TVR engines. What do we expect?
Discussion
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?
[quote=In another thread on 7 July I said]The Speed Six saga is a fine case of perception being people's reality.
Funnily enough, the same applies to the RV8 - but in reverse. This US-sourced [Buick reject] burbled around in 3.5 litre <150bhp (<43bhp/litre) form for years. My, what a reliable engine. In final TVR-ised 5.0 litre, 60bhp/litre format, any faults were dismissed as a bit of bad luck or "well, it is a highly tuned Rover engine don't you know". Nevertheless, based on its production car lo-po roots the RV8 is [b]perceived[/b] as reliable....
How reliable do we all think a 90bhp/litre normally aspirated RV8 would be? That's a 360bhp 4 litre or 450bhp 5 litre.
Consider the venerable small-block Chevy. It's good for 250,000 miles in a sedan but fit high lift cams and that drops to 60,000 miles. Go for 100bhp/litre (570bhp 5.7) and start lifing parts in running HOURS.
Whether you buy a low volume high specific output engine (TVR engine) or build it yourself (modified production motor) it doesn't last long, relatively speaking.
The unique engine is what elevates TVR away from being a 'kit car'. The characteristics of large displacement, high torque/power normally aspirated engines are what make contemporary TVRs special and it's a philosophy/policy that the cars share with the daddy of all supercars: the just-over-100bhp/litre Mclaren F1.[/quote]
Back in the early 90s, there were no road car engines remotely close to the Mclaren F1 engine (characteristics being big displacement, normally aspirated, high-revving, high specific output).
There STILL aren't many big NA engines that rev freely and make c.100bhp/litre. TVR ... Ferrari (peaky, no torque) ... latterly BMW. No others.
One route could be for TVR to de-tune the 4 litre motor to a 300bhp standard. The cars would fall off the mental power/performance pedestal but they would in all probability be far more reliable and warrantable. "Red Rose" could then be a TVR Motorsport lump. +400bhp, minimum warranty. Maybe it could even be leased for a period of running hours - like the Tuscan Challenge racing engines were - with a free replacement for any failure within the lease/running period and subject to inspection of a "tell-all" black box ECU. And every replacement being the latest version...
Which would you buy? A £40K bit-quicker-than-Boxster "looker" or a £35K rolling chassis with a £8K per annum engine lease? With the option that, at any time, you could pay £8K to put the 300bhp engine in permanently. Or vice versa - how about picking up an old Tuscan for £20K and jumping on the £8K/annum "Red Rose Programme"?
Any of us with the 'modifying' gene have taken perfectly reliable, proven cars and spent weekends and pocket money making them unreliable, unproven, and warranty-voiding. Sorry, re-write of last line: make it go faster.
TVR gave us the go-faster motor straight out of the box. Which led lots of people to assume/hope - because it's a production car, right? - that it could be in the same reliability ball park as other modern cars.
B*ll*cks. The only engine to achieve this Utopia sits in the Mclaren F1, a car that now costs, at 10 years old, £300,000 more than when it was new.
The old M5 400bhp 5.0 V8 was only 80bhp/litre. The brand new 500bhp 5.0 V10 (being awarded prize after prize by the auto industry) is, I suspect, a loss-leading halo engine / showcase - it took them a decade beyond the V12 they made for the Mclaren to get to this level of specific output with big displacement.
And bear in mind that the M5's headline "500bhp" is only there when you press a button - most of the time the engine runs at a lower specific output...
TVR engines, especially the Speed Six, are truly amongst the world's great engines. Too many failures mean people ain't seeing it that way. Which is a shame. A bit of understanding and realism, not to mention some creative marketing, would go a long way to managing customer expectations - and satisfaction - for the better.
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?
[quote=In another thread on 7 July I said]The Speed Six saga is a fine case of perception being people's reality.
Funnily enough, the same applies to the RV8 - but in reverse. This US-sourced [Buick reject] burbled around in 3.5 litre <150bhp (<43bhp/litre) form for years. My, what a reliable engine. In final TVR-ised 5.0 litre, 60bhp/litre format, any faults were dismissed as a bit of bad luck or "well, it is a highly tuned Rover engine don't you know". Nevertheless, based on its production car lo-po roots the RV8 is [b]perceived[/b] as reliable....
How reliable do we all think a 90bhp/litre normally aspirated RV8 would be? That's a 360bhp 4 litre or 450bhp 5 litre.
Consider the venerable small-block Chevy. It's good for 250,000 miles in a sedan but fit high lift cams and that drops to 60,000 miles. Go for 100bhp/litre (570bhp 5.7) and start lifing parts in running HOURS.
Whether you buy a low volume high specific output engine (TVR engine) or build it yourself (modified production motor) it doesn't last long, relatively speaking.
The unique engine is what elevates TVR away from being a 'kit car'. The characteristics of large displacement, high torque/power normally aspirated engines are what make contemporary TVRs special and it's a philosophy/policy that the cars share with the daddy of all supercars: the just-over-100bhp/litre Mclaren F1.[/quote]
Back in the early 90s, there were no road car engines remotely close to the Mclaren F1 engine (characteristics being big displacement, normally aspirated, high-revving, high specific output).
There STILL aren't many big NA engines that rev freely and make c.100bhp/litre. TVR ... Ferrari (peaky, no torque) ... latterly BMW. No others.
One route could be for TVR to de-tune the 4 litre motor to a 300bhp standard. The cars would fall off the mental power/performance pedestal but they would in all probability be far more reliable and warrantable. "Red Rose" could then be a TVR Motorsport lump. +400bhp, minimum warranty. Maybe it could even be leased for a period of running hours - like the Tuscan Challenge racing engines were - with a free replacement for any failure within the lease/running period and subject to inspection of a "tell-all" black box ECU. And every replacement being the latest version...
Which would you buy? A £40K bit-quicker-than-Boxster "looker" or a £35K rolling chassis with a £8K per annum engine lease? With the option that, at any time, you could pay £8K to put the 300bhp engine in permanently. Or vice versa - how about picking up an old Tuscan for £20K and jumping on the £8K/annum "Red Rose Programme"?
Any of us with the 'modifying' gene have taken perfectly reliable, proven cars and spent weekends and pocket money making them unreliable, unproven, and warranty-voiding. Sorry, re-write of last line: make it go faster.
TVR gave us the go-faster motor straight out of the box. Which led lots of people to assume/hope - because it's a production car, right? - that it could be in the same reliability ball park as other modern cars.
B*ll*cks. The only engine to achieve this Utopia sits in the Mclaren F1, a car that now costs, at 10 years old, £300,000 more than when it was new.
The old M5 400bhp 5.0 V8 was only 80bhp/litre. The brand new 500bhp 5.0 V10 (being awarded prize after prize by the auto industry) is, I suspect, a loss-leading halo engine / showcase - it took them a decade beyond the V12 they made for the Mclaren to get to this level of specific output with big displacement.
And bear in mind that the M5's headline "500bhp" is only there when you press a button - most of the time the engine runs at a lower specific output...
TVR engines, especially the Speed Six, are truly amongst the world's great engines. Too many failures mean people ain't seeing it that way. Which is a shame. A bit of understanding and realism, not to mention some creative marketing, would go a long way to managing customer expectations - and satisfaction - for the better.
1. These days I'd expect any engine in a new car to be capable of at least 100K miles between rebuilds.
2. Don't care. People don't think in specific output - all they care about is actual power output. I'd suggest that at least 400bhp is required to maintain the correct performance and image for TVR's in the current market, but I don't think many people would complain if it was produced by a low stress, high torque 6 litre V8.
3. Not significantly more than current prices unless there is a dramatic increase in build quality and/or performance. Otherwise, you are going to find yourself head-to-head with nearly new Ferrari 360's/3430's, Lambo Murcielago's etc., which are percieved as having a much more prestigious image. TVR's have always been the 'bargain' sports/supercars and have established a customer base on that perception.
4. No. Too much competition from ultra-reliable, mass-market cars. It would de-value the desirability of the TVR marque if they are building models which a base model Jap rally rep or Porsche Boxter can walk all over.
2. Don't care. People don't think in specific output - all they care about is actual power output. I'd suggest that at least 400bhp is required to maintain the correct performance and image for TVR's in the current market, but I don't think many people would complain if it was produced by a low stress, high torque 6 litre V8.
3. Not significantly more than current prices unless there is a dramatic increase in build quality and/or performance. Otherwise, you are going to find yourself head-to-head with nearly new Ferrari 360's/3430's, Lambo Murcielago's etc., which are percieved as having a much more prestigious image. TVR's have always been the 'bargain' sports/supercars and have established a customer base on that perception.
4. No. Too much competition from ultra-reliable, mass-market cars. It would de-value the desirability of the TVR marque if they are building models which a base model Jap rally rep or Porsche Boxter can walk all over.
For a small production volume relatively high power output engine, I would have thought a scheduled strip down and rebuild at 25k would be acceptable. I guess this would represent about five years of motoring life for a typical car? As a potential buyer, I would be greatly reassured if the engine could be relied on to last this long, even if it did mean there was an expensive bill coming up at least I would know where I stood. People doing the rebuilds would also know where they stood and hopefully be able to organise a quick turnaround, this eliminates the other big issue of potentially having the car off the road for an extended time as well as a kick-in-the-teeth bill at the end of it.
two reasons why i bought a cerbera 4.5rr.
firstly, a V8 race proven lump that if looked after well will outlast most, based on the many running past 50k miles, thats an easy one
secondly, its styled elegently and not like a sore thumb in a crowd, meaning business and not 'look at me' (sorry tuscan and especially sagaris owners, but this is a general opinion, even clarkson admitted it on nationwide tele)
why dont tvr go back to the AJP8, ressurect her and add the dohc, and sell a 4.5 wet sump version, a 5.0 dry sump version and a 5.5 supercharged version.
why dont tvr go back to the drawing board and make some serious grand tourers with styling to compete with the likes of '100k+' supers
i'm V8 biased, theres no doubt, not knocking the 6's of the world in any way, its just that age old feeling of 8 under the hood and then theres the reliability of the speed 8, they got the recipe just right, and then through it away to produce 'considerably cheaper' to manufacture tuscans and sagarises, obviously subjective, but i know it took a little longer to roll a cerbera off the line than most
tvr for me was always the 'dark force' of motoring, maybe thats why it took me so long to jump in, but I really do feel in my sincere opinion that reliability starts with the engine, every other niggle, electric what not is just the price to pay to join the dark-side and very acceptable, even adds character to the car
but give us an engine that is solid and pulls 50k without the thought of losing out on enjoying her over summer because of an engine failure
the styling in my opinion has truly gone south, the engine options are limited, the image of tvr is becoming more and more 'loud' rather than 'evil'
get a new engine or go back to the AJP8 and option it as explained earlier and design some new 'exotic' bodies, i'll be the first to put my money down
some make it? some dont? 50/50 gamble is not something that the majority of potential purchasers would consider letting their 50k+ go for, then the garish 'loud' image, amplified especially by the sagaris, please tell me the sagaris is not a taste of things to come
this is all in my opinion of course so please dont shred me to bits, my pantera is still running on her original engine unrebuilt! and gets thrashed crazy, not a problem in sight, so why cant tvr give us security (probably why so many talk of LS1 conversions)
went off topic quite a bit, sorry
firstly, a V8 race proven lump that if looked after well will outlast most, based on the many running past 50k miles, thats an easy one
secondly, its styled elegently and not like a sore thumb in a crowd, meaning business and not 'look at me' (sorry tuscan and especially sagaris owners, but this is a general opinion, even clarkson admitted it on nationwide tele)
why dont tvr go back to the AJP8, ressurect her and add the dohc, and sell a 4.5 wet sump version, a 5.0 dry sump version and a 5.5 supercharged version.
why dont tvr go back to the drawing board and make some serious grand tourers with styling to compete with the likes of '100k+' supers
i'm V8 biased, theres no doubt, not knocking the 6's of the world in any way, its just that age old feeling of 8 under the hood and then theres the reliability of the speed 8, they got the recipe just right, and then through it away to produce 'considerably cheaper' to manufacture tuscans and sagarises, obviously subjective, but i know it took a little longer to roll a cerbera off the line than most
tvr for me was always the 'dark force' of motoring, maybe thats why it took me so long to jump in, but I really do feel in my sincere opinion that reliability starts with the engine, every other niggle, electric what not is just the price to pay to join the dark-side and very acceptable, even adds character to the car
but give us an engine that is solid and pulls 50k without the thought of losing out on enjoying her over summer because of an engine failure
the styling in my opinion has truly gone south, the engine options are limited, the image of tvr is becoming more and more 'loud' rather than 'evil'
get a new engine or go back to the AJP8 and option it as explained earlier and design some new 'exotic' bodies, i'll be the first to put my money down
some make it? some dont? 50/50 gamble is not something that the majority of potential purchasers would consider letting their 50k+ go for, then the garish 'loud' image, amplified especially by the sagaris, please tell me the sagaris is not a taste of things to come
this is all in my opinion of course so please dont shred me to bits, my pantera is still running on her original engine unrebuilt! and gets thrashed crazy, not a problem in sight, so why cant tvr give us security (probably why so many talk of LS1 conversions)
went off topic quite a bit, sorry
jsr, twin-superchargers is only done where space is at a premium, because they are crank driven they will push as much air as the blowers gear-ratio is mechanically designed to, as long as you have enough space, you can go as big as you want, talk to ash, his 1000hp 6 litre cerbera with racing blower will be ready soon
my pantera is also blown, although it is of roots-type and not like the newer centrifugals, the roots-type have a mechanical limit, but you do get 500 horses at 2500rpm!
my pantera is also blown, although it is of roots-type and not like the newer centrifugals, the roots-type have a mechanical limit, but you do get 500 horses at 2500rpm!
bosscerbera said:
As the Al Melling talk approaches I question:
1. what do we EXPECT a TVR engine to achieve reliability-wise?
How reliable do we all think a 90bhp/litre normally aspirated RV8 would be? That's a 360bhp 4 litre or 450bhp 5 litre.
Consider the venerable small-block Chevy. It's good for 250,000 miles in a sedan but fit high lift cams and that drops to 60,000 miles. Go for 100bhp/litre (570bhp 5.7) and start lifing parts in running HOURS.
Whether you buy a low volume high specific output engine (TVR engine) or build it yourself (modified production motor) it doesn't last long, relatively speaking.
just-over-100bhp/litre Mclaren F1.
latterly BMW. No others.
Any of us with the 'modifying' gene have taken perfectly reliable, proven cars and spent weekends and pocket money making them unreliable, unproven, and warranty-voiding. Sorry, re-write of last line: make it go faster.
B*ll*cks. The only engine to achieve this Utopia sits in the Mclaren F1, a car that now costs, at 10 years old, £300,000 more than when it was new.
TVR engines are truly amongst the world's great engines. Too many failures mean people ain't seeing it that way. Which is a shame.
In general I agree with what you are saying but as you said at the end it does appear that the failure rate is excessive.
Whilst I realise that TVR dont have the resources of BMW et al, but just as an example - the BMW M3 engine [1/2 a Mclaren F1 engine it's said ??] (E36 3.2 and 321 BHP, E46 developing c345 BHP)is pretty reliable (tho admittedly the double VANOS unit can be troublesome). So high specific output motors can be robust and if the SP6 engine was even 1/2 as reliable as the BMW 6 that would be a major improvement.
From what I've gleaned (as a non-SP6 type)the majority of failures are related to the valve gear and the finger-followers in particular. How then is it not feasible to remedy specific problems with a limited number of components and transform the engine into what it always should have been.
Apologies if I am grossly over simplifying / ignorant of the details.
>> Edited by tahiti450 on Thursday 21st July 21:41
>> Edited by tahiti450 on Thursday 21st July 21:43
GreenV8S said:
For a small production volume relatively high power output engine, I would have thought a scheduled strip down and rebuild at 25k would be acceptable. I guess this would represent about five years of motoring life for a typical car?
That would make it a 9-monthly engine rebuild, in my case! Unfortunately, that is frighteningly close to what seems to be the norm for recent production Speed 6 motors, and the general concensus on their longevity doesn't seem to be too favourable.
Kinda rules out a TVR as a main car, for me...
Even as a weekend toy, I'd be doing that mileage every couple of years.
lemme see...call it £3K per year in addition to routine servicing to budget for engine rebuilds...nope, don't think I'd bother!I read your post Phil and what I think - and I'm just a simple bloke - is that TVR should consult Honda. They are one of the finest engine builders in the world. And their lumps are among the most reliable . . .
So a nice NA 5 liter 500 horse lump (S2000 style) with TVR-torque and Honda-horses. And a NA 3.5 sixpot with about 300 horses would do the trick. Detune the Speed6 will result in an engine that just won't have 'that' what you want from a TVR engine.
The RR label is for the current engine's: T350, Tusc, T440 etc.
I'm not into blowers and turbo's . . . The S7 TT is awesome and I want one but TVR is about purity. And for me that's all about NA . . .
kr and I'm going to sleep now . . . and have some dreams about the Trident Clipper.
and what I think - and I'm just a simple bloke - is that TVR should consult Honda. They are one of the finest engine builders in the world. And their lumps are among the most reliable . . . So a nice NA 5 liter 500 horse lump (S2000 style) with TVR-torque and Honda-horses. And a NA 3.5 sixpot with about 300 horses would do the trick. Detune the Speed6 will result in an engine that just won't have 'that' what you want from a TVR engine.
The RR label is for the current engine's: T350, Tusc, T440 etc.
I'm not into blowers and turbo's . . . The S7 TT is awesome and I want one but TVR is about purity. And for me that's all about NA . . .
kr and I'm going to sleep now . . . and have some dreams about the Trident Clipper.
My motorbike produces over 100bhp per litre, and it's not even a sports bike. Not tuned, just as it comes out of the crate. I fully expect 100,000 miles before anything other than maybe a new camchain.
And you're talking maybe 300bhp out of a 4 litre, six cylinder, low-reving (relatively) unit, with a life expectancy of maybe 20,000 miles before rebuild? 50,000 with an easy life?
If your designer was Japanese, he'd be asked to commit seppuku by the management.
And you're talking maybe 300bhp out of a 4 litre, six cylinder, low-reving (relatively) unit, with a life expectancy of maybe 20,000 miles before rebuild? 50,000 with an easy life?
If your designer was Japanese, he'd be asked to commit seppuku by the management.
mrmaggit said:
My motorbike produces over 100bhp per litre, and it's not even a sports bike. Not tuned, just as it comes out of the crate. I fully expect 100,000 miles before anything other than maybe a new camchain.
And you're talking maybe 300bhp out of a 4 litre, six cylinder, low-reving (relatively) unit, with a life expectancy of maybe 20,000 miles before rebuild? 50,000 with an easy life?
If your designer was Japanese, he'd be asked to commit seppuku by the management.
Your bike makes those figures because it has small cylinder diameters thus making combustion a quicker more efficient process. It also has less internal mass. I bet it couldn't pull a load though, no torque
Boosted.
Boosted LS1 said:
My motorbike produces over 100bhp per litre, and it's not even a sports bike. Not tuned, just as it comes out of the crate. I fully expect 100,000 miles before anything other than maybe a new camchain.
And you're talking maybe 300bhp out of a 4 litre, six cylinder, low-reving (relatively) unit, with a life expectancy of maybe 20,000 miles before rebuild? 50,000 with an easy life?
If your designer was Japanese, he'd be asked to commit seppuku by the management.
Your bike makes those figures because it has small cylinder diameters thus making combustion a quicker more efficient process. It also has less internal mass. I bet it couldn't pull a load though, no torque
Boosted.
Actually, as a rider of over 125,000 miles on v-twins, the first question I asked was about the loss of torque. The salesman said I wouldn't notice any lack. I gave him a Paddington Hard Stare.
To a point, he was right, There is ample torque for me. Not quite pulling tree-stumps out, I agree, but good enough.
And anyway, reliability. LS1's have it in spades. S6's don't. With Rover V8's, it's generally the ancilliary components that give the trouble.
Hmmmm - on balance people who buy TVRs cant afford to fork out for regular rebuilds on top of the v high running costs. Even though it might 'make sense' etc it doesnt change the fact that people have high expectations of their cars reliability.
Tuning the cars down a bit will mean that there would need to be other improvements to compensate eg quality, dynamics, weight?, price as well as reliability.
Tuning the cars down a bit will mean that there would need to be other improvements to compensate eg quality, dynamics, weight?, price as well as reliability.
It isn't just a matter of bhp per liter though. Not everything scales up in a linear way, if you take a 100 bhp/l engine and double it's capacity you don't get an engine twice as heavy still producing 100 bhp/l. Just because you can get a bike engine to produce 100 bhp/l doesn't mean you should expect a car engine to do the same.
Incidentally, what is the average life expectancy of a bike engine when fitted in a car?
Incidentally, what is the average life expectancy of a bike engine when fitted in a car?
GreenV8S said:
Incidentally, what is the average life expectancy of a bike engine when fitted in a car?
Very variable, judging by the Sylva mailing list I subscribe to.
People don't tend to do high mileages in them, anyway, 'cos they are too manic, but plenty go BANG all the same. Admittedly, some of it may be down to the design of the wet sumps not being suitable for the cornering forces in cars, but there are plenty of tales of dry sumped Hyabusa engines grenading themselves as well.
Having owned a peerlessly reliable Hayabusa engined Westfield, all I can say is that Japanese bike engines are built to tolerances that TVR can only dream of. With cromoly cranks and all sorts of trick magnesium alloys they're a joy of engineering. As for the torque nonsense, well the Hayabusa develops the same torque as an 8-valve Golf GTI. And if you only weigh 500kg (as mine did - and that was heavy race versions can get down to almost 400kg!) you don't need a lot of torque.
Yes a Cerb will be quicker than a Westy over 100mph, but the Hayabusa-powered car will have already got to 100mph and disappeared into the distance.
Don't get me wrong, I love my TVR, but don't kid yourself that these 'tiddly bike engines' are slow. A mate of mine is currently building a Busa-engined Mini (Z Cars conversion) and it will eat TVRs for breakfast when it's down. Been in an R1-powered (just 1-litre!) Z-cars mini and I reckon it was quicker than the Cerb...
Yes a Cerb will be quicker than a Westy over 100mph, but the Hayabusa-powered car will have already got to 100mph and disappeared into the distance.
Don't get me wrong, I love my TVR, but don't kid yourself that these 'tiddly bike engines' are slow. A mate of mine is currently building a Busa-engined Mini (Z Cars conversion) and it will eat TVRs for breakfast when it's down. Been in an R1-powered (just 1-litre!) Z-cars mini and I reckon it was quicker than the Cerb...
The engine is still being developed, and truth is, it was under developed when put onto the market. A lot of people have paid the price for the ongoing development, but it will become a great engine when it's properly sorted, and I'm sure a V12 will reappear in detuned guise at some point. So maybe a 6 or 7 litre normally aspirated V12 producing around 80bhp/litre - so about 500 reliable horses? That'll do for me!
peterrosey said:
Having owned a peerlessly reliable Hayabusa engined Westfield
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.
Gassing Station | Speed Six Engine | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff