£12,000 to spend Tvr chimera v 911

[Jasandjules]

Non PAS is fine 90% of the time BUT when parking, you want it...... They are pretty heavy feckers to move about slowly...

[TVRJAS]

Baryonyx said:

What is the consensus on PAS in the Chimaera then? Better with, or without? Most cars where it was an option tend to polarise the argument; ie: the MX5 was always designed to have PAS and the non-assisted steering rack is slow and crap, whereas in the 106 Rallye it feels more communicative and visceral without PAS and this is preferred. Does the resulting ideal hold true for other TVR cars?

It's of mixed opinions and a personal thing.

The people I have met that don't have PS always seem to like it that way,and will tell you that's how it should be.
My personal preference is with PS(Mine has it) it's not the same PS system as you get when driving a BMW/Jag etc that you can turn the wheel with a finger. It's still very tight and when your on the move you would be hard to know that your car actually has it or not.

When coming to parking or tight spaces is where you notice it and for me I wouldn't buy one without,but this is just my preference.

I owned a V8S(4L engine) before the Chimaera and an S2 before the V8S both of which did not have PS so for me comparing is an easy decision... I much prefer for the car to have Power steering.

As said it's a personal thing and the best way round it is driving both and see what you prefer.

[TVRJAS]

village idiot said:

Let's ignore modified cars for a brief moment.

A Chim 400 is not very quick and handles crap. A Boxster 3.2s will show it a clean pair of heals on the straights and on the corners.

Model 0-60 mph Top Speed BHP
3.2 S 2d Tiptronic (99)
6.3 secs
159 mph
246 bhp
More Info
3.2 S 2d Tiptronic (01)
6.3 secs
159 mph
252 bhp
More Info
3.2 S (260bhp) 2d Tiptronic
6.2 secs
160 mph
260 bhp

Quote from...What they said at the time:
Fast Lane 1993
"Overall, this is possibly the best handling front-engined/rear-driven sports car in the world."

I think you had a bad one...Really love to know how a over 6 secs car can show the heels to a sub 5 secs car

EDITED

As we know lots of different car tests provide different figures... Autosnout gives a better time of 5.5.. That still is not going to show the heels to a Chimaera

Edited by TVRJAS on Monday 15th September 19:58

[village idiot]

TVRJAS said:

Model 0-60 mph Top Speed BHP
3.2 S 2d Tiptronic (99)
6.3 secs
159 mph
246 bhp
More Info
3.2 S 2d Tiptronic (01)
6.3 secs
159 mph
252 bhp
More Info
3.2 S (260bhp) 2d Tiptronic
6.2 secs
160 mph
260 bhp

Quote from...What they said at the time:
Fast Lane 1993
"Overall, this is possibly the best handling front-engined/rear-driven sports car in the world."

I think you had a bad one...Really love to know how a over 6 secs car can show the heels to a sub 5 secs car

I'm sorry, but if you really think a TVR Chim 400 is a sub 5.0 second car you are truly deluded.

[Jasandjules]

village idiot said:

I'm sorry, but if you really think a TVR Chim 400 is a sub 5.0 second car you are truly deluded.

I did mine at 5.1 seconds and my 5.0 at 4.5 seconds. This is "passenger" timing though.

[TVRJAS]

village idiot said:

I'm sorry, but if you really think a TVR Chim 400 is a sub 5.0 second car you are truly deluded.

I edited my last post not sure if you have seen it.

Lots of different figures are quoted on the Chimaera 400.. None are over 5.5 secs and some report 4.9

You are comparing standard cars and the % of standard cars out there now is very low.

Shame you still haven't got the Boxster as i would like to see you pull away and leave me for dust.

As said you may of had something wrong with yours... Many report lack of power and later find out they had a problem.

[village idiot]

Jasandjules said:

I did mine at 5.1 seconds and my 5.0 at 4.5 seconds. This is "passenger" timing though.

I would wager that the cars used in the original tests were not standard engines. TVR were renowned for doing this. The speedos also tend to over-read a fair bit. I stand by my suggestion that a standard 400 is no quicker than a Boxster 3.2s in a straight line and definitely slower in the corners.

[Jasandjules]

village idiot said:

I stand by my suggestion that a standard 400 is no quicker than a Boxster 3.2s in a straight line and definitely slower in the corners.

I take your point but on the roads shall we say I've not had many problems with boxsters, even the odd Ferrari....And that was the 4l. In the 5, well....

[TVRJAS]

village idiot said:

I would wager that the cars used in the original tests were not standard engines. TVR were renowned for doing this. The speedos also tend to over-read a fair bit. I stand by my suggestion that a standard 400 is no quicker than a Boxster 3.2s in a straight line and definitely slower in the corners.

But Porsche send a bog standard car to test and their speedos are 100% accurate

If a 2012 M3 can not leave me for dead then you have to understand that i'm just finding it a little odd that you tell me a Boxster is going to. I also have witness to the play with an M3... It didn't leave me for dead. Nor more recently did an M 535d 2013

But in 8,500 miles those are the only two plays i can remember having as 95% of the time I can't be bothered about the speed and get more annoyed when doing 50 in a 50 and have an Audi sitting right up my chuff

[anonymous-user]

village idiot said:

Jasandjules said:

I did mine at 5.1 seconds and my 5.0 at 4.5 seconds. This is "passenger" timing though.

I would wager that the cars used in the original tests were not standard engines. TVR were renowned for doing this. The speedos also tend to over-read a fair bit. I stand by my suggestion that a standard 400 is no quicker than a Boxster 3.2s in a straight line and definitely slower in the corners.

What mileage was yours on? Only asking as the cams wear with a noticeable power loss. Mine after a rebuild was much quicker.

[village idiot]

TVRJAS said:

But Porsche send a bog standard car to test and their speedos are 100% accurate

If a 2012 M3 can not leave me for dead then you have to understand that i'm just finding it a little odd that you tell me a Boxster is going to.

1997 Chim 400 with ageing Buick pig-iron lump up front against 2012 Bavarian uber-wagon with 414hp of high-revving v8 and a independently road-tested 0-60 in the low 4's.......... I'm oooot! Lol

Enjoy your Chim... I enjoyed mine hugely.

[Jasandjules]

Gaz. said:

£12k, 996C vs Chim, what a wonderful dilemma to have, drive both, buy on condition and enjoy either, they are both lovely cars.

Never seen the point of the VMax things meself. On the roads I'd not exactly have problems with most cars in the 4 and now in the 5, well, she's not terribly slow if she wants to go..

But yes, OP drive both, see which you prefer. If you don't "Feel" the TVR, then they are not for you.

[anonymous-user]

Jasandjules said:

Gaz. said:

£12k, 996C vs Chim, what a wonderful dilemma to have, drive both, buy on condition and enjoy either, they are both lovely cars.

Never seen the point of the VMax things meself. On the roads I'd not exactly have problems with most cars in the 4 and now in the 5, well, she's not terribly slow if she wants to go..

But yes, OP drive both, see which you prefer. If you don't "Feel" the TVR, then they are not for you.

On a sunny day with the roof down and V8 burbling there isn't anything better than a nice tiv. However I think Gaz has a point, they aren't as fast as owners think (or TVR quoted figures). I did go out in a well sorted 4.5 Cerb once though, now that was fast!

[TVRJAS]

village idiot said:

1997 Chim 400 with ageing Buick pig-iron lump up front against 2012 Bavarian uber-wagon with 414hp of high-revving v8 and a independently road-tested 0-60 in the low 4's.......... I'm oooot! Lol

Enjoy your Chim... I enjoyed mine hugely.

As said i had a passenger in my car at the time.. I know it's as hard to believe as you telling me that a Boxster is going to leave me for dead.

[bababoom]

TVRJAS said:

I can't understand with your budget that you are coming across cars like this. Most cars without PS would be Pre 95 and at your budget you should be getting into a later car. Saying that PS was an optional extra when buying new so there may be the random late car out there without.

Was it a private viewing or dealership? You never replied to what part of the country you are from.

Im in South Wales near abergavenny.
The car i went to see today was private and only 20 miles down the road, Went to have a cheeky test drive more than anything to see how they drive.
But the way the car was presented i,d be very suprised if he gets his asking price.

[TVRJAS]

Some of the recent comments coming in are what it's all about. The V8 noise the rarity and roof off driving is what I like.

The 0-60 times have always been a so what to me (Well maybe when I was 18-20 it mattered) even when debating the times of a standard car of the sub 5 secs TVR claimed and the max 5.5 secs from the various testers it's less time than we can even say those words.

All a bit pointless when you think about it.. Thanks Village for the enjoy my car bit It puts a smile on my face every time which is what driving is hopefully all about.

[TVRJAS]

bababoom said:

Im in South Wales near abergavenny.
The car i went to see today was private and only 20 miles down the road, Went to have a cheeky test drive more than anything to see how they drive.
But the way the car was presented i,d be very suprised if he gets his asking price.

Right ok bababoom... I can't really help you any further with viewing mine and answering questions you may of had at the time plus a drive out in a good one to see what their like as I'm in the Midlands

Mines not for sale by the way

[bababoom]

No worries but thanks for the offer anyway.
Just out of interest im guess low 20,s high teens but what they like on petrol?
Had a few gas guzzlers in the past just wondering if it makes much difference with the weight of a fiberglass car.

[Jasandjules]

bababoom said:

No worries but thanks for the offer anyway.
Just out of interest im guess low 20,s high teens but what they like on petrol?
Had a few gas guzzlers in the past just wondering if it makes much difference with the weight of a fiberglass car.

4.0 - 22 or so average, 25-28 on a run at times. But if you are a bit enthusiastic (putting Boxsters behind you ) then I've got 8mpg out of a full tank before now....

[g7jhp]

996 C2 Cab

BMW Z4M Roadster

Jaguar XKR