are lazy revving things that sound great, but for me the high-revving AJP with its flat-plane crank and Nascar-style howl at the top end of the rev-range is pure magic. It's a shame the design was compromised by TVRs bean counters, but at the end of the day they have to build the cars to a price. And under £45K for the Cerb was an absolute steal for the ambitiousness of what was on offer.
As for the Speed Six engines, the only way I'd buy one is in a new car with the three-year warranty. I'm not at all against six cylinders, but this particular engine does seem to have more than its fair share of problems. Given a V8 option, I'd take that everytime - so come on TVR listen to the enthusiasts and build a proper V8!
I agree with most of what is said on here.
Having driven a few tuscan`s and Tamora`s I like the performance of them. But prefer the sound and torque of a V8.
I love my Chim, but if the S6 engines were more reliable I may consider changing to a Tamora.
(if they put a V8 in one that would tempt me more!
)
In my eyes an engine like the speed 6 should last about 60k to 80k miles before needing any major work.
I think this kind of mileage would suit most people from every day drivers to good weather drivers.
So come on TVR give us what we all want!
Having driven a few tuscan`s and Tamora`s I like the performance of them. But prefer the sound and torque of a V8.
I love my Chim, but if the S6 engines were more reliable I may consider changing to a Tamora.
(if they put a V8 in one that would tempt me more!
) In my eyes an engine like the speed 6 should last about 60k to 80k miles before needing any major work.
I think this kind of mileage would suit most people from every day drivers to good weather drivers.
So come on TVR give us what we all want!
Surely it does not really matter what the specific output of the engine is? It is the way that you use it that to a large extent determines reliability, (design faults excluded). If you set a sensible rev limit won't you have the same improvement in reliability as a "detuned S6"? I realise that the cam could be changed in a detuned motor to improve the torque characteristics but in reality the S6 has ample torque from 1.5k up anyway.
As an illustration, Peugeot had a 600hp V10 in sports car racing, they completed, (won?), lemans with that and then moved into F1 with a similar motor but with an output of 650hp. They wound up the revs to get the power and the engine was completely unreliable at first. Jag the same, they used a Ford HB V8 from the Benneton F1. Dropped the rev limit by only a 1000rpm and the motor was good for endurance races. There is no doubt that high RPM kills engines. On the subject of the very reliable BMW M3 motor, I have a colleague whose 2002 M3 was recalled for a complete engine replacement the fault was potential main bearing failure at high RPM. Even BMW get it wrong on occasion.
I have a T350 with 11k miles on it. Most of the time it tootles around <4k rpm I rarely exceed 5k on the road just don't need to. (In Oz there are too many speed cameras anyway). I will hopefully do trackday or two every year and hope to get around 50k out of the engine. Who knows. I would like to attend the talk but being 10k miles away it does make it a tad difficult. I would like to understand what the problems are perceived to be. If there is going to be a transcript of the talk I would like one.
I recall sifting through every bit on information I could find on the Cerbera 4 years ago. At that time it was suggested that the AJP8 required rebuilding every 25k miles. We now all know that the majority do not. I bought one anyway absolutely awesome. I hope that the current S6 proves better than early versions.
Does anybody know why early S6 engines go back for so many rebuilds? It does seem to be the case that the newer cars can go maybe 20-30k whereas we still hear of older cars going back for multiple rebuilds.
Ok enough rambling.
As an illustration, Peugeot had a 600hp V10 in sports car racing, they completed, (won?), lemans with that and then moved into F1 with a similar motor but with an output of 650hp. They wound up the revs to get the power and the engine was completely unreliable at first. Jag the same, they used a Ford HB V8 from the Benneton F1. Dropped the rev limit by only a 1000rpm and the motor was good for endurance races. There is no doubt that high RPM kills engines. On the subject of the very reliable BMW M3 motor, I have a colleague whose 2002 M3 was recalled for a complete engine replacement the fault was potential main bearing failure at high RPM. Even BMW get it wrong on occasion.
I have a T350 with 11k miles on it. Most of the time it tootles around <4k rpm I rarely exceed 5k on the road just don't need to. (In Oz there are too many speed cameras anyway). I will hopefully do trackday or two every year and hope to get around 50k out of the engine. Who knows. I would like to attend the talk but being 10k miles away it does make it a tad difficult. I would like to understand what the problems are perceived to be. If there is going to be a transcript of the talk I would like one.
I recall sifting through every bit on information I could find on the Cerbera 4 years ago. At that time it was suggested that the AJP8 required rebuilding every 25k miles. We now all know that the majority do not. I bought one anyway absolutely awesome. I hope that the current S6 proves better than early versions.
Does anybody know why early S6 engines go back for so many rebuilds? It does seem to be the case that the newer cars can go maybe 20-30k whereas we still hear of older cars going back for multiple rebuilds.
Ok enough rambling.
peterrosey said:
Having owned a peerlessly reliable Hayabusa engined Westfield
peterrosey said:
The Westy covered around 2,500miles with me and had covered just over 4,000miles when I'd bought the engine.
Maybe I've understood you wrong, but 6-7000 miles doesn't strike me as enough to reach any conclusion about the reliability or durability. If it had failed at so low a mileage I would have thought you would be extremely p!ssed off, just as any TVR owner would if it happened to them.
VYT said:
Surely it does not really matter what the specific output of the engine is? It is the way that you use it that to a large extent determines reliability, (design faults excluded). If you set a sensible rev limit won't you have the same improvement in reliability as a "detuned S6"? I realise that the cam could be changed in a detuned motor to improve the torque characteristics but in reality the S6 has ample torque from 1.5k up anyway.
As an illustration, Peugeot had a 600hp V10 in sports car racing, they completed, (won?), lemans with that and then moved into F1 with a similar motor but with an output of 650hp. They wound up the revs to get the power and the engine was completely unreliable at first. Jag the same, they used a Ford HB V8 from the Benneton F1. Dropped the rev limit by only a 1000rpm and the motor was good for endurance races. There is no doubt that high RPM kills engines. On the subject of the very reliable BMW M3 motor, I have a colleague whose 2002 M3 was recalled for a complete engine replacement the fault was potential main bearing failure at high RPM. Even BMW get it wrong on occasion.
I have a T350 with 11k miles on it. Most of the time it tootles around <4k rpm I rarely exceed 5k on the road just don't need to. (In Oz there are too many speed cameras anyway). I will hopefully do trackday or two every year and hope to get around 50k out of the engine. Who knows. I would like to attend the talk but being 10k miles away it does make it a tad difficult. I would like to understand what the problems are perceived to be. If there is going to be a transcript of the talk I would like one.
I recall sifting through every bit on information I could find on the Cerbera 4 years ago. At that time it was suggested that the AJP8 required rebuilding every 25k miles. We now all know that the majority do not. I bought one anyway absolutely awesome. I hope that the current S6 proves better than early versions.
Does anybody know why early S6 engines go back for so many rebuilds? It does seem to be the case that the newer cars can go maybe 20-30k whereas we still hear of older cars going back for multiple rebuilds.
Ok enough rambling.
I think the flat plane crank design always meant that the engine would need more regular rebuilds. If it is exceeding the 20-30K mark that has to be impressive.
Does any else know of a production car with a flat plane crank.
Z
Perleeeeease no more harping on about ancient, lazy v8's. The buick engine came from the 60's for crying out loud. TVR making their own engines allowed them to offer us something no-one else was doing and top of the list for Peter Wheeler was response and a reduction in that awful flywheel effect modern road cars have. The engine is the soul of a TVR and the biggest single reason they feel so different to other cars.
TVR built the speed 6 like a race engine and for those of you who don't already know it's a winning race engine. The 4.0 beat any number of Porsches and 360 Ferraris in GT racing this year. It's a stonking motor and as has been mentioned comes from the factory already tuned. Which for me is cool because I've only ever enjoyed my cars more after a few mods.
In simple terms it's a mother of an engine and if you lot won't know what you're missing until it's gone and all engines are the same. And for the last time if you want a low revving torquey engine etc. BUY A DIESEL. They're very reliable too I hear. High-performance engines should rev and scream, that's the fun bit, that's the high-performance bit.
I would not have bought a TVR if they still had the rover v8. Same goes for one with a Corvette engine. What you old school TVR lot fail to understand is that I bought a Sagaris mainly for the Speed 6. And I love that the whole lot is made by TVR, that makes it a Marque, not a bitsa kit car like a noble.
TVR built the speed 6 like a race engine and for those of you who don't already know it's a winning race engine. The 4.0 beat any number of Porsches and 360 Ferraris in GT racing this year. It's a stonking motor and as has been mentioned comes from the factory already tuned. Which for me is cool because I've only ever enjoyed my cars more after a few mods.
In simple terms it's a mother of an engine and if you lot won't know what you're missing until it's gone and all engines are the same. And for the last time if you want a low revving torquey engine etc. BUY A DIESEL. They're very reliable too I hear. High-performance engines should rev and scream, that's the fun bit, that's the high-performance bit.
I would not have bought a TVR if they still had the rover v8. Same goes for one with a Corvette engine. What you old school TVR lot fail to understand is that I bought a Sagaris mainly for the Speed 6. And I love that the whole lot is made by TVR, that makes it a Marque, not a bitsa kit car like a noble.
GreenV8S said:
phraseMaybe I've understood you wrong, but 6-7000 miles doesn't strike me as enough to reach any conclusion about the reliability or durability. If it had failed at so low a mileage I would have thought you would be extremely p!ssed off, just as any TVR owner would if it happened to them.
True, but Westfield's own race car ran for 40,000miles without incident and there are numerous racers who have done complete seasons without rebuilding an engine. I'm not saying that they don't fail, but they're generally very durable.
Compare this to a TVR spannerman I was speaking too recently who had changed three factory-supplied engines in a Tuscan racecar over just one weekend!
You can't honestly be suggesting that a Japanese-built engine is less reliable than a handbuilt British one? I have a lot of dealings with firms who supply parts to the Japanese and they're obsessive in their checking of tolerance and engineering standards.
Tell you what: run a Hayabusa motorbike against any brand-new TVR for 20,000 miles and see which one fails first! I know what my money would be on...
Sorry chaps, but take off the rose-tinted specs and get real. TVRs are exciting, dramatic, charismatic, stunning to look at and sound great. Reliable and well made? Er no.
I think the S6 in itself is brilliant, it just lacks reliability and (some) torque. It should be able to do 60-70k miles without any rebuilds. No LS1, TVR needs its own engine to differentiate itself.
To boost both reliability and torque I would do a S6 4.0 with 350 bhp, a 4.5/4.7 with 400 bhp and a 5.5 with 450 bhp.
price: quite a bit cheaper than the corresponding 911.
>> Edited by gerjo on Friday 22 July 11:49
To boost both reliability and torque I would do a S6 4.0 with 350 bhp, a 4.5/4.7 with 400 bhp and a 5.5 with 450 bhp.
price: quite a bit cheaper than the corresponding 911.
>> Edited by gerjo on Friday 22 July 11:49
peterrosey said:
Sorry chaps, but take off the rose-tinted specs and get real. TVRs are exciting, dramatic, charismatic, stunning to look at and sound great. Reliable and well made? Er no.
I think we may be 'arguing' (OK, discussing enthusiastically
) at cross purposes. I don't think anyone is trying to pursuade you that TVR engines are as reliable as large productin volume engines from other engines. I'm certainly not (although I don't know if your comment was aimed at me). The thread is about what level of reliability and durability we think would be reasonable to expect from a TVR engine. Somebody commented that their Westfield engine was faultlessly reliable, I was simply pointing out that they didn't seem to have run it for long enough to draw any conclusions about its reliability. Personally, FWIW, I don't think we should expect TVR's engines to be as reliable as mass produced engines. They're relatively highly stressed and have had relatively little development done on them. I think I designed life between major service/rebuild of 25k miles would be reasonable under the circumstances. I'm talking about a scheduled pre-emptive rebuild, not a catastrophic failure here. Yes you can get similar performing engines from other manufacturers that last many times longer than that, but that isn't the issue; we're talking about TVR engines. For comparision, it's not at all uncommon for TVR RV8 engines to need an overhaul at around 50k miles and they are relatively unstressed in comparision.
The problem with building a TVR around an LS1 is that the donor car is already a mass-produced fibreglass 2-seater. It screams 'kit car' to just re-body someone else's running gear. Why buy a more expensive, inferior Corvette-based car? For the badge?? I'd sooner take the Vette - and I would in a TVR-less world.
Personally, I believe hassle free mile eating and high performance are in opposition with a unique NA engine - certainly in TVR price territory. History has proved (Honda and BMW motors sort of excepted). I think there are three options:
1. Accept a more reliable car that's slower and/or heavier
2. Accept a loony car that can be fragile (in other words, accept the car we've got)
3. The option to choose Option 1 OR Option 2 depending on your priority (ie TVR offers both in the showroom).
A fourth option of Option 1 AND Option 2 TOGETHER is not feasible - not at £40K-£50K and 1100kg anyway. And IMHO that's the root of the dissatisfaction because following on from the RV8, the market kind of assumed it was.
Just thought though... I am amazed the aftermarket isn't offering Option 1 - "kits" for fitting alternatives, as happened with the Triumph Stag. Sixes like the Skyline engine (imagine what a hot Skyline-engined TVR would go and sound like!) ... V8s like the Chrysler Hemi (the coolest V8 badge - anyone for "Tuscan Hemi" or "Cerbera Hemi"?).
Personally, I believe hassle free mile eating and high performance are in opposition with a unique NA engine - certainly in TVR price territory. History has proved (Honda and BMW motors sort of excepted). I think there are three options:
1. Accept a more reliable car that's slower and/or heavier
2. Accept a loony car that can be fragile (in other words, accept the car we've got)
3. The option to choose Option 1 OR Option 2 depending on your priority (ie TVR offers both in the showroom).
A fourth option of Option 1 AND Option 2 TOGETHER is not feasible - not at £40K-£50K and 1100kg anyway. And IMHO that's the root of the dissatisfaction because following on from the RV8, the market kind of assumed it was.
Just thought though... I am amazed the aftermarket isn't offering Option 1 - "kits" for fitting alternatives, as happened with the Triumph Stag. Sixes like the Skyline engine (imagine what a hot Skyline-engined TVR would go and sound like!) ... V8s like the Chrysler Hemi (the coolest V8 badge - anyone for "Tuscan Hemi" or "Cerbera Hemi"?).
Gassing Station | Speed Six Engine | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff