RE: 250 orders for new TVR

[RobinBanks]

DonkeyApple said:

And yet the car which you claim to have been the best car you've ever owned was slung together by half cut, incompetant part timers, built out of iron oxide and powered by a U.S. engine.

This makes me snigger because it's pretty much word for word my thoughts at that point

It's a V8. It's a V8. The benefits and drawbacks of it are irrelevant. We merely have to accept that it's a V8.






It's a V8.

[HarryW]

andy43 said:

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.

Thanks for that. Interesting interview, pod cast of the full interview here https://soundcloud.com/motor-sport-magazine/sets Istream and possible new sports car (TVR) in 2017 snippets at 27m and 56m

[Some Gump]

You're 58? Surely you should have learned not to be a loon by now?

OK, we all get that you're fond of the straight 6. However, the worlds leading designers seem to disagree with you - there are no modern I6 race engines at the sharp end of any major category, and for every modern sports car with an I6 you can name, I reckon I can name an equal or better car with a different configuration (probably starting with "V").

Not that this post will make you reconsider your incredibly blinkered position, however. That the TVR name is far more linked to V8s than S6s has already been pointed out and ignored by you. That building a car with a crate engine is commercially the only possible way of having even a remote chance of success also appears irrelevant, despite you yourself arguing that the chances of a 2017 TVR are close to zero anyway.

In this instance I guess that I'll just bow down to your amazing knowledge of engineering (being so vastly superior to the great Gordon Murray that he can be dismissed as a total no hoper by comparison). The thing is though - if you really have this level of engineering nous, why in gods name would you like any Rover enough to name yourself after it? Not only are Rovers not exactly known for amazing anything, the P6 specifically was not an innovative car, and to top it off was available with a V8, but not an I6. As a result, I'm assuming you're a troll and / or a nutter and this post (like so many on PH) is just a waste of everybody's time.

[RoverP6B]

Some Gump said:

OK, we all get that you're fond of the straight 6. However, the worlds leading designers seem to disagree with you - there are no modern I6 race engines at the sharp end of any major category, and for every modern sports car with an I6 you can name, I reckon I can name an equal or better car with a different configuration (probably starting with "V").

Unfortunately, the straight-six configuration, because of its length and the associated packaging challenges, has been passed over in many cases for a V6 or V8 - however, as V8s are phased out and FWD applications go all four-pot, the straight six is returning at M-B and Jaguar. Isn't the current BMW Z4 GT3 at the sharp end of tintop racing? What of BMW 3er/M3/M4 in touring cars, DTM and GT series?

Some Gump said:

Why in gods name would you like any Rover enough to name yourself after it? Not only are Rovers not exactly known for amazing anything, the P6 specifically was not an innovative car, and to top it off was available with a V8, but not an I6.

I wasn't going to talk about my old car, but this comment is so utterly erroneous that it cannot be allowed to go uncorrected.

Rover as a brand declined significantly over its last 25 years or so, the 75 being the one light of hope towards the end. The P6, however, was a true landmark - your statement that it was not innovative could not be more untrue. Its unibody construction with all external panels being unstressed was remarkable - borrowed from the Citroen DS, but hitherto unavailable on any other mainstream car. It's a practice Audi have borrowed for the A8, R8 and also the A2. It incorporated crumple zones, a honeycomb-plastic dash designed specifically to absorb impact energy and a steering column mounted in such a way as to pull the wheel away from the driver in an impact. It had de Dion semi-independent trailing-arm rear suspension, as also used in the David Brown-era Aston Martins and also in rear-drive Alfa Romeos into the 1990s (I think! I know the 75 had it, pretty sure the Alfa 6 before it did, the Alfetta, possibly others too), which gave it excellent grip - and the tube incorporated a sliding joint which meant it wouldn't lock up like those on Alfas (and I think Aston Martins) can, which gives you snap oversteer - the Rover just had tons of grip and eventually very progressive oversteer (didn't even know the meaning of the word understeer). The front suspension, with the springs mounted horizontally on the bulkhead, connected to the wheels via drop-arms, transferring the loads straight into the massively strong firewall. The fuel tank was mounted right over the rear wheels, well away from any rear impact, and protected via massive firewalls front and rear. No, it didn't have a straight-six (except in the P7 prototype, which I think had an extended nose and an excessive propensity to understeer). I don't think you could fit one in, except perhaps one of the narrow-bore long-stroke type used in FWD Volvos (or the Porsche-designed Daewoo 2.0 straight six of a few years ago). The I4 and V8, however, did the job acceptably, and the latter was very refined for its type, such that at a steady 120mph, the loudest noise inside the cabin was the clock (and the horrendous wind roar from the recessed windscreen seal, but that's another story). It also incorporated an early variable-ratio steering box, which was very accurate, had lots of feel and endowed it both with exceptional high-speed stability and docile low-speed manners. I think it was also one of the first cars fitted as standard with anti-whiplash headrests. It abounded with little touches in design and ergonomics which made its operation, especially at night, easier than almost anything I've driven since - no two switches were shaped quite the same (so you could find them by feel even if their back-lighting failed), the dipped-beam headlight stalk was cranked to 30 degrees above the horizontal to make it easier to reach more of the time, and the running lights protruded from the top of the front wings so you could see at night precisely where the front corners of the car were. The only bad points were, it had a habit of chucking coolant overboard at the start (soon fixed with a header tank and pressure hose), the clutch was heavy, making stop-start traffic a pain, the gearbox was baulky when cold and a bit fragile for the V8's torque (broke a layshaft on reverse eventually), doing the ignition points was a bore (fixed with "Lumenition" opto-electronic ignition), the twin SU carbs needed an experienced hand to keep them in good fettle, it had no rear seatbelts (I think they were an optional extra, but the first owner of my car never used the rear seats) and eventually the rust got it (as it did so many otherwise great cars) - its mechanicals live on in some guy's P6 restoration project. 3000rpm @ 70mph in fourth (no overdrive) - it could have done with a 5-speed gearbox. It gave me eight years of reliable service, never left me stranded anywhere. As and when I move somewhere with a decent garage, I'll get another (with a 5-speed box and rear seatbelts). Don't forget, the P6 team were also responsible for the original Range Rover - a car highly feted here (and rightly so). David Bache, Charles Spencer ("Spen") King, Gordon Bashford - three truly brilliant designers/engineers.

[RoverP6B]

Enough I6s have done well enough in racing over the years to suggest it's not a bad configuration, though - not least the Bentley Speed Six, the Jaguar XK6, Maserati A6 and the BMW M30/M88/S38, S50 and S54. There was a one-make TVR race series too, think it was called the Tuscan Challenge, in which the I6 played an important part. The whole thing can be made or ruined by the crankshaft... so one definitely needs as good a crank in there as one can afford. I can't now access the Drive+ video on the Sharkwerks 997 GT3, but I remember it being mentioned that their 4.1 stroker crank was very, very expensive milled billet (and a whisker lighter than the standard factory 3.8 crank), enabling it to rev even higher than the stock engine. Given that TVR will have to go upmarket rather than chase volume, an expensive special engine rather than a bought-in Cosworth-badged F-150 unit would seem a no-brainer...

[dvs_dave]

As has been discussed at length on other threads, any I6 implementation would have to be turbocharged to meet EU6 emissions as well as power requirements of at least 450hp. There is just no engineering solution available to do it any other way and if there is I'm all ears. I'm sure BMW would be too as it would save them the considerable expense and complication of turbocharging their I6's as well.

Any business case that doesn't involve a crate V8 of some description is simply pie in the sky. Although I'm all ears if someone thinks they could make it work, as I'm sure LE would be too.

[RoverP6B]

Given that Mr Edgar is already taking deposits for a car that doesn't exist to be built in a factory that doesn't exist, I doubt he will see or hear sense. Turbocharging isn't just about emissions. Various manufacturers have proved that a powerful N/A engine can be made to meet emissions and still make outrageous power. E.G. a 3131cc Ferrari I6 (based on the LaFerrari's V12) would make 395bhp - assuming one could retain the specific output ratio, increasing that engine's 75.2mm stroke to the 92mm of the 4-litre TVR, giving 3830cc from the Ferrari's bore, that'd give an output of 483bhp (493bhp once the bore has been increased to the TVR's 96mm from Ferrari's 94mm) - admittedly the RPM would have to drop, or you'd be pushing it in terms of piston speeds - the Ferrari is pushing 4441ft/min at 9000rpm, taking the TVR I6 to 9000rpm would mean about 130fpm more than the Honda S2000 - not impossible with the right internals but probably risky. Keeping to Ferrari's piston speed would limit the TVR engine to 7350rpm, which would still give you (assuming a perfectly linear power band, which seems reasonable based on Speed Six dyno printouts I've seen) an output of 403bhp - entirely adequate for a sub-1500kg sporting tourer. All figures are rounded to the nearest integer (or multiple of ten in RPM), I'm not going into decimal places except in manufacturer's stroke figures. Given the current trend (in the push for increased economy and reduced emissions) for long-stroke engines, not revving quite so high (e.g. the BMW M4's S55B30 has an 89.6mm stroke and 84mm bore), I would have thought the 92mm-stroke TVR unit well-placed to be brought up-to-date emissions-wise. TVR Power take it up to a 100mm stroke, which would give it even more low-end torque, and they'll bore it out to 98mm too... I would love to see what could be done with that engine, because I'm sure there's more potential in it. If there's a need to reduce emissions further, and boost low-end torque, I'd prefer to see a mild plug-in hybrid a la McLaren P1 with a bit of electric-only range for pootling about town, stealthy exits from/arrivals at home, and fooling the EU test like modern turbos and hybrids do. Whether it's possible to buy hybrid tech in like it is a crate motor, I don't know... it may yet be too early for that. Clearly, developing and integrating a new hybrid setup would be heinously expensive, and packaging it in a front-engine rear-drive GT platform might be tricky...

[dvs_dave]

So a theoretical half of the V12 from the million pound laFerrari, making an I6 theoretically modified to a larger capacity might, just might squeak 400hp, is proof enough that it can be done? Riiiight...

Then assuming the whole unit in the laFerrari costs a conservative 150 grand, applying the same logic and halfing it puts a bespoke I6 version at a theoretical 75 grand? Oookaaayyy....

Tell me how this is a feasible option for a startup aiming to sell their entire car for around 75 grand, vs using a 10 grand, 500+hp emissions compliant plug and play crate V8 that comes with a 100k mile warranty?

[RoverP6B]

The same unit, detuned by 60hp, can be found in the comparatively much cheaper Ferrari F12, and detuned again another 70hp in the FF. It's produced in some numbers, and given how profitable Ferrari is (even without the merchandising crap), it would indicate costs aren't unreasonable. Edgar et al are going to get a nasty surprise if they think they can sell a Ford-engined GT for £70k. The Invicta S1 and Jensen S-V8 are salutary lessons to learn from.

Oh, and in terms of piston speeds, several much cheaper engines rev faster than the Ferrari V12. The Honda S2000 goes 524 fpm faster, and the Audi RS5 goes 735fpm faster.

Edited by RoverP6B on Tuesday 1st September 05:06

[dvs_dave]

All fine engines. But tell me how any of it relates specifically to an I6 NA configuration at a price point suitable for TVR as a startup?

This is the crux of the discussion that I've yet to see a sensible answer to.

[coppice]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Pedant alert - the Porsche 919 actually has a 2 litre V4.

Just like a Ford Corsair; or Transit . Weird.

[jamieduff1981]

RoverP6B said:

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.

That pretty much is the accepted weight of the AJP8. It's a wonderfully aggressive engine for an aggressive sportscar. It has a truely unique delivery and sound, and whilst it loves to rev it's not completely gutless low down either.

I'm a fan of the Speed Six. The Speed Six does weigh half again as much as the AJP8 though, for nominally the same power.


This whole discussion is silly. Inline 4s are a bit dull, I agree. The F-Type proves the V6 can sound great. My favourite sounding Inline 6 was actually Triumph's engine - I love it's gruff agricultural idle. I currently own a cross plane and a flat plane V8 and like them both on their own merits. The Gallardo demonstrates that a V10 can make a heartpounding soundtrack befitting a performance car and anyone who doesn't like listening to a V12 is broken.

All this crap about first and second order balancing and stuff is just that - crap. Did any sportscar owner ever care about second order vibrations? Within the subset of sportscar owners is the further subset of grinning idiots that are TVR owners who usually find that sort of thing a positive attribute of a TVR.

[teamHOLDENracing]

RoverP6B said:

Enough I6s have done well enough in racing over the years to suggest it's not a bad configuration, though - not least the Bentley Speed Six, the Jaguar XK6, Maserati A6 and the BMW M30/M88/S38, S50 and S54. There was a one-make TVR race series too, think it was called the Tuscan Challenge, in which the I6 played an important part. .

You've mentioned various race cars with I6 engines above and earlier in the thread. To set you straight:

The Tuscan Challenge cars originally used the Rover V8 and were then converted to the AJPV8
The BMW Z4 GT3 uses a V8 that was never available in the road car but is permitted as GT3 regs use a balance of performance formula. BMW chose the V8 over the road car based i8
The BMW 320si Touring Car was a 4 pot
The BMW M4 DTM uses a V8

The TVR T400 did use the i6, but it proved very difficult to make it competitive AND reliable simultaneously.

I like I8 engines (I have one in my car outside), but the format is not in favour for modern race cars.

[andy43]

RoverP6B said:

P6... Innovation...blah blah...

P6 was a steaming pile of crap, only saved by the Sweeney or whatever the black and white plod show that used the P6 was called....

Asthmatic four, boat anchor US castoff eight, and questionable styling.

Triumph 2000 - now we're talking... Lovely smooth inline sixes, sporty design, and a very svelte estate version.














Annoying isn't it

[andy43]

dvs_dave said:

All fine engines. But tell me how any of it relates specifically to an I6 NA configuration at a price point suitable for TVR as a startup?

This is the crux of the discussion that I've yet to see a sensible answer to.

We think it's v8. Tvr think its v8. The answer is clearly and irrefutably v8. Unless you're loopy.

[DonkeyApple]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It does. I suspect that the chassis/tub has been in existence some time as something Murray had already designed for his iStream process. I also suspect that Murray's existing iStream facility can produce limited numbers and that scaling the process up remotely is far simpler than a conventional line.

In addition, Les Esgar and his Surrey chums may have been working on a road car long before the TVR brand was bought. We are all assuming that he bought the brand, mulled things over for a year or so and then put a deal together recently and is starting work but in all liklihood, he, the other investors, GM et al were already planning and aiming to deliver a road car some time before the TVR brand became available.

So, I guess 2017 could be feasible in that regard. But what is interesting is that no one in the industry appears to have heard of anyone taking a job yet. So either they have been extremely good at keeping a tight lid on that side or they haven't yet employed anyone from the industry?

[DonkeyApple]

RoverP6B said:

There was a one-make TVR race series too, think it was called the Tuscan Challenge, in which the I6 played an important part.

It played absolutely no part whatsoever, at any point.

Please stop making stuff up.

[DonkeyApple]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I'm inclined to agree but if they were already a long way down the road with the car before the brand was bought (and GM has been talking about a sports car long before) then it would solve some of the question. But also, what exactly is the iStream process? For all I know it could be far quicker to set up and scale up than we think. Afterall we are thinking along the lines of the current industry and iStream is meant to be different.

The engine is the easy bit as you could have bought a Coyote unit anytime. Cosworth won't be changing its size or mounting points. Likewise with the ECU and loom, that could have been done at anytime. Steering columns and other key parts are almost certainly going to be bought in so we are left with the fabrication of things like suspension parts like wishbones, basic fixings etc, all parts which can easily be CAD designed and manufactured by existing specialists. And maybe it's all already been done by GM if project T37 pre-existed LE arriving in the scene?

So maybe there is a mule or two already out there testing air con, door seals, pile warmers etc?

I'm inclined to be sceptical like yourself but hopeful that Christmas 2017 will see new Tivs parked backwards in hedgerows across Britain.

[ORD]

In other news, the Porsche flat six is crap and sounds rubbish.

Rover lives in a special, special world. Engines that are not used at all by the huge car companies with almost infinite budgets are the perfect option for a new car being built on a budget.

[andy43]

DonkeyApple said:

RoverP6B said:

There was a one-make TVR race series too, think it was called the Tuscan Challenge, in which the I6 played an important part.

It played absolutely no part whatsoever, at any point.

Please stop making stuff up.

The Speed Six Challenge - surely you remember that?



I can hear voices.

They all say I'm special.