RE: New TVR - the car
Discussion
Gorbyrev said:
But hang on - 3 pages in and no-one is making a big noise about the powerplant! My understanding is that Ford used a 458 engine to help with development for the flat plane crank V8. The development budget for this engine will be an order of magnitude more than TVR's entire pot. The GT350 is one of the best cars we can't currently buy in the UK. This is the engine that will be fettled by Cosworth. I salute you sirs for your savvy choice of engine and giving this peach of a powerplant a chance to power something exotic.
The GT350R is one of my favourite new cars, if the engine is anything like that one, let alone better, I'll be a massive fan. Hope they hurry up and release an auto/paddle shift so I can buy one
I'd be interested to know the answer to,
Clearly something is going to have to be spectacularly light to get the car down to the weight of an Exige S.
- 1,200 kg target weight
- Minus the weight of the Ford engine and driveline (from engine to road wheels)
- How much weight remains available to build the rest of the TVR?
Clearly something is going to have to be spectacularly light to get the car down to the weight of an Exige S.
DonkeyApple said:
Byker28i said:
s2000db said:
How are they going to corrosion proof this chassis, powder coating again?
I should imagine the treatments possible have moved on a lot since the original power coated chassis, which lasted 18 years on my CerberaI really can't see that kind of behaviour happening again. And many little TVR niggles were a result of moronic staff and staff practices and corner cutting on the buying side.
It's hard to imagine the relaunch will be hiring the kind of manager who is so thick or lazy as to leave bare metal chassis to rust before prepping them. Plus, you get the impression that LE will give a s
t about his customers unlike PW who just didn't. Ozzie Osmond said:
I'd be interested to know the answer to,
Clearly something is going to have to be spectacularly light to get the car down to the weight of an Exige S.
Make it a bit smaller and use lighter materials? - 1,200 kg target weight
- Minus the weight of the Ford engine and driveline (from engine to road wheels)
- How much weight remains available to build the rest of the TVR?
Clearly something is going to have to be spectacularly light to get the car down to the weight of an Exige S.
Shouldn't be too hard to get it notably lighter than a Mustang just by merit of being smaller and with less metal and trimmings etc. Getting it to match an Exige? I think it's fair to label that as bullish but my car is lighter than an Exige and they don't seem to be proposing building anything that is any larger or containing more metal. When I look at it that way I find myself asking why the Exige is so heavy?
Ozzie Osmond said:
I'd be interested to know the answer to,
Clearly something is going to have to be spectacularly light to get the car down to the weight of an Exige S.
Composite body panels and a tubular chassis with composite reinforcement structure shaves a huge amount of weight off before you start with things like ditching heavy infotainment, simpler wiring, simpler dash, lighter seats/carpets/sound insulation etc.- 1,200 kg target weight
- Minus the weight of the Ford engine and driveline (from engine to road wheels)
- How much weight remains available to build the rest of the TVR?
Clearly something is going to have to be spectacularly light to get the car down to the weight of an Exige S.
Personally I'd be surprised if they can't get it down to that weight.
Ozzie Osmond said:
I'd be interested to know the answer to,
Clearly something is going to have to be spectacularly light to get the car down to the weight of an Exige S.
I expect TVR to set lower targets for NVH, durability and crashworthiness.- 1,200 kg target weight
- Minus the weight of the Ford engine and driveline (from engine to road wheels)
- How much weight remains available to build the rest of the TVR?
Clearly something is going to have to be spectacularly light to get the car down to the weight of an Exige S.
Tuvra said:
Byker28i said:
mikEsprit said:
I don't think Edgar is correct about paddle shifting knocking off a 1/2 second on the 0-60 time compared to a manual transmission? Isn't it more like a tenth difference?
Doesn't golf dsg against normal gearbox claim much more than 0.5 sec?http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motoring/vw-golf...
Ozzie Osmond said:
Let's hope they don't just cheat by sticking almost everything on the options list.
The real test is going to those first 500 "Launch Edition" cars.
It's standard business practice now to run a large options list so that you can promote as low an entry price as possible but not many of those options are going to consist of defining weights.The real test is going to those first 500 "Launch Edition" cars.
The old TVRS were very crudely about a third body shell, third chassis and third drive-train. On this car, despite almost certainly being a big bigger than previous cars, the bodyshell can be much lighter than a thick glassfibre full shell and the chassis also can be much lighter by using modern structural design and composites so as to utilise less metal. The drive-train isn't likely to be all that much heavier than before is it?
I don't see why 1200/1300kg isn't a plausible guestimate.
What would be interesting is understanding why the Exige has had so much 'added lightness' removed?
Ozzie Osmond said:
I'd be interested to know the answer to,
Clearly something is going to have to be spectacularly light to get the car down to the weight of an Exige S.
Ford's website (once you've converted dibnah into rest-of-world) suggests the v8 is about 230kg heavier than the four-pot turbo. OK, some of that may well be spec and trim... A bit of google-fu finds that it's apparently lighter than the 5.0 Coyote v8, which was apparently 444lb (201kg) in crate form.- 1,200 kg target weight
- Minus the weight of the Ford engine and driveline (from engine to road wheels)
- How much weight remains available to build the rest of the TVR?
Clearly something is going to have to be spectacularly light to get the car down to the weight of an Exige S.
http://blog.caranddriver.com/5-things-you-need-to-...
http://www.mustangandfords.com/how-to/tech-qa/1503...
As for the power - the 5.2 flat-plane v8 is 526bhp in the 'stang, so Cosworth don't need to turn it up very much.
TooMany2cvs said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
I'd be interested to know the answer to,
Clearly something is going to have to be spectacularly light to get the car down to the weight of an Exige S.
Ford's website (once you've converted dibnah into rest-of-world) suggests the v8 is about 230kg heavier than the four-pot turbo. OK, some of that may well be spec and trim... A bit of google-fu finds that it's apparently lighter than the 5.0 Coyote v8, which was apparently 444lb (201kg) in crate form.- 1,200 kg target weight
- Minus the weight of the Ford engine and driveline (from engine to road wheels)
- How much weight remains available to build the rest of the TVR?
Clearly something is going to have to be spectacularly light to get the car down to the weight of an Exige S.
http://blog.caranddriver.com/5-things-you-need-to-...
http://www.mustangandfords.com/how-to/tech-qa/1503...
As for the power - the 5.2 flat-plane v8 is 526bhp in the 'stang, so Cosworth don't need to turn it up very much.
Anyone who's had a modern car apart will attest that it's stuff like 18-way electrically adjustable seats that end up adding significant mass to cars. Automatic gearboxes are also very heavy. Seats can be very comfortable without being electrically adjustable in every dimension.
The very technique used in old TVR body tubs is about the heaviest way to make composite parts - i.e. chopped strand matting and wet-lay-ups. Wet lay up involves a man with a big paint brush literally slapping resin in to the mould and cloth until it's soaked through. The cloth itself is a very heavy material and TVR just cut bits to fill gaps.
More modern techniques include pre-pregnated cloth which has the optimum amount of resin in it already. The pieces are usually marked out, nested by computer to make best use of a roll of cloth and cut out. Each piece has a definite place and the whole lot is laid out in the mold dry. Once ready, the pre-pregnated resin is activated and the bits of cloth stick together. Parts made this way are usually stronger and significantly lighter than the wet-layup technique which always ends up with many kilos of redundant excess resin in the parts.
Prizam said:
So very tempted to put down the deposit. The potential embarrassment of receiving the final price that i cannot afford, coupled to a car i really want is putting me off.
Wait and see if there's a place to be had. It's coming up to the point where the car will be revealed to owners and then they have two weeks to decide if they want their deposit back. Then there are known places on the queue, and I'd imagine those places would be worth more?^^^ I agree with all of that. The question becomes whether buyers at, let's say, around £75k are looking for a road car with no air conditioning, no stereo, no electric seats.
As we have seen so often on PH the community shouts, "All of those things are standard on a £20,000 Kia so should be standard on this car."
As we have seen so often on PH the community shouts, "All of those things are standard on a £20,000 Kia so should be standard on this car."
Ozzie Osmond said:
^^^ I agree with all of that. The question becomes whether buyers at, let's say, around £75k are looking for a road car with no air conditioning, no stereo, no electric seats.
As we have seen so often on PH the community shouts, "All of those things are standard on a £20,000 Kia so should be standard on this car."
Although it may well be something heard at the time, I'd suggest anyone who has put down a deposit on a new TVR and expects stuff like electric seats has probably misunderstood what the brand is all about.As we have seen so often on PH the community shouts, "All of those things are standard on a £20,000 Kia so should be standard on this car."
Max_Torque said:
dvs_dave said:
In the 80's Audi's all came with switchable ABS.
I can understand why. In the mid 80's ABS was terrible!Why you'd want to switch off a >2010 gen5 system i have no idea (unless TVR can only afford a cheap and badly calibrated 1980's system..........)
Byker28i said:
Tuvra said:
Byker28i said:
mikEsprit said:
I don't think Edgar is correct about paddle shifting knocking off a 1/2 second on the 0-60 time compared to a manual transmission? Isn't it more like a tenth difference?
Doesn't golf dsg against normal gearbox claim much more than 0.5 sec?http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motoring/vw-golf...
tankplanker said:
The DSG can also be tweaked to make it more aggressive (debatable if this is a good idea when looking at long term reliability) and this will increase the gap further. I'd expect a proper sports car like a TVR to have as aggressive as possible auto when set to race mode, so I'd expect a bigger gap between the manual and the auto than a few hundredths of a second.
Name one car that offers both manual and auto (style) boxes where the 0-60 difference is over a few hundredths of a second? The M2 for example is 0.2, M4 is 0.2, Cayman S is 0-4, C4S is 0.2 seconds, V12VS is 0.2 seconds?No being arsey, genuine question BTW.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff