Speed Six Rebuild: Power 4.3 or 4.5?

[JR]

DonkeyApple said:

That is interesting as I'm under the impression that recently it had been proven that Ravenscroft didn't make any changes within the head and that they kept it as AM had designed?

I'm sure that I've heard that the person who now owns the AM blueprints has confirmed this is the case?

You've been mis-informed. Changes were made within the head. I don't know who owns the original blueprints but I have a copy :-)

DonkeyApple said:

But I am intrigued as to what the changes Power and RG have implemented, apart from using better components, that are making their engines last and run better

Better components than what? Note that it has been widely reported that after a certain purchasing director left and the BRIC policy was reviewed the quality of components at TVR greatly increased. (Although the variable length con rod little end was still a joke.) The quality does appear to have increased further and together with careful build (called blueprinting to some although I fail to see why all low production hand built engines cannot be built to a high standard) and monor alterations/developments the TVRPower/Str8/6 engines are now as were originally intended.

It would be good to see how a 4.3/4.5 copes with 100,000 miles of extra stress on the components. Dom's road testing and racing policy looks promising.

Perhaps you could better answer regarding RG??

DonkeyApple said:

in contrast to earlier rebuild companies which seemed to result in products which still failed, although I'm assuming they also used better quality components and knew what they were doing?

Dodgy ground there...

[piquet]

DonkeyApple said:

That's a good point and raises a question. I recall a few years ago a big spat on here about a company that charged commical sums and then either failed to deliver or delivered a lump of junk. I think they ended up going bust in the end? I just recall some really angry people who spent ages on PH savaging anyone who questioned their choice and then when they turned out to be right turned on the company?

This is actually what concerns me about a power rebuild. Don't get me wrong I think what Dom has done is amazing and has made a massive contribution to the speed 6 and helped turn it around from an engine where you were waiting for it to go wrong. Left alone the number of speed 6s would have dropped as people would pay less and less for the cars and then when the engines went it would not be economically viable to repair them and they would have died out.

My concern is the more engines have power rebuilds and warranty the less safe they become, because the financial hit if they start failing is bigger then any company can manage. There is a catch 22, a power warranty is dependant of power being and remaining successful, so every claim make every subsequent claim less likely to succeed as a warranty rebuild bleeds more and more out of the company. I hope i'm wrong, but a 100k warranty is a long warranty for a run around, for a highly tuned and stressed engine it's mammoth and if Dom is wrong (and i really hope he isn't) then we may be back to square 1

[DonkeyApple]

piquet said:

This is actually what concerns me about a power rebuild. Don't get me wrong I think what Dom has done is amazing and has made a massive contribution to the speed 6 and helped turn it around from an engine where you were waiting for it to go wrong. Left alone the number of speed 6s would have dropped as people would pay less and less for the cars and then when the engines went it would not be economically viable to repair them and they would have died out.

My concern is the more engines have power rebuilds and warranty the less safe they become, because the financial hit if they start failing is bigger then any company can manage. There is a catch 22, a power warranty is dependant of power being and remaining successful, so every claim make every subsequent claim less likely to succeed as a warranty rebuild bleeds more and more out of the company. I hope i'm wrong, but a 100k warranty is a long warranty for a run around, for a highly tuned and stressed engine it's mammoth and if Dom is wrong (and i really hope he isn't) then we may be back to square 1

I'm not sure it is that much of an issue as you can walk away from the warranty liabilities overnight if it transpired that there was a catastrophic issue accross the board.

I think that enough rebuilds have been done, with enough time and miles to sufficiently justify the ballsy marketing gamble of the '5 yr warranty'. You would also assume that if this was thought out properly there would be an 'insurance premium' within the initial customer cost as well as a clause the maintains contract validity only when serviced by Power (or agreed partners) so you can amortise 5 years of servicing contract as opposed to probably losing this income stream to garages close to the customer.

It was a smart marketing move and I think it was well thought out but it would have taken balls to do this and hat's off. But there does seem to be the evidence to vindicate it.

[DonkeyApple]

JR said:

DonkeyApple said:

That is interesting as I'm under the impression that recently it had been proven that Ravenscroft didn't make any changes within the head and that they kept it as AM had designed?

I'm sure that I've heard that the person who now owns the AM blueprints has confirmed this is the case?

You've been mis-informed. Changes were made within the head. I don't know who owns the original blueprints but I have a copy :-)

DonkeyApple said:

But I am intrigued as to what the changes Power and RG have implemented, apart from using better components, that are making their engines last and run better

Better components than what? Note that it has been widely reported that after a certain purchasing director left and the BRIC policy was reviewed the quality of components at TVR greatly increased. (Although the variable length con rod little end was still a joke.) The quality does appear to have increased further and together with careful build (called blueprinting to some although I fail to see why all low production hand built engines cannot be built to a high standard) and monor alterations/developments the TVRPower/Str8/6 engines are now as were originally intended.

It would be good to see how a 4.3/4.5 copes with 100,000 miles of extra stress on the components. Dom's road testing and racing policy looks promising.

Perhaps you could better answer regarding RG??

DonkeyApple said:

in contrast to earlier rebuild companies which seemed to result in products which still failed, although I'm assuming they also used better quality components and knew what they were doing?

Dodgy ground there...

Thanks.

By 'better components' I was referring to the issues TVR had in the early days with, would I be right in saying, many failures and repeat failures occuring so early in life that it was clearly the fault of poor components than any design issue which would take longer to have an impact?

I know TVR upped their game as my 04 T350 has never had any issues after the original owner had it rebuilt after 1000 miles, but I am assuming that these modern rebuilds are using high quality parts, better matched etc than TVR ever used?

I think 'blueprinting' had validity decades ago but is marketing bks today. In fact, any firm which used that term to me would probably get swerved as they could be infered as implying that they normally nobble any old bks together but if you pay more money they'll actually give it a shot to put some effort in.

So, the Power head is built to AM's original drawings/design and this is one of the main differences from the original heads which TVR altered? I guess this is the bit that keeps swinging around in PH. I'm sure I heard recently that it had been shown that TVR made no changes.

Re RG, I know they have made an awful lot of changes in the head from the process of making the actual body up to the obvious buckets of fingers. I believe that the whole process of manufacture is much more advanced than the tools the firm TVR originally used. I've certainly seen a FFF2 next to a FFF1 head and they do look quite different and the latter used the same firm TVR used and the former is that ex Cosworth/McLaren chap using more modern equipment which is supposed to be much more accurate re tollerances etc.

I'm still not sure of the whole debate over FF v FFF. Certainly one sounds nicer than the other but my understanding is the the FF system allows for high revs more safely?

[dvs_dave]

Bar higher quality components and a proper build, Power's engines are exactly the same design as the original TVR version which was of sound design.

It really is as simple as that.

[jcpgasoline]

DonkeyApple said:

I'm not sure it is that much of an issue as you can walk away from the warranty liabilities overnight if it transpired that there was a catastrophic issue accross the board.

I think that enough rebuilds have been done, with enough time and miles to sufficiently justify the ballsy marketing gamble of the '5 yr warranty'. You would also assume that if this was thought out properly there would be an 'insurance premium' within the initial customer cost as well as a clause the maintains contract validity only when serviced by Power (or agreed partners) so you can amortise 5 years of servicing contract as opposed to probably losing this income stream to garages close to the customer.

It was a smart marketing move and I think it was well thought out but it would have taken balls to do this and hat's off. But there does seem to be the evidence to vindicate it.

Yes, the rebuild/warranty appears to be a structure that has been well thought through. I'd be surprised if the financial implications of the warranty hadn't been priced in. Fwiw the latest Sprint magazine has an article about one of Power's rebuilds being serviced & stripped down after 100,000 miles, which inspires some confidence.

[DonkeyApple]

jcpgasoline said:

Yes, the rebuild/warranty appears to be a structure that has been well thought through. I'd be surprised if the financial implications of the warranty hadn't been priced in. Fwiw the latest Sprint magazine has an article about one of Power's rebuilds being serviced & stripped down after 100,000 miles, which inspires some confidence.

I saw that article. I think there was another ingredient involved as well which was that it came over that the driver was prudent with how he used the car. I think some owners have been a little too brutal (as in not fully respected) in the usage of what is a high performance engine.

[jcpgasoline]

DonkeyApple said:

I saw that article. I think there was another ingredient involved as well which was that it came over that the driver was prudent with how he used the car. I think some owners have been a little too brutal (as in not fully respected) in the usage of what is a high performance engine.

Yes, I think you're right. There's little downside to looking after the car, although it can be a fine line between use and abuse sometimes!

[The Pits]

Going back to this bhp/litre issue.

Porsche are claiming a whisker under 500bhp from 4 litres in the latest (stroked) 4.0RS.

I know they have much larger resources and an RSR crank in there but I don't see anyone disputing that.

[JR]

dvs_dave said:

Bar higher quality components and a proper build, Power's engines are exactly the same design as the original TVR version which was of sound design.

It really is as simple as that.

According to you, now we know the difference between Str8six and Power: Str8six incorporate as many of the developments of the S6 as possible in their rebuilds but Power do their best to undo them and restore all of the original problem areas.

[sidewayz]

JR said:

According to you, now we know the difference between Str8six and Power: Str8six incorporate as many of the developments of the S6 as possible in their rebuilds but Power do their best to undo them and restore all of the original problem areas.

Not true, Dom used Suchard's rather than Nestle chocolate on my finger followers

Edited by sidewayz on Friday 1st July 09:03

[Tuscanuwe]

The Pits said:

Going back to this bhp/litre issue.

Porsche are claiming a whisker under 500bhp from 4 litres in the latest (stroked) 4.0RS.

I know they have much larger resources and an RSR crank in there but I don't see anyone disputing that.

Porsche 4.0 developed and construced this 4.0 engine in nowadays with actual knowledge and materials!
Speed six design already over 12 years old!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In 1999 the Porsche GT3s had much less power!

Uwe

[DonkeyApple]

JR said:

DonkeyApple said:

That is interesting as I'm under the impression that recently it had been proven that Ravenscroft didn't make any changes within the head and that they kept it as AM had designed?

I'm sure that I've heard that the person who now owns the AM blueprints has confirmed this is the case?

You've been mis-informed. Changes were made within the head. I don't know who owns the original blueprints but I have a copy :-)

I have been told this morning that I was not mis-informed, as you alluded to, but completely mis-heard what I had been told

Technically, this doesn't make you right so I don't need to apologise?

So, if TVR did make several changes in the head, then I assume Power's upgrades revert to AM's design or have they made their own changes like RG?

[The Pits]

Tuscanuwe said:

Porsche 4.0 developed and construced this 4.0 engine in nowadays with actual knowledge and materials!
Speed six design already over 12 years old!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In 1999 the Porsche GT3s had much less power!

Uwe

Not so, its the swansong for the metzger flat six, which is nearly as ancient as the 911 itself!

[dpd3047]

Head changes are.
Smaller diameter valve stems,harder valve springs,camshafts,oil feeds, oil return feeds, head gasket, finger followers, follower shafts,head design,!!

DonkeyApple said:

I have been told this morning that I was not mis-informed, as you alluded to, but completely mis-heard what I had been told

Technically, this doesn't make you right so I don't need to apologise?

So, if TVR did make several changes in the head, then I assume Power's upgrades revert to AM's design or have they made their own changes like RG?

[sidewayz]

dpd3047 said:

Just checked my invoice. Dom forgot to mention any of that.

It does mention a new high speck crank , rods, pistons, cams ,finger followers and three angle cutis to the valve seating.

Glad I got all that free oil way work and head design changes....

He just builds them the way God and John Ravenscroft intended

[JR]

sidewayz said:

dpd3047 said:

...finger followers...

Just checked my invoice. Dom forgot to mention any of that.
It does mention ...finger followers...

[DonkeyApple]

OK.

So TVR did make noteable changes to the AM design.

Power rebuilds are to the original TVR spec, but with superior parts and paying extra attention to the build? I take it the original engines were built in Blackpool and not at Power?

Has anyone ever built one of these engines to the AM design? Is this what that arguement on PH over £30K rebuilds was all about?

And what is the story with the re-worked engine that TVR had designed but collapsed before it was put into production? Is this true and if so is it true that it was a bucket design?

[JR]

DonkeyApple said:

Has anyone ever built one of these engines to the AM design?

A few stories seem to have been muddled up here. The first engine design was a modular V12 (never built) out of that was carved the V8 (known as the AJP8) and the straight 6 (known as the AJP6)
Al Melling built three AJP6s (designed as a 3.0 and 3.6)
TVR then made changes to the AJP6 design and build and called it the Speed 6 (3.6 and 4.0) and this TVR Sp6 was then developed over the years (part quality and design, as any other engineering firm does) There is no magic cut off year for build quality.

[sidewayz]

Very true, my 04 build 3.6 was in fine fettle when I upgraded. Just missed the grunt from my old 4 L in the Tuscan S

Edited by sidewayz on Friday 1st July 15:14