RE: 250 orders for new TVR
Discussion
I do find our friend P6B's adherence to straight six powered TVRs quite extraordinary . Anybody can have a favourite - and that's fine - but to suggest the straight six is the One True Way in the sports car world is nonsense, unless one employs the trick of narrowing definitions to suit the argument, such as the bizarre(and totally incorrect ) assertion that a Cobra is a muscle car.
TVRs founded their reputation in the 60s using 4 and 8 cylinder engines ; the original Griffith probably did more than any other model to establish the company's reputation for producing hairy sports cars. The 70s saw 4s straight (from Triumph ) and V (from Ford ) 6s, then moving onto V8s for the attention grabbing wedge cars. The V8 Griffith reinvented the brand , and subsequent models - with 6 and 8 cylinders - built on that reputation .
TVRs have used a huge variety of engines over the years and their DNA is far more complex than straight six power and great looks . I look forward to the next iteration with interest and shall be just as happy with 6, 8 , 10 or 12 cylinders. 5 might be fun but 4 might be a little commonplace and lacking aural delights. A personal thing of course but to my hearing a fit V8 sounds even better than a six;and by 'fit' I mean the sort of power you find in the back of a Lola T70 - a Chevy sounds so much nicer than the horrid noise made by current Ferrari V8s(so we can agree on one thing then ). But a V12 sounds even nicer...
TVRs founded their reputation in the 60s using 4 and 8 cylinder engines ; the original Griffith probably did more than any other model to establish the company's reputation for producing hairy sports cars. The 70s saw 4s straight (from Triumph ) and V (from Ford ) 6s, then moving onto V8s for the attention grabbing wedge cars. The V8 Griffith reinvented the brand , and subsequent models - with 6 and 8 cylinders - built on that reputation .
TVRs have used a huge variety of engines over the years and their DNA is far more complex than straight six power and great looks . I look forward to the next iteration with interest and shall be just as happy with 6, 8 , 10 or 12 cylinders. 5 might be fun but 4 might be a little commonplace and lacking aural delights. A personal thing of course but to my hearing a fit V8 sounds even better than a six;and by 'fit' I mean the sort of power you find in the back of a Lola T70 - a Chevy sounds so much nicer than the horrid noise made by current Ferrari V8s(so we can agree on one thing then ). But a V12 sounds even nicer...
RoverP6B said:
I'd imagine the tooling is in the hands of the specialists still building these engines, new blocks and all... Wheeler saved TVR from otherwise inevitable oblivion c.1990 and was continuing to bring interesting new products on the market, and that Scamander concept was/is brilliant... Smolensky was an idiot who wrecked a viable business (even if it needed some restructuring). I don't see any evidence to suggest that Edgar etc have a credible plan to revive it.
You don't actually 'see' anything. That is a given. As for TVR being viable when it was sold that is just farcical and has since been proven totally wrong.
And no one is building new S6 engines. The only work that is going on is rebuilding off old blocks. Tooling is long gone.
Why do you persist in making assertions about a subject that you genuinely know absolutely nothing about?
interloper said:
Sure sixes are great for many reasons but V8s are easier to package and available off the shelf, to my knowledge there are no N/A straight sixes in mass production that would suit this application.
s.
There is one... the 4.0 found in the Ford Falcon.s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Falcon_(Austral...
Soon to be out of production however and replaced by the Mondeo and Mustang, with V6 and V8 power respectively.
Edited by skyrover on Monday 31st August 17:16
RoverP6B said:
I'd imagine the tooling is in the hands of the specialists still building these engines, new blocks and all... Wheeler saved TVR from otherwise inevitable oblivion c.1990 and was continuing to bring interesting new products on the market, and that Scamander concept was/is brilliant... Smolensky was an idiot who wrecked a viable business (even if it needed some restructuring). I don't see any evidence to suggest that Edgar etc have a credible plan to revive it.
Help me to understand, according to your PH profile, you hav never owned a TVR, so how can you compare.Are you likely to ever buy a new one? If no, with what authority do you post, as you have seemingly never ever owned any TVR ?
robertdover said:
Cant wait for mine to arrive, leap of faith it may be, but what a leap it will be.
I know some of the investors and from what I've seen internally its a promising product!
For now, my Golf R arrives next month and I will have to enjoy blatting that around until this beast arrives ;-)
For those who have taken the plunge, it'll be a great couple of years waiting. I'm definitely envious but with two Young children, no two seater would ever get used. I know some of the investors and from what I've seen internally its a promising product!
For now, my Golf R arrives next month and I will have to enjoy blatting that around until this beast arrives ;-)
coppice said:
I do find our friend P6B's adherence to straight six powered TVRs quite extraordinary . Anybody can have a favourite - and that's fine - but to suggest the straight six is the One True Way in the sports car world is nonsense, unless one employs the trick of narrowing definitions to suit the argument, such as the bizarre(and totally incorrect ) assertion that a Cobra is a muscle car.
TVRs founded their reputation in the 60s using 4 and 8 cylinder engines ; the original Griffith probably did more than any other model to establish the company's reputation for producing hairy sports cars. The 70s saw 4s straight (from Triumph ) and V (from Ford ) 6s, then moving onto V8s for the attention grabbing wedge cars. The V8 Griffith reinvented the brand , and subsequent models - with 6 and 8 cylinders - built on that reputation .
TVRs have used a huge variety of engines over the years and their DNA is far more complex than straight six power and great looks . I look forward to the next iteration with interest and shall be just as happy with 6, 8 , 10 or 12 cylinders. 5 might be fun but 4 might be a little commonplace and lacking aural delights. A personal thing of course but to my hearing a fit V8 sounds even better than a six; and by 'fit' I mean the sort of power you find in the back of a Lola T70 - a Chevy sounds so much nicer than the horrid noise made by current Ferrari V8s(so we can agree on one thing then ). But a V12 sounds even nicer...
The Cobra is a muscle car. It was only a sports car when called Ace and fitted with a straight-six. The moment Carroll Shelby put a sodding big V8 on that chassis, turning it into a power monster, it ceased to be a sports car. Look at the alternatives to the straight six: a four-cylinder is unbalanced and rather ordinary, and too small to make the required power. A V6 is also unbalanced, although better than an I4. Either of them requires balancer shafts to make them smoothish, which adds powertrain inertia and robs throttle response. A V8 is big, heavy, complex and still unbalanced, and requires a heavy counterweighted crank (if you go the crossplane route) or balancer shafts (if you choose a flat-plane crank). With the crossplane, you've got the problem of adjacent cylinders firing consecutively, which causes the exhaust pulses from those cylinders to hit each other in the manifold, causing back pressure and basically strangling the engine. If you choose a flat-plane crank, you then get uneven torque delivery throughout each crank revolution, which isn't nice - it makes the engine sound and feel rough. To my knowledge, nobody has ever put a flat-six in a front-mid-engined configuration - in fact, unless anyone knows better, I think the Toyota GT86 is the only car ever to have a front-mid horizontally-opposed engine. A V10 is somewhat better than a V8 in that you get more than one firing per bank per revolution (the same goes for I5s versus I4s), but a straight-six has none of these drawbacks. A V12 has many of the good points of a straight-six, but, if you maintain the optimal cylinder size, the V12 will end up delivering far more power than most cars need, which is why they are reserved for the ultimate hypercars and limousines.TVRs founded their reputation in the 60s using 4 and 8 cylinder engines ; the original Griffith probably did more than any other model to establish the company's reputation for producing hairy sports cars. The 70s saw 4s straight (from Triumph ) and V (from Ford ) 6s, then moving onto V8s for the attention grabbing wedge cars. The V8 Griffith reinvented the brand , and subsequent models - with 6 and 8 cylinders - built on that reputation .
TVRs have used a huge variety of engines over the years and their DNA is far more complex than straight six power and great looks . I look forward to the next iteration with interest and shall be just as happy with 6, 8 , 10 or 12 cylinders. 5 might be fun but 4 might be a little commonplace and lacking aural delights. A personal thing of course but to my hearing a fit V8 sounds even better than a six; and by 'fit' I mean the sort of power you find in the back of a Lola T70 - a Chevy sounds so much nicer than the horrid noise made by current Ferrari V8s(so we can agree on one thing then ). But a V12 sounds even nicer...
While TVR have used various engines over the years, they were chosen mainly on the basis of them being cheap, already developed and readily available, not because they were actually any good. The various I4s and V6s TVR used over its first 20 years or so (and I nearly bought one of them off a colleague in the late 70s) were a bunch of total and utter duds, which is why they're so commonly used to swap more modern units into (for example, the fish-face Scorpio 2.9 Cosworth 24V is a very popular swap). The wedges were mainly Ford-powered, initially the 3-litre Essex boat-anchor, later the 2.8 Cologne, which was horribly unreliable - I seem to recall certain crucial parts of the valvetrain being made of nylon. The Rover V8s were much nicer, and with the bespoke big-valve heads, TVR were moving in the right direction (albeit with an unfortunate diversion into the rough 75-degree flat-plane AJP V8) - but it was with the straight six that they really got going. The early reliability problems were unfortunate but also much overstated - enough owners here reported their examples being trouble-free. The Tuscan and Sagaris were utterly fabulous cars. They still look amazing today, haven't dated in the slightest, and the noise... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0uzHiNYnds
(BTW, can anyone help me embed video? I've tried the
embed codething, it doesn't appear to work)
DonkeyApple said:
You don't actually 'see' anything. That is a given. As for TVR being viable when it was sold that is just farcical and has since been proven totally wrong. And no one is building new S6 engines. The only work that is going on is rebuilding off old blocks. Tooling is long gone. Why do you persist in making assertions about a subject that you genuinely know absolutely nothing about?
TVR were selling cars, had a brand image and cachet that was the envy of many, their products were hugely desirable. Lawrence Tomlinson had agreed to buy the firm, believing it to be viable, and he is clearly nobody's fool. As for the new engines, I contacted one of the specialist builders a while ago while in a flight of fancy about a project I was then unable to pursue - I was informed that they had tooling to cast new blocks, with secondhand blocks often coming with nasty jagged holes in them. Now, a decade or so on, the brand cachet is gone, and this new start-up has yet to show even a concept car or test mule, has yet to choose a site for a factory, and is promising customer cars two years from now? Come off it. Barring a minor miracle, this will go down as yet another great British sports car start-up/revival that takes a load of money then disappears without ever bringing a product to market.chris watton said:
Help me to understand, according to your PH profile, you hav never owned a TVR, so how can you compare. Are you likely to ever buy a new one? If no, with what authority do you post, as you have seemingly never ever owned any TVR ?
Nearly bought one in 1979/1980 (forget exactly when), but the handling, crap Ford engine and then-woeful build quality put me off. Stuck with my Cortina for a bit, then inherited my father's Capri (both were awful) and then in 1984 got my P6 and never looked back.Some Gump said:
Is this Rover kid a loon or what?
FYI I'm 58. Some "kid".skyrover said:
The 4.0 found in the Ford Falcon
New straight sixes from Jaguar and Mercedes-Benz imminent, although whether N/A or forced induction (and if the latter, S/C or turbo?) has yet to be made clear. Also, don't get me going on the death of the native Aussie rear-drive saloon - a whole other rant for another time, another day, another thread.Some Gump said:
Is this Rover kid a loon or what?
Yes. And he will talk with authority about his own made up facts and information to suit his agenda, no matter how outlandish or fantastical. He will ever admit to being wrong. Instead will ignore, delay, or just tell taller and taller tales to try and deflect the situation. He has not owned, nor ever will own a TVR, but continues to delude himself that he is some sort of authority on the topic, and that his opinion is the only correct one. Classic Narcissist. The sooner you resist the urge to respond to his ocean going bulls
t the better.dvs_dave said:
Some Gump said:
Is this Rover kid a loon or what?
Yes. And he will talk with authority about his own made up facts and information to suit his agenda, no matter how outlandish or fantastical. He will ever admit to being wrong. Instead will ignore, delay, or just tell taller and taller tales to try and deflect the situation. He has not owned, nor ever will own a TVR, but continues to delude himself that he is some sort of authority on the topic, and that his opinion is the only correct one. Classic Narcissist. The sooner you resist the urge to respond to his ocean going bullst the better.t.skyrover said:
The I6 holds no weight advantage over a comparable V8. Indeed the TVR straight 6 engine weighed around 180kg, an LS2 crossplane V8 weighs around 190kg. The AJP flatplane V8 weighed 121kg.
It's not simply a matter of the major castings: it's particularly the moving parts, and the inherent inertia thereof. An I6 is, in that respect, at a significant advantage to a V8: while its block and head may be heavier than a V8's (and don't forget, the LS's principal weight and bulk advantage is in being OHV, which is also that engine's primary downfall in terms of making it rev), it more than compensates in its ability to respond instantaneously and rev to kingdom come. In terms of a modern N/A quad-cam V8, the M-B AMG M156 weighs about 200kg. Quite how the AJP managed to get its weight lower than many an I4 I'd like to know. I wouldn't be surprised if that was a bare block and heads weight, no ancillaries, possibly no internals.Edited by RoverP6B on Monday 31st August 21:30
The advantage of the I6 is low RPM torque, it does not lend itself well to high rpm's due to the length of the crank.
Of course this can be engineered out, just like your argument that the V8 is too complex.
Both designs have advantages and disadvantages, but generally speaking in terms of power, packaging and performance the V8 comes out on top.
Of course this can be engineered out, just like your argument that the V8 is too complex.
Both designs have advantages and disadvantages, but generally speaking in terms of power, packaging and performance the V8 comes out on top.
For crying out loud. It's getting a V8.
To be blunt, a Speed Six won't sell, regardless of how improved it is - the damage has been done. Lancia left years ago because of a rep they couldn't shake, and being honest the Speed Six is kind of in the same boat - regardless of the current re-engineered motors.
It won't pass Euro emissions.
It will cost too much.
It isn't plug and play.
One snide comment from a Top Gear presenter and the old reliability stuff will re-surface, whether the 2017 six has a million mile warranty or not. Great engine, but for me, it needs to be a V8.
Cossy V8 – but is it definitely a Ford? They’ve hotrodded a few V8s – Audi for one. I reckon it’ll be a US unit though, bulletproof 100,000 mile reliability, easy bolt-on good value power upgrades already developed in the US, and the ancillaries already set up and placed for a longitudinal/rear wheel drive layout. The Mustang has traction control, launch control etc – like existing crate motors you will be able to order the whole caboodle from Ford, shrinkwrapped on a pallet - gearbox, engine, ECU, loom, the lot, just plug and play. TVR’s DNA does dictate a manual gearbox, but look at Ferrari/Aston etc – do Ferrari even do a manual now? The ZF 8 speed Harris keeps harping on about would probably be an easy fit high performance solution if the Playstation generation would prefer a flappy paddles option. Add in a sport button or two, and a TT driver looking for an upgrade for example will be quite happy.
And I reckon the 2017 date is possible. I really doubt that TVR are anywhere near starting this process - from 18 months ago, this interview with Murray suggests TVR have been plotting with GMD for a while (fun to drive 2017 sportscar anyone?), probably since 2013 when LE announced he’d bought the company, or even before that – so TVRs suggested timescale might not be out of the question. Says on here that Alfa took 3 years for the 4C – TVR will have more time, probably more enthusiasm and far fewer steps in the decision making process, a shedload of cash, plus they’re probably skipping the public concept car stage (rightly or wrongly) and going straight for production – hope they do do some customer focus groups etc, rather than relying on the old TVR’s ‘build it and they will come’.
I’d have thought the iStream method of production is secondary to Murray’s Mclaren experience in chassis, packaging etc, although iStream does sound like an ideal concept – less parts, less time, less factory space and so on.
Welding up some steel tube and piss-poor-powdercoating it might not be a bad idea depending on production volumes – and how easy is it to get the essential convertible using the iStream folded metal system?
Getting a big hitter in to develop and sign off the chassis would be a plus – getting a Button or a Hamilton’s (not Neil) name on things in conjunction with Ohlins for example would round the big names list off nicely.
The new TVR – by Gordon Murray, Cosworth, Ohlins, Lewis Hamilton – how
?
Keep the shape simple, more 90's than Sagaris, clean lines not too outlandish, Aston not GT3. The appearance of the Mclaren F1 was down to Peter Stevens, not Murray - it’ll be interesting to find out whose name will be on the TVR body design sketches.
It's very british to knock things, but the return of a TVR designed and built in the UK is something that should be celebrated not picked to bits when the details aren't yet fully known. If I had the money for a deposit I'd be tempted. If I had the TVR boards money I'd like to think I'd get out there and create something special. But I probably wouldn't have the balls to do it - good luck to 'em.
And call it a Griffith. TVR V8 heritage right back to the sixties.
To be blunt, a Speed Six won't sell, regardless of how improved it is - the damage has been done. Lancia left years ago because of a rep they couldn't shake, and being honest the Speed Six is kind of in the same boat - regardless of the current re-engineered motors.
It won't pass Euro emissions.
It will cost too much.
It isn't plug and play.
One snide comment from a Top Gear presenter and the old reliability stuff will re-surface, whether the 2017 six has a million mile warranty or not. Great engine, but for me, it needs to be a V8.
Cossy V8 – but is it definitely a Ford? They’ve hotrodded a few V8s – Audi for one. I reckon it’ll be a US unit though, bulletproof 100,000 mile reliability, easy bolt-on good value power upgrades already developed in the US, and the ancillaries already set up and placed for a longitudinal/rear wheel drive layout. The Mustang has traction control, launch control etc – like existing crate motors you will be able to order the whole caboodle from Ford, shrinkwrapped on a pallet - gearbox, engine, ECU, loom, the lot, just plug and play. TVR’s DNA does dictate a manual gearbox, but look at Ferrari/Aston etc – do Ferrari even do a manual now? The ZF 8 speed Harris keeps harping on about would probably be an easy fit high performance solution if the Playstation generation would prefer a flappy paddles option. Add in a sport button or two, and a TT driver looking for an upgrade for example will be quite happy.
And I reckon the 2017 date is possible. I really doubt that TVR are anywhere near starting this process - from 18 months ago, this interview with Murray suggests TVR have been plotting with GMD for a while (fun to drive 2017 sportscar anyone?), probably since 2013 when LE announced he’d bought the company, or even before that – so TVRs suggested timescale might not be out of the question. Says on here that Alfa took 3 years for the 4C – TVR will have more time, probably more enthusiasm and far fewer steps in the decision making process, a shedload of cash, plus they’re probably skipping the public concept car stage (rightly or wrongly) and going straight for production – hope they do do some customer focus groups etc, rather than relying on the old TVR’s ‘build it and they will come’.
I’d have thought the iStream method of production is secondary to Murray’s Mclaren experience in chassis, packaging etc, although iStream does sound like an ideal concept – less parts, less time, less factory space and so on.
Welding up some steel tube and piss-poor-powdercoating it might not be a bad idea depending on production volumes – and how easy is it to get the essential convertible using the iStream folded metal system?
Getting a big hitter in to develop and sign off the chassis would be a plus – getting a Button or a Hamilton’s (not Neil) name on things in conjunction with Ohlins for example would round the big names list off nicely.
The new TVR – by Gordon Murray, Cosworth, Ohlins, Lewis Hamilton – how
?Keep the shape simple, more 90's than Sagaris, clean lines not too outlandish, Aston not GT3. The appearance of the Mclaren F1 was down to Peter Stevens, not Murray - it’ll be interesting to find out whose name will be on the TVR body design sketches.
It's very british to knock things, but the return of a TVR designed and built in the UK is something that should be celebrated not picked to bits when the details aren't yet fully known. If I had the money for a deposit I'd be tempted. If I had the TVR boards money I'd like to think I'd get out there and create something special. But I probably wouldn't have the balls to do it - good luck to 'em.
And call it a Griffith. TVR V8 heritage right back to the sixties.
RoverP6B said:
The Cobra is a muscle car. It was only a sports car when called Ace and fitted with a straight-six. The moment Carroll Shelby put a sodding big V8 on that chassis, turning it into a power monster, it ceased to be a sports car.
Only in your opinion! The general consensus seems to be it was a pivotal sports car and a Ferrari beating Le Mans winner to boot.RoverP6B said:
New straight sixes from Jaguar and Mercedes-Benz imminent
I would be a bit surprised if that is true, packaging is an issue more than ever, especially with pedestrain crash regs. You need space in front of the engine. I4s, V6s, and V8s give you that, straight sixes are falling out of favoiur due to the additional length of the block.Also you may wish to ask Riccardo, mercedes, Ferrari etc what they think about V8s before deciding that they are basically rubbish!
RoverP6B said:
TVR were selling cars, had a brand image and cachet that was the envy of many
True but, they were also losing money hand over fist, turn over is vanity, profit is......?
Do you need your own dealer net work if you sell in small numbers?
I don't know what they have in mind but consider this. There are lots of specialist garages up and down the country who deal with say Lotus, Morgan and possibly Caterham, even ex TVR garages! These people would no doubt like the additional business, I dont see this as a problem so TVR pick carefully.
I don't know what they have in mind but consider this. There are lots of specialist garages up and down the country who deal with say Lotus, Morgan and possibly Caterham, even ex TVR garages! These people would no doubt like the additional business, I dont see this as a problem so TVR pick carefully.
RoverP6B said:
Just to pick up on the 4C comparison before I go get dinner - Alfa had a factory and a dealer network before they designed it.
As above, apart from some TVR signs and brochures, and a Mustang workshop manual, the dealer network is ready and waiting.Factory : iStream website is worth a read - all the positives it lists compared to conventional production may be pie in the sky but there must be some truth in it? http://www.istreamtechnology.co.uk/1/Low_Cost.html
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff