Discussion
DonkeyApple said:
TA14 said:
V8 GRF said:
TA14 said:
DonkeyApple said:
Especially on the matter of PW stripping the firm of cash and never investing to move the firm on.
So the AJP engine range was developed for free? And the 350i, 350SE, 390SE... Sagaris as well?...
I'm sure you know some of the myriad of stories about corner cutting and shoestring development budgets.
I can't think of an area where PW invested properly to move the business forward. Every step TVR took forward, they were proud to take with insufficient funds to do it properly and bodge the end result together with excess labour spend or leave it to their customer to resolve. From engines, to chassis, to shells, to components, even to paint and short changing bottom end engineers, they thought they were being clever by cutting corners.
Obviously, I am totally open to finding areas where they over invested to get a job done. Other than PW's pension
TA14 said:
DonkeyApple said:
Not really.
I can't think of an area where PW invested properly to move the business forward. Every step TVR took forward, they were proud to take with insufficient funds to do it properly and bodge the end result together with excess labour spend or leave it to their customer to resolve. From engines, to chassis, to shells, to components, even to paint and short changing bottom end engineers, they thought they were being clever by cutting corners.
Obviously, I am totally open to finding areas where they over invested to get a job done. Other than PW's pension
That's still very harsh on someone who's not here to defend themselves. There's a world of difference between 'NEVER investing' and 'investing PROPERLY'.I can't think of an area where PW invested properly to move the business forward. Every step TVR took forward, they were proud to take with insufficient funds to do it properly and bodge the end result together with excess labour spend or leave it to their customer to resolve. From engines, to chassis, to shells, to components, even to paint and short changing bottom end engineers, they thought they were being clever by cutting corners.
Obviously, I am totally open to finding areas where they over invested to get a job done. Other than PW's pension
I hate to say it but the one person who did look to getting improvements in quality and the car development process was the person PW sold the company to.
V8 GRF said:
I hate to say it but the one person who did look to getting improvements in quality and the car development process was the person PW sold the company to.
Yes, initially he looked very promising but later on the Russian found out that 'improvements in quality and the car development' are difficult without any engineers, or a company.TA14 said:
That's still very harsh on someone who's not here to defend themselves. There's a world of difference between 'NEVER investing' and 'investing PROPERLY'.
I don't think it's harsh at all and in no way can be interpreted of 'speaking I'll of the dead'. If such cards are going to be played then we can chuck in the several hundred families who suffered at the hands of such practice. The reality is that the company was run on the cheap and almost every penny that didn't absolutely have to spent was sucked out. As I've said repeatedly, someone only needs to firstly download the accounts and secondly experience the product to see this. It's not conjecture or supposition, it's simple empirical fact.
It may seem harsh to some but it is the reality. So, to counter, let's find an area of the business where there was actually proper investment. I'm not saying there wasn't but I am certainly saying I am not aware of a single facet that wasn't run on the cheap and to the detriment of the customer and ultimately staff.
TA14 said:
Even 'run on the cheap' requires investment for new models and engines. If there was never any investment, as you state and will not withdraw, then how did the company manage to move away from producing the 280i?
At no point in the history of business has doing the bare minimum and stripping out all the cash been recognised as 'investment' 
DonkeyApple said:
At no point in the history of business has doing the bare minimum and stripping out all the cash been recognised as 'investment'
There was obviously some re-investment in new models that evolved the Wedge and then saw the introduction of new models like the Griffith,Chimaera and Cerbera, Tuscan etcThe point that DA is making is that money wasn't re-invested much above the absolute minimum to design and build those cars to a level where they were saleable. You can select any model of post '90 TVR and point out numerous areas where short cuts were taken. The wiring loom being the best example where an off the shelf component was taken and then hacked about to suit.
I think everyone who has struggled with any number of electrical issues will agree that the best way would have been to commission a bespoke loom. That wouldn't have cost much more to design and make and I'm sure any benefits for not doing so were lost by the subsequent time wasted hacking about the off the shelf item, very short sighted.
The engines obviously had the minimum of development or it would have become apparent that many components were not fit for purpose. If they were aware of the issues and chose to ignore them because they'd already bought the various components (I believe that is the case) then again that cost them dearly.
Latterly is was obvious that the various departments were severely short of money, suppliers went unpaid and production suffered as a result while at the same time the accounts show large amounts of cash exiting the business.
they can buy some alu chassis and suspension parts from Wiesmann?
they use(d) it in their lovely MF4 and MF5 with big V8 and even V10 for a while.
in their older and first model range the MF3 models they used steel chassis, but those were galvanised, + powdercoated or ainted so also very good protected>
here painted>
they even look like a fast TVR
they use(d) it in their lovely MF4 and MF5 with big V8 and even V10 for a while.
in their older and first model range the MF3 models they used steel chassis, but those were galvanised, + powdercoated or ainted so also very good protected>
here painted>
they even look like a fast TVR
Yep. Augmenting the hitherto used tubular backbone structure with structural floors and bulkheads would be another viable strategy, although that may have been a more Obvious soloution were there any continuity between TVRs 'old' and 'new' design/engineering team.
The Wiesmann business model obviously only works with strong links to a major manufacturer that happens to have a range of longitudinal RWD drivetrains and a sporting reputation. Wiesmanns were/are a wholesale inplementation of oily bits from a BMW (including suspension arms etc.) bolted to a bespoke chassis and bodywork, not unlike the specials that were built by the likes of Abarth, Bertone, Zagato et al in the 1950s and 60s.
The Wiesmann business model obviously only works with strong links to a major manufacturer that happens to have a range of longitudinal RWD drivetrains and a sporting reputation. Wiesmanns were/are a wholesale inplementation of oily bits from a BMW (including suspension arms etc.) bolted to a bespoke chassis and bodywork, not unlike the specials that were built by the likes of Abarth, Bertone, Zagato et al in the 1950s and 60s.
900T-R said:
Yep. Augmenting the hitherto used tubular backbone structure with structural floors and bulkheads would be another viable strategy, although that may have been a more Obvious soloution were there any continuity between TVRs 'old' and 'new' design/engineering team.
The Wiesmann business model obviously only works with strong links to a major manufacturer that happens to have a range of longitudinal RWD drivetrains and a sporting reputation. Wiesmanns were/are a wholesale inplementation of oily bits from a BMW (including suspension arms etc.) bolted to a bespoke chassis and bodywork, not unlike the specials that were built by the likes of Abarth, Bertone, Zagato et al in the 1950s and 60s.
I wonder if it wouldn't be sensible for TVR to do something similar with whomever they do an engine deal with, assuming they deal direct with the manufacturer rather than an importer or agent etc. The Wiesmann business model obviously only works with strong links to a major manufacturer that happens to have a range of longitudinal RWD drivetrains and a sporting reputation. Wiesmanns were/are a wholesale inplementation of oily bits from a BMW (including suspension arms etc.) bolted to a bespoke chassis and bodywork, not unlike the specials that were built by the likes of Abarth, Bertone, Zagato et al in the 1950s and 60s.
I can't see any TVR restarting as a fully blown component and car production line. That is far too much investment to be able to recoup. It will be an industrial unit putting together outsourced components so it makes sense to try and use a single supplier of existing components.
When you look at the UK there are only really two firms you could take engine and parts from and these are Jaguar or Aston and as Aston is going to drop their Ford engine license and switch to Mercedes then this leaves Jaguar.
Interestingly Jaguar are also about to launch their new 4 pot. It has has enough brand to add cache and not detract from TVRs brand.
The old XKR has exactly the same wheelbase as the Cerbera at 102 inches. Which is interesting.
WolfyJones said:
Bonded alloy chassis?
Yes that's what I was advocating right from the start of this thread, the Morgan has a bonded chassis.That Weissman chassis looks good but I imagine that would be a hefty part of the build cost right there, it looks a bit 'over engineered' for a TVR.
DonkeyApple said:
Interestingly Jaguar are also about to launch their new 4 pot. It has has enough brand to add cache and not detract from TVRs brand.
The main advantage would be having access to an integrated approach to drivetrain management - traction control, active diffs et al which would need intensive recalibration but at least is tested and validated to major OEM standards structurally. Given developments over the past decade or so, the main challenge however would be gaining access to an engine that gives the multicylinder soundtrack and response while not being so stupidly powerful for a light car that one could never realistically explore the upper rev ranges on the road (and necessitating very sturdy and expensive downstream componentry, stability controls etc), with manufacturers now employing 2-litre four bangers for anything up to 3-400 bhp.
Jaguars V6 engine would be a 'right sized' option, as would be BMW and upcoming Mercedes straight sixes if you disregard their country of origin.
Donkervoort uses an adaptation of the Audi five cylinder which at least gives a somewhat more interesting soundtrack and with 340-380 bhp in a car weighing all of 700 kg, hypercar performance up to about 200 km/h.
Edited by 900T-R on Friday 1st August 10:16
900T-R said:
DonkeyApple said:
When you look at the UK there are only really two firms you could take engine and parts from and these are Jaguar or Aston and as Aston is going to drop their Ford engine license and switch to Mercedes then this leaves Jaguar.
Interestingly Jaguar are also about to launch their new 4 pot. It has has enough brand to add cache and not detract from TVRs brand.
The main advantage would be having access to an integrated approach to drivetrain management - traction control, active diffs et al which would need intensive recalibration but at least is tested and validated to major OEM standards structurally. It strikes me as the most logical way to start in order to keep rent and staff costs low.
A chassis with the same dimensions and mount points as the older XK floorpan/shell for example would make life much easier. Not sure what the cost would be to re calibrating ABS or airbags but it might be investment worth making so as to expand the target market considerably. I think these two items along with aircon are simply considered normal and expected. Without them you are just vending to the purists market and when you look at TVR sales of the past you can see that the big volumes were when the product was considered desirable by more mainstream buyers.
I don't think anyone would be put off by Jaguar parts but some will be by Ford, Vauxhall and Peugeot parts etc
DonkeyApple said:
I don't think anyone would be put off by Jaguar parts but some will be by Ford, Vauxhall and Peugeot parts etc
Ford has the history though.... like Jack Griffith telling Carrol Shelby he could build a car faster than the Cobra and sticking a Ford lump in a Grantura... The Ford GT40's winning Le Mans, and the various iterations of Ford Cosworth motorsport lumps.... I've always maintained that if I ever built a Cobra rep it would have to have Ford power.... Rightly or wrongly I've always though that Rover powered Cobra reps were somehow just wrong.... but so right in Griffs and Chims Anyway, what do I know???? apart from which, I'll probably never be in the market for a new TVR anyway
ChilliWhizz said:
Ford has the history though.... like Jack Griffith telling Carrol Shelby he could build a car faster than the Cobra and sticking a Ford lump in a Grantura...
But that was back when stuff was expensive, labour was cheap and folks could evade purchase tax by bolting their own car together in their shed... and sticking a Ford lump in a Grantura...Now, you're looking at a price slot somewhere between Lotus and Aston Martin even if you bolted an 1172cc Ford sidevalve into your car.
Personally I would say using an older platform from a major OEM would create as many problems as it solves both from a manufacturing/investment and marketing POV. Much better to take drivetrain and electronics wholesale and put them in a chassis of your own design with a composite body.
Edited by 900T-R on Friday 1st August 11:24
ChilliWhizz said:
DonkeyApple said:
I don't think anyone would be put off by Jaguar parts but some will be by Ford, Vauxhall and Peugeot parts etc
Ford has the history though.... like Jack Griffith telling Carrol Shelby he could build a car faster than the Cobra and sticking a Ford lump in a Grantura... The Ford GT40's winning Le Mans, and the various iterations of Ford Cosworth motorsport lumps.... I've always maintained that if I ever built a Cobra rep it would have to have Ford power.... Rightly or wrongly I've always though that Rover powered Cobra reps were somehow just wrong.... but so right in Griffs and Chims Anyway, what do I know???? apart from which, I'll probably never be in the market for a new TVR anyway
My thinking is that to extract sales from more general punters with that kind of money to blow on a toy then image plays a big role.
I'm a fan of Ford but I know that amongst my contemporaries that they would have a real problem having a car that others would tell them was made of used Mondeo parts.
To tap the most number of sales, if they are targeting a car at fun road use with comfort (like the 90s ones etc) I think they unfortunately have to pay heed to what the more fickle car buyer needs. Within reason.
Gassing Station | General TVR Stuff & Gossip | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff