Which TVR to buy?
Discussion
phazed said:
Unfortunately correct, probably more like 275/300.
Also, most big diesels have 7 speed boxes which really, "shift"!
Probably more like 250bhp-280bhp even.Also, most big diesels have 7 speed boxes which really, "shift"!
Yep, the newer diesels pack more ratios in, so their tiny power bands always have a cog to turn.
One of the things people forget (or even don't realise) is that the biggest figure in acceleration is torque at the wheels. No one ever mentions it, but it's vital. Diesels usually suffer more than petrols here (relatively speaking, not outright numbers) as they need to use taller ratios to overcome the fact they don't rev. The 7-speed+ stuff overcomes that somewhat by just adding gears, so they can afford to have shorter sprinting gears for overtaking etc.
Or as another example, my S1 has a similar torque at the wheel figure to our Saxo VTS! Why? Because the Saxo has shorter gearing and final drive (but can, because it revs higher) so though the engine itself puts out less torque, the multiplier that is the gearbox nearly makes up for it. Hence on the road, they're very similar in pace despite being a 1.6 4 pot versus a 2.8 V6 (though the Cologne V6 isn't exactly a powerhouse!) In my Chimaera I was left behind by a Focus ST once, and a Mazda RX8. Couldn't catch an Alfa 156 GTA either - that's a FWD 4door saloon! My S1 got outdragged by a Volvo V70 diesel once. That was pretty embarrassing, as you could hear I was trying. The one time I wanted it to be quiet
Anyway, that's a topic that can go astray quite easily, but it is why the V8S/Chimaera/Griffith etc. all feel very grunty - the engine puts out a lot of torque at lower revs, and the gearing isn't silly-tall. Means that even though a 400 may only just break the 200bhp barrier, it'll barely have to work when producing 200lbft torque, so whatever it has to give, it gives pretty urgently, which makes it fun. Not balls-out fast, but lots of smiles - hence my view that it's more important how it goes fast, than how fast it goes.
But, we're all different with different views etc. I wonder what the OP will buy?
Kitchski said:
My S1 has a similar torque to wheel figure to our Saxo VTS! Why? Because the Saxo has shorter gearing and final drive (but can, because it revs higher) so though the engine itself puts out less torque, the multiplier that is the gearbox nearly makes up for it. Hence on the road, they're very similar in pace despite being a 1.6 4 pot versus a 2.8 V6 (though the Cologne V6 isn't exactly a powerhouse!) In my Chimaera I was left behind by a Focus ST once, and a Mazda RX8. Couldn't catch an Alfa 156 GTA either - that's a FWD 4door saloon! My S1 got outdragged by a Volvo V70 diesel once. That was pretty embarrassing, as you could hear I was trying. The one time I wanted it to be quiet
Anyway, that's a topic that can go astray quite easily, but it is why the V8S/Chimaera/Griffith etc. all feel very grunty - the engine puts out a lot of torque at lower revs, and the gearing isn't silly-tall. Means that even though a 400 may only just break the 200bhp barrier, it'll barely have to work when producing 200lbft torque, so whatever it has to give, it gives pretty urgently, which makes it fun. Not balls-out fast, but lots of smiles - hence my view that it's more important how it goes fast, than how fast it goes.
But, we're all different with different views etc. I wonder what the OP will buy?
I'm guessing a Saxo VTS ....... Or a V70 Anyway, that's a topic that can go astray quite easily, but it is why the V8S/Chimaera/Griffith etc. all feel very grunty - the engine puts out a lot of torque at lower revs, and the gearing isn't silly-tall. Means that even though a 400 may only just break the 200bhp barrier, it'll barely have to work when producing 200lbft torque, so whatever it has to give, it gives pretty urgently, which makes it fun. Not balls-out fast, but lots of smiles - hence my view that it's more important how it goes fast, than how fast it goes.
But, we're all different with different views etc. I wonder what the OP will buy?
Edited by glenrobbo on Thursday 15th December 11:13
Going slightly off piste OP but giving some perspective. My company car for last 2 year was bmw 430d. Deisel 5.5s to 60 and around 260bhp with loads of torque. Its a point a go car with 8speed auto. Just but you foot down 3/4 and In gear acceleration will leavr most things. However once above 3k rmp the tuscan destroys it
N7GTX said:
Hmmmm......I think its all about how fast my car is. That's why I sold my AJP 4.2 Cerb and bought a Chim with the sole intention of making it faster, much faster. Despite the claims, the Cerb was not as fast as TVR would have you believe. I had an E46 M3 before it and another in between the Tivs and both were definitely faster.
Now however, my Chim is a lot faster, in fact the fastest car I have ever owned.
It seems more and more owners are modifying their cars, lots of turbos and superchargers about in the Rover V8 cars plus V8D engines, new ECUs etc etc so there must be a lot who do see speed as an important factor.
Despite the slower Cerb, I still loved that car but now I can truly keep the modern stuff at bay with a big smile on my face
Sorry but I would suggest your Cerb was poorly. I have driven two E46 M3s, manual and SMG, and neither would even come close to keeping up with either of my Cerbs or Tuscan in a straight line. Round the bends is a different ball game, the BMWs are much more planted and stable. Now however, my Chim is a lot faster, in fact the fastest car I have ever owned.
It seems more and more owners are modifying their cars, lots of turbos and superchargers about in the Rover V8 cars plus V8D engines, new ECUs etc etc so there must be a lot who do see speed as an important factor.
Despite the slower Cerb, I still loved that car but now I can truly keep the modern stuff at bay with a big smile on my face
N7GTX said:
Hmmmm......I think its all about how fast my car is. That's why I sold my AJP 4.2 Cerb and bought a Chim with the sole intention of making it faster, much faster. Despite the claims, the Cerb was not as fast as TVR would have you believe. I had an E46 M3 before it and another in between the Tivs and both were definitely faster.
Pah! thats cause you bought one of those funny sounding V8 Cerberas, should have bought a Speed6 powered one!Now off to duck!
Edited by PuffsBack on Thursday 15th December 17:57
This will be one of those quite slow Ferrari things then! Griffith 500 should easily see off a E46 M3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuirtJ9_1ao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuirtJ9_1ao
Kitchski said:
But, we're all different with different views etc. I wonder what the OP will buy?
Ahem, OP here. Loving the chat on this post.Topical really, and this reminds me why I am doing what I am doing. Current motor (apart from the Dolomite Sprint, which is going nowhere) is a Jaguar XF 3.0S. 280 bhp, effortless speed, quiet, comfortable, practical, economical, reliable, well equipped, looks lovely in silver with large alloys etc.... But, it has become very boring, and on the occasion when there is a problem, I have to find someone else to sort it. Polar opposites perhaps, but that is exactly why I want to be driving a TVR (even if it means I have to rattle around in a crappy city car for business miles and urban trips). A life long wish finally about to be realised.
I am drawn to the wedges, mainly a nostalgia thing. Am trying one this weekend to see how it goes. Tried an S, and a Chim. Chim probably slightly beyond the budget for now, but as I keep hearing, these cars are addictive...
Cheers all.
Mark-8rlbe said:
Ahem, OP here. Loving the chat on this post.
Current motor (apart from the Dolomite Sprint, which is going nowhere) is a Jaguar XF 3.0S. 280 bhp, effortless speed, quiet, comfortable, practical, economical, reliable, well equipped, looks lovely in silver with large alloys etc.... But, it has become very boring, and on the occasion when there is a problem, I have to find someone else to sort it.
Not fussed on the Jag, but the Dolly Sprint? Now you're talking! Current motor (apart from the Dolomite Sprint, which is going nowhere) is a Jaguar XF 3.0S. 280 bhp, effortless speed, quiet, comfortable, practical, economical, reliable, well equipped, looks lovely in silver with large alloys etc.... But, it has become very boring, and on the occasion when there is a problem, I have to find someone else to sort it.
PuffsBack said:
N7GTX said:
Hmmmm......I think its all about how fast my car is. That's why I sold my AJP 4.2 Cerb and bought a Chim with the sole intention of making it faster, much faster. Despite the claims, the Cerb was not as fast as TVR would have you believe. I had an E46 M3 before it and another in between the Tivs and both were definitely faster.
Pah! thats cause you bought one of those funny sounding V8 Cerberas, should have bought a Speed6 powered one!Now off to duck!
The sound from that V8 exhaust was just brill 
ChilliWhizz said:
Not long after I became beasties fourth man servant we came off a roundabout straight into dual carriageway, right behind a BMW 535 diseasil estate (you know what's coming next)... Sooo.. I'm in fifth (at about 40mph -lazy t
t), and the car in front of Mrs BMW moves to the inside lane and Mrs BMW clearly plants her right slingback through the floor and the auto box and TC do the rest... and off it flies... You'll notice I said Mrs BMW, this, and the (empty) kiddie seats in the back was the ultimate add insult to injury scenario....
So, my right foot mirrors Mrs BMW's and off me and beastie go... but hang on, the gap doesn't close (like the doors on the starship Enterprise do)... Where's all that massive torque at low revs gone... ya know, that the 500 is famous for
Quick shift into fourth... damn gap is still getting bigger... into third, but we're nearing the speed limit..
t), and the car in front of Mrs BMW moves to the inside lane and Mrs BMW clearly plants her right slingback through the floor and the auto box and TC do the rest... and off it flies... You'll notice I said Mrs BMW, this, and the (empty) kiddie seats in the back was the ultimate add insult to injury scenario....So, my right foot mirrors Mrs BMW's and off me and beastie go... but hang on, the gap doesn't close (like the doors on the starship Enterprise do)... Where's all that massive torque at low revs gone... ya know, that the 500 is famous for
Quick shift into fourth... damn gap is still getting bigger... into third, but we're nearing the speed limit..N7GTX said:
Taken from Torque Stats (so not everyone will agree) are the following figures which may show why Chilli was struggling with this lady.
Chimaera 500 - 320bhp at 5,200 - 320ft/lbs at 4,200
BMW 535D - 268bhp - 412ft/lbs (huge low down grunt)
Had Chilli been in a lower gear and close to 4,000rpm then he would have taken her.
Agree with N7GTX's last sentence - but by no means at all should Chilli have been struggling...Chimaera 500 - 320bhp at 5,200 - 320ft/lbs at 4,200
BMW 535D - 268bhp - 412ft/lbs (huge low down grunt)
Had Chilli been in a lower gear and close to 4,000rpm then he would have taken her.
You have to convert those figures to ft lbs/tonne to be able to compare apple-with-apples - as though the BMW has more torque, it is also a substantially heavier car. If we ignore the width of the torque band for a minute, and solely concentrate on the figures stated..:
Chimaera 500 - 320ft/lbs * (1000/1080) = 296.3 lbft/tonne
(Chimaera 500 poor - 260ft/lbs * (1000/1080) = 240.7 lbft/tonne)
BMW 535D 2004 - 412ft/lbs * (1000/1735) = 237.5 lbft/tonne
BMW 535D 2014 - 442ft/lbs * (1000/1790) = 246.9 lbft/tonne
So once you factor weight into the equation, you can see a 500 should have a much higher figure lb ft/tonne than the 535 - even the 2014 model (all I could find stats for with a quick search) - but even a poor 500 should be on par with them.
As for the autobox comment earlier, that's the nub of it - her diesel would have dropped a couple of cogs, and not changing down is textbook error when driving a NA (both in terms of raising revs to increase horsepower, but also increase multiplication of torque to the rear wheels via a lower gear) - and having missed the initial opportunity, the horse has bolted and no amount of late-stirring will help once the lead car has got its wind in it's sails and opened a gap up.
Sorry Chilli, but that trouncing was solely down to pilot error - not the car...
Dominic TVRetto said:
Sorry Chilli, but that trouncing was solely down to pilot error - not the car...
Totally agree 
Shortly after being blown away by smirking mum I got beastie on a local RR, same RR I've used a fair bit now and not just for beastie... She was 280/280 bhp and torque, and interestingly, when the engine was stripped their were no trumpets... also the cam was a trifle worn although not massively so.... this was with about 33k on the clock, so was chuffed with the bhp but a bit disappointed with the torque.. It was however a porous block that set me on the road to more power and not the RR results.... The torque curve now looks more like a power curve, it's very progressive rather than that near flat line from very low revs, and if I'm properly pressing on I keep the revs in the 4-6k band
This has made beastie a complete pussy to drive at low revs when the roads are icy or damp, and an absolute hoot when they're not Chilli..
(Driving God and general all round good guy)
Dominic TVRetto said:
ChilliWhizz said:
Not long after I became beasties fourth man servant we came off a roundabout straight into dual carriageway, right behind a BMW 535 diseasil estate (you know what's coming next)... Sooo.. I'm in fifth (at about 40mph -lazy tt), and the car in front of Mrs BMW moves to the inside lane and Mrs BMW clearly plants her right slingback through the floor and the auto box and TC do the rest... and off it flies... You'll notice I said Mrs BMW, this, and the (empty) kiddie seats in the back was the ultimate add insult to injury scenario....
So, my right foot mirrors Mrs BMW's and off me and beastie go... but hang on, the gap doesn't close (like the doors on the starship Enterprise do)... Where's all that massive torque at low revs gone... ya know, that the 500 is famous for Quick shift into fourth... damn gap is still getting bigger... into third, but we're nearing the speed limit..
t), and the car in front of Mrs BMW moves to the inside lane and Mrs BMW clearly plants her right slingback through the floor and the auto box and TC do the rest... and off it flies... You'll notice I said Mrs BMW, this, and the (empty) kiddie seats in the back was the ultimate add insult to injury scenario....So, my right foot mirrors Mrs BMW's and off me and beastie go... but hang on, the gap doesn't close (like the doors on the starship Enterprise do)... Where's all that massive torque at low revs gone... ya know, that the 500 is famous for
Quick shift into fourth... damn gap is still getting bigger... into third, but we're nearing the speed limit..N7GTX said:
Taken from Torque Stats (so not everyone will agree) are the following figures which may show why Chilli was struggling with this lady.
Chimaera 500 - 320bhp at 5,200 - 320ft/lbs at 4,200
BMW 535D - 268bhp - 412ft/lbs (huge low down grunt)
Had Chilli been in a lower gear and close to 4,000rpm then he would have taken her.
Agree with N7GTX's last sentence - but by no means at all should Chilli have been struggling...Chimaera 500 - 320bhp at 5,200 - 320ft/lbs at 4,200
BMW 535D - 268bhp - 412ft/lbs (huge low down grunt)
Had Chilli been in a lower gear and close to 4,000rpm then he would have taken her.
You have to convert those figures to ft lbs/tonne to be able to compare apple-with-apples - as though the BMW has more torque, it is also a substantially heavier car. If we ignore the width of the torque band for a minute, and solely concentrate on the figures stated..:
Chimaera 500 - 320ft/lbs * (1000/1080) = 296.3 lbft/tonne
(Chimaera 500 poor - 260ft/lbs * (1000/1080) = 240.7 lbft/tonne)
BMW 535D 2004 - 412ft/lbs * (1000/1735) = 237.5 lbft/tonne
BMW 535D 2014 - 442ft/lbs * (1000/1790) = 246.9 lbft/tonne
So once you factor weight into the equation, you can see a 500 should have a much higher figure lb ft/tonne than the 535 - even the 2014 model (all I could find stats for with a quick search) - but even a poor 500 should be on par with them.
As for the autobox comment earlier, that's the nub of it - her diesel would have dropped a couple of cogs, and not changing down is textbook error when driving a NA (both in terms of raising revs to increase horsepower, but also increase multiplication of torque to the rear wheels via a lower gear) - and having missed the initial opportunity, the horse has bolted and no amount of late-stirring will help once the lead car has got its wind in it's sails and opened a gap up.
Sorry Chilli, but that trouncing was solely down to pilot error - not the car...
Edited by Kitchski on Tuesday 20th December 16:41
Kitchski said:
ChilliWhizz said:
Totally agree
Shortly after being blown away by smirking mum I got beastie on a local RR, same RR I've used a fair bit now and not just for beastie... She was 280/280 bhp and torque, and interestingly, when the engine was stripped their were no trumpets... also the cam was a trifle worn although not massively so.... this was with about 33k on the clock, so was chuffed with the bhp but a bit disappointed with the torque.. It was however a porous block that set me on the road to more power and not the RR results.... The torque curve now looks more like a power curve, it's very progressive rather than that near flat line from very low revs, and if I'm properly pressing on I keep the revs in the 4-6k band This has made beastie a complete pussy to drive at low revs when the roads are icy or damp, and an absolute hoot when they're not
Chilli..
(Driving God and general all round good guy)
280bhp is a good figure for a 500, and 280bhp with a knackered cam is unreal! Shortly after being blown away by smirking mum I got beastie on a local RR, same RR I've used a fair bit now and not just for beastie... She was 280/280 bhp and torque, and interestingly, when the engine was stripped their were no trumpets... also the cam was a trifle worn although not massively so.... this was with about 33k on the clock, so was chuffed with the bhp but a bit disappointed with the torque.. It was however a porous block that set me on the road to more power and not the RR results.... The torque curve now looks more like a power curve, it's very progressive rather than that near flat line from very low revs, and if I'm properly pressing on I keep the revs in the 4-6k band
This has made beastie a complete pussy to drive at low revs when the roads are icy or damp, and an absolute hoot when they're not Chilli..
(Driving God and general all round good guy)
There was nothing wrong with your engine Richard, should have kept it
I never said the cam was knackered, I said it was a trifle worn... I believe the lack of trumpets is what upped the bhp and lowered the torque figure although i'm sure some will disagree.... I could have top hat linered the original block to remedy the bore porosity, and kept it all pretty standard... The RR I use is pretty accurate, I had my V8 BGT on it a few times and the figures were always very realistic..
Kitchski said:
280bhp is a good figure for a 500, and 280bhp with a knackered cam is unreal!
phazed said:
Agreed, at a rolling road shoot out some years ago, the best 500 produced no more then 275BHP.
There was nothing wrong with your engine Richard, should have kept it
My figures were lb/ft torque, not bhp, in the comparison - figures taken from elsewhere in the thread...There was nothing wrong with your engine Richard, should have kept it
Gassing Station | General TVR Stuff & Gossip | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff