Most Charismatic RV8??
Discussion
A strange question, maybe? I've a 450 Chim, and as much as it would be fun chasing BIG hp, my budget, along with a few years experience with fast Porsche's has led me to realise that what I get the most kick out of is charactor in a car, not soley how fast the speedo moves around. Hense my love of our cars.
With this in mind, I'd be interested in discoving what makes a 'great' RV8 engine, one with the most chasisma? Many have suggested the 4.3. Why?.... No cats? Exhaust? Piston Sweep? (think thats how to describe it)...or is there anthother reason for it?
Adrian.
With this in mind, I'd be interested in discoving what makes a 'great' RV8 engine, one with the most chasisma? Many have suggested the 4.3. Why?.... No cats? Exhaust? Piston Sweep? (think thats how to describe it)...or is there anthother reason for it?
Adrian.
portzi said:
Your spot on the money there Adrian porkers are lifeless they have no soul and their character is on parr with herrflick from all allo. 
As suggested speak to Mac he's done just about every upgrade to his chim.
I am a massive fan of the RV8, and the way it can be tuned and modified to suit almost any application, the diverse range of vehicles it can be found in are testament to this.As suggested speak to Mac he's done just about every upgrade to his chim.
However to call the porker, lacking in soul is not correct, just to remind you that like the RV8 the flat six design can trace its routes way back into automotive history and equally can be found in a diverse range of vehicles including an aero engine influence.
Personally I find the flat six Porsche engine full of life and character, providing an equal amount of grin and addictive throttle use when reaching the howling upper limits of the rev range.
The difference is that when out in the TVR the general public are equally enthusiastic, when out in the wife’s Porsche they likely shout abuse.
pjac67 said:
The bigger the better but for noise and character you'd struggle to beat a flapper Wedge (i think the sound is different to a pre cat Griff partly due to the shape/sweep of the manifolds).
Have to agree, owning two of them. Yes the old flapper engine definitely is not the most powerful of the V8's but the pops and bangs on the overrun are certainly very theatrical. However maybe not for those that want to keep a low profile.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X81ivkmJPk
pjac67 said:
The bigger the better but for noise and character you'd struggle to beat a flapper Wedge (i think the sound is different to a pre cat Griff partly due to the shape/sweep of the manifolds).
Your words not mine Paul......"probably the best sounding TVR ever" And given this beauty used to be mine I totally agree lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hJKOl7xvVM
s
t I miss her........but my 430 Chim is a very very close sounding second. You can't beat a revving RV8gmw9666 said:
Your words not mine Paul......"probably the best sounding TVR ever"
And given this beauty used to be mine I totally agree lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hJKOl7xvVM
st I miss her........but my 430 Chim is a very very close sounding second. You can't beat a revving RV8
Hi Glen, very very hoping to get the John Eales engined 390SE back home tomorrow! But then again I won't be holding my breath given the vast shopping list of things that I've now replaced............And given this beauty used to be mine I totally agree lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hJKOl7xvVM
s
t I miss her........but my 430 Chim is a very very close sounding second. You can't beat a revving RV8I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of TVR RV8s are basically the standard Range Rover unit of the time maybe with a different cam. So basically the 3.5, 3.9, 4.2 and finally 4.6. The TVR cc increases appeared as Range Rover evolved the engine for themselves. That's not to say there is anything wrong at all but just that they were pretty much stock engines with very little actual work done by TVR.
When it came to the earlier BV models and then the 5.0 then these engines had been pretty well revised/worked by TVR and they do have a different feel to them. My personal preference for the 4.3BV over the 5 is that it isn't stroked and I've always felt that the stroking of the 5 gave it a bit too much power too low down and shortened the Rev range. The 4.3 is a very revvy engine for an old pushrod and I think that is what gives it the widest range of engine note up through the rpm and with the power delivered higher up than the 5 it sounds quite different when up in the torque curve.
But it is all very subjective and a bit like arguing over your preferred £50 note. They are all better than any other note, they're all basically the same and the differences are probably semantics.
When it came to the earlier BV models and then the 5.0 then these engines had been pretty well revised/worked by TVR and they do have a different feel to them. My personal preference for the 4.3BV over the 5 is that it isn't stroked and I've always felt that the stroking of the 5 gave it a bit too much power too low down and shortened the Rev range. The 4.3 is a very revvy engine for an old pushrod and I think that is what gives it the widest range of engine note up through the rpm and with the power delivered higher up than the 5 it sounds quite different when up in the torque curve.
But it is all very subjective and a bit like arguing over your preferred £50 note. They are all better than any other note, they're all basically the same and the differences are probably semantics.
DonkeyApple said:
My personal preference for the 4.3BV over the 5 is that it isn't stroked and I've always felt that the stroking of the 5 gave it a bit too much power too low down and shortened the Rev range. The 4.3 is a very revvy engine for an old pushrod and I think that is what gives it the widest range of engine note up through the rpm and with the power delivered higher up than the 5 it sounds quite different when up in the torque curve.
The 4.3 is much more of a sports car engine than the TVR 5 litre (not to be confused with aftermarket offerings that are mostly bigger bore/shorter stroke and not as inherently compromised in rod length/stroke ratio and having what basically are cut down RR 4.2 pistons IIRC); it's more responsive and it's power band from feel goes from 2,000 to right at the rev limiter at six-point something. This in combination with being not *too* powerful for the car, gives you excellent opportunity to savour its wonderful voice which goes through quite a few iterations climbing along the rev range. It's one of the great automotive experiences IMHO - that it is provided by a motley assortment of relatively prosaic components is akin to alchemy. 
motul1974 said:
That's what people say, although I've never heard them, but its the WHY are they sounding so good? Is a RV8 not a RV8? - I know their not all the same, just wondering concentrate my future efforts on making my 450 even 'nicer'. :-)
Cam, compression ratio, induction, presence and number (none, just the one or all three) of cats in the exhaust system, rotating/reciprocating mass in the engine, all make a difference. Gassing Station | General TVR Stuff & Gossip | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff