RE: 250 orders for new TVR
Discussion
There seemed to be conversation in the TVR section reckoning it could be the Mustang engine - whether that or the LS, they're both great engines, fully EU compliant and ready to go at sensible money.
Linked to before but still awesome... Mustang at Goodwood
Linked to before but still awesome... Mustang at Goodwood
RoverP6B said:
That's subjective. What isn't subjective is that the combination of flat crank and 75-degree bank angle made it far from smooth. Its ability to rev is severely constrained by the unbalanced configuration, uneven torque delivery and less-than-ideal bank angle.
I am well aware it was posted in jest, please stop feeling the need to 'educate' everyone, your post style really is 1000 words to each point, 990 of which are lectures, often full of horse s
t. A wall of words does nothing to your credibility, it's doesn't make you appear more insightful or educated, just more desperate to be seen as someone erudite and educated, as does your constant references to this and that you did or heard or knew. My experience of forums is they are littered with all sorts. You could find the person you are arguing with designed the P6..for example and he/she is laughing at you as you seek to educate them on their designs...
Edited by Housey on Tuesday 1st September 21:21
dvs_dave said:
RobinBanks said:
I'm trying to work out what the point of debating straight 6s is anyway. There are good and bad straight 6s. There are good and bad V8s.
That's all irrelevant because the engine in question WILL BE a V8 according to the best sources we have for it.
There is only one person hell bent on it, and he keeps loudly making his fantastical points and derailing the discussion on all threads concerning the new TVR. He's either a damn good troll, or a nut job.That's all irrelevant because the engine in question WILL BE a V8 according to the best sources we have for it.
Lotus E300S said:
Fantastic, why couldn't they get it to work?
Three main issues. The inhouse deaigned and built sequential box locked a couple of times in 3rd. The supercharger generated too much heat to get rid of. The third issue is that by 2003 all the factory resources were being used in rebuilding all the engines that were coming back and then by 2005 the T racing program was being wound down as the company was losing money and unlike the Tuscan Challenge the T400 program wasn't profitable. Some of the T400 team continued to work on the Typhon project in their own time but a decade ago there just weren't the easy solutions we have now. When I recommissioned the car a couple of years ago I could have easily installed a Quaife sequential and used Spal ceramic fans run off the ECU to manage the temperature better.
When TVR finally costed the T440 they arrived at a price of £135k with a £20k odd premium for the sequential unit!!!
As I wanted to use the car as just a road car I used a high torque manual box instead as a sequential is awful. At the same time I opted for the non finger follower FFF head for the engine and along with some other enhancements I didn't bother with the SC as to date no one has made an FI system work reliably on an S6 and this was to be a family car.
What's interesting about the car is that it feels like a TVR throughout but it drives like no other TVR. The chassis is rock solid with no twist and it makes a massive difference. The new TVR will be the same and it'll be hugely capable. The cosworth V8 will have a lot more power than my engine and I suspect it will be staggeringly quick. It'll be really interesting to see it up against the Evora as I suspect that the gap between the two brands will transpire to have narrowed considerably as Lotus have been adding big BHP a la TVR and this new TVR should add a lot of handling over old TIVs, a la Lotus.
Lotus E300S said:
No doubting it's a great engine but just can't see Brits paying £85,000 for a LS TVR.
It's an amazing unit. Truly great. And I agree that I cannot see anyone paying big bucks for an LS engined relaunched TVR. Just too much social stigma to that engine. Ford on the other hand, has so much prime Motorsport history tied in with British Motorsport history that a power plant built to basically do exactly the same as the LS series doesn't have that 'cheap' stigma. Strange world but TVR need to play the right cards and the LS catagorically isn't one of them.
m3jappa said:
I think apart from hardcore enthusiasts people wouldn't even know what an ls engine is. As long as it goes well, is reliable and has warranty that's what they will want.
To be honest, no one who spends near £100k on a car wants to be telling people it's a Chevy engine under the bonnet. But if they can say it's a Cosworth then maybe the problem goes away. DonkeyApple said:
To be honest, no one who spends near £100k on a car wants to be telling people it's a Chevy engine under the bonnet. But if they can say it's a Cosworth then maybe the problem goes away.
Apparently it will "be powered by a unique, hugely powerful Cosworth V8 engine".Edited by Monty Python on Tuesday 1st September 22:00
Edited by Monty Python on Tuesday 1st September 22:01
Monty Python said:
DonkeyApple said:
To be honest, no one who spends near £100k on a car wants to be telling people it's a Chevy engine under the bonnet. But if they can say it's a Cosworth then maybe the problem goes away.
Apparently it will "be powered by a unique, hugely powerful Cosworth V8 engine]
as good as a LS is in its own right I don't see how much longer you can make a single cam push rod arrangement of over 6ltrs compliant. The variable quad cam of a base Ford lump is technically far far superior and more in keeping with a new car.
celicawrc said:
Link?
Sounds very interesting if true? Jag's first straight 6 since the mighty XK6?
Both have been planning I6s to replace their 'stopgap' V6 units which were always a quick fix as they were based on the existing V8 designs and could be built on the same lines. As premium brands they have wanted to move away from the V6 and as large, RWD cars they can use the perceived more prestigious I6 as they don't have the packaging issues that FWD, cheaper cars have which is why the sub brands have traditionally tended to use the V6 design for their top end products. Sounds very interesting if true? Jag's first straight 6 since the mighty XK6?
It'll be interesting to see what sort of CC they plan but I assume it'll be well over 3L in order to get the power outputs needed without FI being ludicrous. I'm wildly guessing at 4L and able to push out 500bhp. I don't think there are any actual details at this stage though and no idea when/if they'll appear but it seems to have been on the cards since at least 2013.
I think any new breed of I6 engines will be based of I4 variants and share as many components as possible to save costs. So it's logical to assume a 2.0 I4 will spawn a 3.0 I6. V8 variants will be 4.0 and use the two I4 heads, and a V12 would be 6.0 and use two I6 heads. Forced induction applied accordingly (Precious few NA engines these days) and you have a whole family of modular engines where in essence the only major component differences are the blocks and cranks for each variant.
Anyway, we digress. As it stands, unless it's specifically designed to, it's unlikely that the new TVR will even be able to accommodate an I6 due to its length over a V8. So I'd be very suprised to ever see an I6 offered before a detuned version of the V8 for a possible entry level model.
Anyway, we digress. As it stands, unless it's specifically designed to, it's unlikely that the new TVR will even be able to accommodate an I6 due to its length over a V8. So I'd be very suprised to ever see an I6 offered before a detuned version of the V8 for a possible entry level model.
braddo said:
It clearly fking isn't, because the majority of racing engines appear to be V8s and inline 4s!
You won't find many I4s in racing. BTCC is the only major series I can think of using them, and that's a far shadow of what it once was.king isn't, because the majority of racing engines appear to be V8s and inline 4s!dvs_dave said:
That doesn't answer the question. Again the question is; how do you propose a competitive and compliant I6 NA engine be delivered at a price point workable for TVR as a startup aiming to release a sub 75 grand car?
And as a reminder, the following is a quote from LE in a Top Gear interview:
"We knew if we revived the Speed Six - and we looked at doing so - it wouldn’t last long in terms of emissions demands. So we had to base our engine on a block that would be ultra reliable,"
Please elaborate what you know about the Speed Six, and existing NA I6's in general that LE and his team, inclusive of Cosworth, don't?
This whole idea that a Ford Modular V8-engined British-built GT can be sold profitably for £75k is nonsense. The Jensen S-V8 and the Invicta both proved that point. Edgar's quote here does not mention that Ricardo had stated that the Speed Six could be made emissions-compliant with a one-off update costing 4 or 5 million quid (forget the precise figure). What I know about the Speed Six is that it has an inherently superior configuration to the Coyote and it's been comprehensively sorted by the likes of TVR Power into what it should have been to start with, is capable of producing well north of 100bhp/litre without forced induction... Cosworth (a) haven't built a good engine in ages and (b) will be making minimal tweaks to the Coyote then slapping their badge on it...And as a reminder, the following is a quote from LE in a Top Gear interview:
"We knew if we revived the Speed Six - and we looked at doing so - it wouldn’t last long in terms of emissions demands. So we had to base our engine on a block that would be ultra reliable,"
Please elaborate what you know about the Speed Six, and existing NA I6's in general that LE and his team, inclusive of Cosworth, don't?
dvs_dave said:
I think any new breed of I6 engines will be based of I4 variants and share as many components as possible to save costs. So it's logical to assume a 2.0 I4 will spawn a 3.0 I6.
Obviously. All straight sixes are either I4-based or have spawned or could spawn an I4 variant. Jaguar evaluated an XK6-based I4 in the late 1940s before writing it off as too unrefined. The economies of scale available from each configuration sharing the same piston, rod and valve-train design, with only the block and head castings and the crank and camshafts being unique to each type, are too great to ignore. Given that a V8 must have one bank's bores offset relative to another so as to accommodate eight con-rods on the crankshaft, an I6 wouldn't be 50% longer.celicawrc said:
Link? Sounds very interesting if true? Jag's first straight 6 since the mighty XK6?
No, don't forget the V12-derived AJ6 in the XJ40/X300 and later entry-level XJSs.http://gtspirit.com/2015/05/02/jaguar-to-replace-v...
http://jalopnik.com/looks-like-mercedes-inline-six...
What I don't get about the M-B article is it says 2.9 litre twin-turbo, 313hp? It's not hard to get 108bhp/litre without forced induction, so I'd really be expecting something closer to 400bhp if one has to use turbocharging.
RoverP6B said:
What I don't get about the M-B article is it says 2.9 litre twin-turbo, 313hp? It's not hard to get 108bhp/litre without forced induction, so I'd really be expecting something closer to 400bhp if one has to use turbocharging.
It is very hard! This seems to be your confusion. Getting over 100bhp/litre from a NA engine that is (a) cheap to produce and (b) compliant with emissions rules is very difficult. Look at the 100bhp +/litre NA engines kicking about in EU cars. Most are pretty exotic and expensive.
HarryW said:
Monty Python said:
DonkeyApple said:
To be honest, no one who spends near £100k on a car wants to be telling people it's a Chevy engine under the bonnet. But if they can say it's a Cosworth then maybe the problem goes away.
Apparently it will "be powered by a unique, hugely powerful Cosworth V8 engine]
as good as a LS is in its own right I don't see how much longer you can make a single cam push rod arrangement of over 6ltrs compliant. The variable quad cam of a base Ford lump is technically far far superior and more in keeping with a new car.
Car said:
The revived TVR plans a range of vehicles 'in the tradition of classic British two-seat sports cars with a composite ground-effect aero chassis.' That points to a roadsters and coupes in the spirit of the defunct Sagaris and Tuscan, but updated with more modern engineering. Rear-wheel drive, a simple manual transmission and non-turbo, dry-sumped V8s made by Northamptonshire-based Cosworth are already confirmed.
The company has already spent a year developing its plans and has appointed design consultant Gordon Murray to work on the project. His innovative iStream manufacturing system will underpin the new, low-volume TVRs, which will be built in the UK. It's unlikely they'll be built in Blackpool; the current engineering prototypes are being developed near Murray's Surrey base.
The company has already spent a year developing its plans and has appointed design consultant Gordon Murray to work on the project. His innovative iStream manufacturing system will underpin the new, low-volume TVRs, which will be built in the UK. It's unlikely they'll be built in Blackpool; the current engineering prototypes are being developed near Murray's Surrey base.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff