Is my 450 slow ?
Discussion
I think the thing you are measuring here is important. You said that both cars reach the same speed at the same place that doesn't mean they did it in the same time! When drag racing I have made some of my best trap speeds when I've fluffed my starts and made poor ETs so i might have covered the 1/4 mile in 15s rather than 13s but hit a higher speed by the end of it. Trap speed is related to power mostly, elapsed time depends on grip, an agressive start, torque and power.
Interesting reading from the OP. I went through a similar scenario with a newly acquired BMW 320d with circa 200hp. At the time I had an S197 Saleen S281 that was a 4.6L V8. Coming home from work at 5 am on an empty stretch of road the diesel felt as quick as my V8 and it got to me that much I went home and took out my V8 to see what the difference was.
Not exactly a scientific test but although the turbo diesel felt stronger the speeds were lower by 10 mph over about 400m.
Sometimes the linear power curve of V engines and their lazy nature deceive and shield you a bit from the actual speed.
Your chim isn't exactly new. Get your missus to drive the Jag and see where you stand.
Not exactly a scientific test but although the turbo diesel felt stronger the speeds were lower by 10 mph over about 400m.
Sometimes the linear power curve of V engines and their lazy nature deceive and shield you a bit from the actual speed.
Your chim isn't exactly new. Get your missus to drive the Jag and see where you stand.
Edited by bigkeeko on Monday 19th September 20:38
Modern stuff with an auto gearbox will always be easier to go fast in - point and press - my wife's electric Nissan Leaf is great fun away from the lights and unless I dropped the clutch on the Griff, which I'd rather not do, I reckon it'd beat me for the first 50 yards or so.
Griff has a 4 litre HC, 209 bhp on Joolz' rolling road, and it feels quick if you thrash it as it's so lightweight and raw, but up against a modern car with an autobox and a salesrep late for an appointment anything over about 250-300bhp would hammer it I suspect. Unless I upgraded the engine. Or more likely the driver... Colin Chapman said 'for speed add lightness'. Should eat more salads.
This 4 litre feels way slower than my old 4.3 precat which would easily beat a catted 450 and was marginally slower than a stock 500 in scientific tests on a private road
If you think it's broken get it rolling roaded - bet it isn't, it's just modern cars are so damn clever.
Griff has a 4 litre HC, 209 bhp on Joolz' rolling road, and it feels quick if you thrash it as it's so lightweight and raw, but up against a modern car with an autobox and a salesrep late for an appointment anything over about 250-300bhp would hammer it I suspect. Unless I upgraded the engine. Or more likely the driver... Colin Chapman said 'for speed add lightness'. Should eat more salads.
This 4 litre feels way slower than my old 4.3 precat which would easily beat a catted 450 and was marginally slower than a stock 500 in scientific tests on a private road
If you think it's broken get it rolling roaded - bet it isn't, it's just modern cars are so damn clever.
phazed said:
ChilliWhizz said:
Peter, I've got Dynolicious on my iphone.... dunno how accurate it is though 
Can you just download the app or do you have to join in to the dynolicious crowd?It's not free, is it?
ClassiChimi said:
Iis your 450 slow,,, hmm. Get your phones video camera out, do some 0-60 mph drag starts and then get your stop watch out and check the footage. That will give you an indication of how yours performs.
I've done this in the past and I manage 60 mph in 4.5 seconds but it is a very rough guess.
To get a fast time in the Tvr you've got to be prepared to control wheel spin etc and that's where you loose time, that and gear changes compared to a modern car.
Now that's a good idea! Yes, no wheel spin. It's a 90degree turn out of a junction to start so the tail would be straight out if I did.I've done this in the past and I manage 60 mph in 4.5 seconds but it is a very rough guess.
To get a fast time in the Tvr you've got to be prepared to control wheel spin etc and that's where you loose time, that and gear changes compared to a modern car.
Danattheopticians said:
4.0's are fast - Compared to it's similar competition at least - Honda S2000's, Audi TT's, Porsche Boxster's and Nissan 350z etc
I tend to agree with this, but would add Chimaeras are typically 20 years old now and even when they were new they were really a design that was more connected with the 1960's than the mid 90's. The fact I can deal with the above examples out on an open road in 2016 with little 4.0 litre 'Ol Gasbag' still amuses me, especially as I know it's way more economical than its far more modern rivals, but the tide certainly turns when the roads get winding and become full of surface imperfections. andy43 said:
Modern stuff with an auto gearbox will always be easier to go fast in - point and press - my wife's electric Nissan Leaf is great fun away from the lights and unless I dropped the clutch on the Griff, which I'd rather not do, I reckon it'd beat me for the first 50 yards or so.
Exactly, my company car is viewed as every petrol head's nemesis, mostly thanks to Jeremy Clarkson, yes its a Prius folks but the uncomfortable truth is for the first 50 feet it'll take my mate's 5.0 litre 300hp Chimaera every time. That's the instant torque of the electric wheel motors combined with a continuously variable transmission; controlled by a sophisticated ECU this transmission gives me the perfect ratio when I mash my foot into the carpet and allows the engine to stay right where it's producing peak power with no gaps whatsoever as road speed increases.At the same time my mate in his old school Chimaera must come off the throttle, depress the clutch, engage the next gear and get back on the throttle. He has to go through all this twice before he's crowding my mirrors by which time we're into the first bend, at which point I simply keep the throttle planted in the Toyota and fly around the bends safe in the knowledge the traction control will save me if I over do it, you literally can't crash the efin thing which gives huge confidence when chucking it about. The TVR driver on the other hand is forced to fall back as he bangs and crashes along never quite sure if his Chimaera is going to skip into the next hedge.
My mate FrenchieTVR now refers to my company car as the Prius-R
bigkeeko said:
Sometimes the linear power curve of V engines and their lazy nature deceive and shield you a bit from the actual speed.
That's true too, but because the handling of all modern cars (even a dull one) is so much more compliant confidence inspiring than a Chimaera you can cover ground massively faster than the TVR in 90% of driving situations. Fast in a straight line they can be, but scratching on on back roads can see little shopping cars with as much 200hp less getting to the end of a winding road faster than the TVR.This all sounds a bit negative towards our beloved Chimaera but I don't mean it to be, the problem is not really the car but the way people view it and their expectations they have of it. Modern cars spoil us and with a Chimaera being an updated improved back to basics 1960's British sports car it should really come as no surprise things have properly moved on in the handling and road holding stakes and these improvements have trickled down to your wife's little hatch back.
If you view the Chimaera as an updated Triumph TR6 or an upsized Lotus Elan you can go touring in you'll get a lot more from the Chimaera ownership experience, recalibrate your brain and expectations and the TVR starts to make a whole lot more sense. If you start to view your Chimaera this way and accept it'll never be a direct all round everyday alternative to a Porsche Boxter you'll get more from your TVR.
And finally if being slower than your torque laden turbo diesel hack is an issue for you, stop comparing the two and focus on the sweet sound your V8 makes compared to the ear punishing noises your rattling oil burner puts out
Chaps all very valid points. In particular are the gear changes, which I could be slow at. ALthough I only change gear twice to 70, whereas the Jag is probably making at least 4 as it is an 8-speed box, so it probably evens out.
The test I am doing is one that I set up a long time ago to make sure my TVR's performance is not deteriorating.
I know that from a standing start, I can reach a certain speed before having to brake for a corner. So when I get the chance as the road is clear, I run this test. If the engine performance is down (assuming my skills are constant), the same rough speed should be reached.
However, I was initially surprised that a car that has a 0-60 time that is supposedly over 1 second slower than my TVR could reach the same speed over the same distance.
However, after further thought and the above threads, maybe this is what is happening:
On the graph below, the Jag is the red curve and the TVR is the blue curve. If the x-axis is time and the y-axis is speed, the area under the curve is the distance travelled. So the Jag is slower starting than the TVR (as I have shown) but then the Jag's bhp helps it to keep increasing it's speed whereas the TVR's rate of speed increase is dropping.
By the end of the chart, the area under both curves is around the same, so both cars have covered the same distance but the Jag's speed is higher than the TVRs. So whilst the Jag might be slower to 60, if the test is allowed to go to a slightly higher speed, the slower 0-60 car will catch up and at a certain point they will have covered the same distance but the Jag would be at a higher speed at the end.
Think that makes sense ?
The test I am doing is one that I set up a long time ago to make sure my TVR's performance is not deteriorating.
I know that from a standing start, I can reach a certain speed before having to brake for a corner. So when I get the chance as the road is clear, I run this test. If the engine performance is down (assuming my skills are constant), the same rough speed should be reached.
However, I was initially surprised that a car that has a 0-60 time that is supposedly over 1 second slower than my TVR could reach the same speed over the same distance.
However, after further thought and the above threads, maybe this is what is happening:
On the graph below, the Jag is the red curve and the TVR is the blue curve. If the x-axis is time and the y-axis is speed, the area under the curve is the distance travelled. So the Jag is slower starting than the TVR (as I have shown) but then the Jag's bhp helps it to keep increasing it's speed whereas the TVR's rate of speed increase is dropping.
By the end of the chart, the area under both curves is around the same, so both cars have covered the same distance but the Jag's speed is higher than the TVRs. So whilst the Jag might be slower to 60, if the test is allowed to go to a slightly higher speed, the slower 0-60 car will catch up and at a certain point they will have covered the same distance but the Jag would be at a higher speed at the end.
Think that makes sense ?
Edited by taylormj4 on Tuesday 20th September 10:57
ClassiChimi said:
The question was is my 450 down on power, what mileage is your 450 at, what air filter and cam etc,
The only way to be sure would be a recent power run on a dyno ( not that cheap)
Or a few timed runs up a drag strip ( cheap) in comparison and a lot more fun.
There's another thread on here about a get together of Tvr boys at Shakespeare raceway near Stratford (Warwickshire)
That would be a perfect opportunity to test your cars speed in safety,,
You'll also have plenty of time to discuss your car with other Tvr nutters who know these engines inside out.
Just a thought
Sounds good. I'm interested !The only way to be sure would be a recent power run on a dyno ( not that cheap)
Or a few timed runs up a drag strip ( cheap) in comparison and a lot more fun.
There's another thread on here about a get together of Tvr boys at Shakespeare raceway near Stratford (Warwickshire)
That would be a perfect opportunity to test your cars speed in safety,,
You'll also have plenty of time to discuss your car with other Tvr nutters who know these engines inside out.
Just a thought
It's almost completely standard. Done just over 65k miles, standard air filter and original cam. Regularly serviced. Full ACT induction hose, new AFM. Was interested in further tuning but have been advised that the next best thing to do is to have a better ECU and loom like Emerald and I'm looking at nearly £3k so that's put it on hold for a while.
ChimpOnGas said:
Danattheopticians said:
4.0's are fast - Compared to it's similar competition at least - Honda S2000's, Audi TT's, Porsche Boxster's and Nissan 350z etc
I tend to agree with this, but would add Chimaeras are typically 20 years old now and even when they were new they were really a design that was more connected with the 1960's than the mid 90's. The fact I can deal with the above examples out on an open road in 2016 with little 4.0 litre 'Ol Gasbag' still amuses me, especially as I know it's way more economical than its far more modern rivals, but the tide certainly turns when the roads get winding and become full of surface imperfections. taylormj4 said:
ClassiChimi said:
Iis your 450 slow,,, hmm. Get your phones video camera out, do some 0-60 mph drag starts and then get your stop watch out and check the footage. That will give you an indication of how yours performs.
I've done this in the past and I manage 60 mph in 4.5 seconds but it is a very rough guess.
To get a fast time in the Tvr you've got to be prepared to control wheel spin etc and that's where you loose time, that and gear changes compared to a modern car.
Now that's a good idea! Yes, no wheel spin. It's a 90degree turn out of a junction to start so the tail would be straight out if I did.I've done this in the past and I manage 60 mph in 4.5 seconds but it is a very rough guess.
To get a fast time in the Tvr you've got to be prepared to control wheel spin etc and that's where you loose time, that and gear changes compared to a modern car.
What you might want to do is check your speedo with another accurate one to be sure where 60 mph is, it's not always where the speedo suggests
I worked it out and then the revs at that point, essentially I changed upto 3rd gear at 60 as near as damn it and used that point as my reference to stop the clock, I managed 5.9 5.1 down to 4.2 depending on wheel spin but it's only an idea.
I hope you can get along to Shakespeare, 65,000 on original cam might be restricting it slightly at higher revs but not a given, if your thinking of upgrades it's a good time to see what your standard set up shows up, food for thought and all that
I've managed 13.1 for the 1/4 mile, took a good few goes to get that low and mines been re built and Powers MBE install, it's a good bench mark for a car with fairly light mods so if I got to 14 seconds in a standard car I'd be happy.
Mines a 450 also
Tyres etc etc all play a part so just take it all into account and you'll probably be quite happy with the cars performance,
Don't get me wrong though 1 second is a lot faster or so it will seem when the car next to you gets ahead.
I raced a brand new Suburu Imprezza and 13.5 seconds we were neck and neck, so our cars ain't slow in a straight line.
I also agree we have to temper our expectations of these wonderful cars, I've gotten past the it's faster than most things nonsense and I enjoy the car more because if it, whatever car may get to 60 quicker than ours it's not likely to look or sound half as good so they can stick that in their pipe and smoke it
I don't race anyone,,,,, well maybe the odd Porsche on a clear stretch of motorway but that's about it Danattheopticians said:
ChimpOnGas said:
Danattheopticians said:
4.0's are fast - Compared to it's similar competition at least - Honda S2000's, Audi TT's, Porsche Boxster's and Nissan 350z etc
I tend to agree with this, but would add Chimaeras are typically 20 years old now and even when they were new they were really a design that was more connected with the 1960's than the mid 90's. The fact I can deal with the above examples out on an open road in 2016 with little 4.0 litre 'Ol Gasbag' still amuses me, especially as I know it's way more economical than its far more modern rivals, but the tide certainly turns when the roads get winding and become full of surface imperfections. 
Which in turn was taken from early aircraft fuselage technology.
In fact if you want to follow the truss frame concept right back to it's origins you'll find yourself looking up at what carpenters created in the middle ages.
TVR chassis, C-Type Jag, Tiger Moth fuselage or medieval roof structure.. it's all following the same principles of triangulation.
It makes no difference if we're talking about a TVR with an AJP8, an AJP6 or the venerable old Rover V8... they're all a separate body bolted to a separate chassis making them all closer to 1930's - 1950's car making technology than my overly generous 1960's statement when monocoque construction started to become the norm.
If you adopt the ancient practice of bolting a separate body to a separate rolling chassis you will always end up with a lack of sophistication by modern monoocoque standards. Right from the Grantura to the Saagaris TVR persisted with a truss frame in the form of a central backbone, so what you end up with is medieval roofing technology in a form that closely followed Colin Chapman's Elan chassis concept.
Colin just used sheet steel to create his backbone, where TVR used tube.
Tube or sheet steel aside, in lots of ways the Elan with it's separate composite body bolted to a central back bone chassis is very very similar in construction to your TVR.
Actually the way Colin did it gave a much stiffer structure, but this is why I'm saying your Chimaera is actually closer to a sixties Elan than a car of the 1990's, they were really an updated and bigger Elan with more power and some creature comforts like electric windows, power steering and better brakes ect so they could be sold as a viable (if left field) option to the 90's sports car buyer.
Comparing the TVR's ancient separate backbone tubular truss type chassis construction with a sophisticated Honda S2000, Nissan Z or Porsche Boxter moncoque is like comparing a Tiger Moth with a Euro Fighter, it's like night & day. The fact that the Chimaera can compete at all with these examples is quite remarkable in itself, but people really should look at a Chimaera as an updated and improved 1960's back to basics British sports car rather than a competitor to a true 1990's design.
The thing is as soon as you re-evaluate your mind set to seeing your Chimaera as an improved classic you immediately see what great value it is, because it's closest competitor would be more like an uprated, improved and subtly enhanced E-Type which is actually part monocoque so you could argue it's chassis more advanced than your TVR, the problem with an improved E-Type is it'll easily cost you well over £150k to create.
In my opinion people should stop comparing the Chimaera with the Boxter & S2000 even though they were made in the same period, the Chimaera's structure and engineering DNA places it far closer to a back to basics British classic and should simply be viewed and enjoyed as such.
ChimpOnGas said:
What I'm trying to say is all TVRs really just use 1950's race car chassis technology.
Which in turn was taken from early aircraft fuselage technology.
In fact if you want to follow the truss frame concept right back to it's origins you'll find yourself looking up at what carpenters created in the middle ages.
TVR chassis, C-Type Jag, Tiger Moth fuselage or medieval roof structure.. it's all following the same principles of triangulation.
It makes no difference if we're talking about a TVR with an AJP8, an AJP6 or the venerable old Rover V8... they're all a separate body bolted to a separate chassis making them all closer to 1930's - 1950's car making technology than my overly generous 1960's statement when monocoque construction started to become the norm.
If you adopt the ancient practice of bolting a separate body to a separate rolling chassis you will always end up with a lack of sophistication by modern monoocoque standards. Right from the Grantura to the Saagaris TVR persisted with a truss frame in the form of a central backbone, so what you end up with is medieval roofing technology in a form that closely followed Colin Chapman's Elan chassis concept.
Colin just used sheet steel to create his backbone, where TVR used tube.
Tube or sheet steel aside, in lots of ways the Elan with it's separate composite body bolted to a central back bone chassis is very very similar in construction to your TVR.
Actually the way Colin did it gave a much stiffer structure, but this is why I'm saying your Chimaera is actually closer to a sixties Elan than a car of the 1990's, they were really an updated and bigger Elan with more power and some creature comforts like electric windows, power steering and better brakes ect so they could be sold as a viable (if left field) option to the 90's sports car buyer.
Comparing the TVR's ancient separate backbone tubular truss type chassis construction with a sophisticated Honda S2000, Nissan Z or Porsche Boxter moncoque is like comparing a Tiger Moth with a Euro Fighter, it's like night & day. The fact that the Chimaera can compete at all with these examples is quite remarkable in itself, but people really should look at a Chimaera as an updated and improved 1960's back to basics British sports car rather than a competitor to a true 1990's design.
The thing is as soon as you re-evaluate your mind set to seeing your Chimaera as an improved classic you immediately see what great value it is, because it's closest competitor would be more like an uprated, improved and subtly enhanced E-Type which is actually part monocoque so you could argue it's chassis more advanced than your TVR, the problem with an improved E-Type is it'll easily cost you well over £150k to create.
In my opinion people should stop comparing the Chimaera with the Boxter & S2000 even though they were made in the same period, the Chimaera's structure and engineering DNA places it far closer to a back to basics British classic and should simply be viewed and enjoyed as such.
Which in turn was taken from early aircraft fuselage technology.
In fact if you want to follow the truss frame concept right back to it's origins you'll find yourself looking up at what carpenters created in the middle ages.
TVR chassis, C-Type Jag, Tiger Moth fuselage or medieval roof structure.. it's all following the same principles of triangulation.
It makes no difference if we're talking about a TVR with an AJP8, an AJP6 or the venerable old Rover V8... they're all a separate body bolted to a separate chassis making them all closer to 1930's - 1950's car making technology than my overly generous 1960's statement when monocoque construction started to become the norm.
If you adopt the ancient practice of bolting a separate body to a separate rolling chassis you will always end up with a lack of sophistication by modern monoocoque standards. Right from the Grantura to the Saagaris TVR persisted with a truss frame in the form of a central backbone, so what you end up with is medieval roofing technology in a form that closely followed Colin Chapman's Elan chassis concept.
Colin just used sheet steel to create his backbone, where TVR used tube.
Tube or sheet steel aside, in lots of ways the Elan with it's separate composite body bolted to a central back bone chassis is very very similar in construction to your TVR.
Actually the way Colin did it gave a much stiffer structure, but this is why I'm saying your Chimaera is actually closer to a sixties Elan than a car of the 1990's, they were really an updated and bigger Elan with more power and some creature comforts like electric windows, power steering and better brakes ect so they could be sold as a viable (if left field) option to the 90's sports car buyer.
Comparing the TVR's ancient separate backbone tubular truss type chassis construction with a sophisticated Honda S2000, Nissan Z or Porsche Boxter moncoque is like comparing a Tiger Moth with a Euro Fighter, it's like night & day. The fact that the Chimaera can compete at all with these examples is quite remarkable in itself, but people really should look at a Chimaera as an updated and improved 1960's back to basics British sports car rather than a competitor to a true 1990's design.
The thing is as soon as you re-evaluate your mind set to seeing your Chimaera as an improved classic you immediately see what great value it is, because it's closest competitor would be more like an uprated, improved and subtly enhanced E-Type which is actually part monocoque so you could argue it's chassis more advanced than your TVR, the problem with an improved E-Type is it'll easily cost you well over £150k to create.
In my opinion people should stop comparing the Chimaera with the Boxter & S2000 even though they were made in the same period, the Chimaera's structure and engineering DNA places it far closer to a back to basics British classic and should simply be viewed and enjoyed as such.
nick_mcuk said:
my 2015 Peugeot 208GTI prestige feels faster and more frantic than my Chimaera 400.
I love my Chimaera and dont care if my 208 is quicker
This kinda disturbs me. I have a friend who is completely and utterly rebuilding a 4.0L Chim right now. Bought it and duly turned it into a pile of parts. Now has a new stainless steel chassis, suspension, wiring the lot.The engine only has 27k miles and he's hoping the performance will still be there and he'll be able to give me a run for my money in my car.I love my Chimaera and dont care if my 208 is quicker
I have a niece with a new Corsa VXR that is only slightly slower than your 208GTi. I have driven the VXR Corsa and tried to be diplomatic when talking about how nippy it was (read slow as F star star K).
It'll be interesting to see how much performance has suffered over the years, if at all.
Don't despair.
Following on from, "chins can handle ". I used my car last night for the biweekly wife waff run which involves a good amount of very minor country roads and fast B roads.
I hadn't changed the suspension settings since doing the Sprint last week and they were on very hard, I also still have my track tyres on which are road legal Federals which are possibly slightly better than my usual Toyo R1Rs that I run as road tyres..
The poor condition minor country roads were awful. The car was bouncing off the minor potholes and feeling very unsettled on the road. This was made worse by the firm suspension settings.
When I got on the smooth fast minor roads the car came into its own. Handling was superb with bends being taken like being on rails and acceleration from point to point hard to keep with.
We just have to except that modern suspension is superbly designed, (for the price) not just for comfort but for safe handling in practically any car that is produced nowadays.
What we need, is switchable suspension. Something like my ML. I normally keep it switched on, "old man" soft setting for daily use. The standard setting is a good all-rounder but when you switch it on to the sport setting, it lowers the car and becomes so firm it can embarrass many cars on country lanes..
Following on from, "chins can handle ". I used my car last night for the biweekly wife waff run which involves a good amount of very minor country roads and fast B roads.
I hadn't changed the suspension settings since doing the Sprint last week and they were on very hard, I also still have my track tyres on which are road legal Federals which are possibly slightly better than my usual Toyo R1Rs that I run as road tyres..
The poor condition minor country roads were awful. The car was bouncing off the minor potholes and feeling very unsettled on the road. This was made worse by the firm suspension settings.
When I got on the smooth fast minor roads the car came into its own. Handling was superb with bends being taken like being on rails and acceleration from point to point hard to keep with.
We just have to except that modern suspension is superbly designed, (for the price) not just for comfort but for safe handling in practically any car that is produced nowadays.
What we need, is switchable suspension. Something like my ML. I normally keep it switched on, "old man" soft setting for daily use. The standard setting is a good all-rounder but when you switch it on to the sport setting, it lowers the car and becomes so firm it can embarrass many cars on country lanes..
Gassing Station | Chimaera | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff