Is my 450 slow ?
Discussion
taylormj4 said:
Took delivery of a 2015 Jaguar XFS last weekend. It has a 3.0 supercharged V6, with a 0-60 time quoted as 5.9secs.
It is quick....very quick. It pulls and pulls and just keeps pulling and doesn't seem to let up, even on a steep hill. Very impressive.
Took it for a run along a route I use regularly in the TVR and from a standing start at a junction, it reached the same speed before braking for the first corner (in the region of 60) as the TVR would.
This begs the question, how can that happen when the TVR is supposed to have a 0-60 time of around 4.7secs ?
Is the 0-60 time quoted completely unrealistic or is my Chimaera down on power ?
I would say its more perception because the diesel is quiet, I had 2 XFS's and an XFR, my 500 was not as quick as the XFR on the straights, however, when reaching the twisties, the XFR was notably quickerIt is quick....very quick. It pulls and pulls and just keeps pulling and doesn't seem to let up, even on a steep hill. Very impressive.
Took it for a run along a route I use regularly in the TVR and from a standing start at a junction, it reached the same speed before braking for the first corner (in the region of 60) as the TVR would.
This begs the question, how can that happen when the TVR is supposed to have a 0-60 time of around 4.7secs ?
Is the 0-60 time quoted completely unrealistic or is my Chimaera down on power ?
phazed said:
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..
Intrax' Anti Roll Control is your friend. No electronic gizmos (Henk Thuis says 'electronic controls are always too late when making adjustments'), low spring rates for comfort, progressiveness and grip on bumpy roads and low-friction surfaces - and still optimal body control (roll, pitch, dive & squat) at speed... 900T-R said:
phazed said:
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..
Intrax' Anti Roll Control is your friend. No electronic gizmos (Henk Thuis says 'electronic controls are always too late when making adjustments'), low spring rates for comfort, progressiveness and grip on bumpy roads and low-friction surfaces - and still optimal body control (roll, pitch, dive & squat) at speed... 
ChimpOnGas said:
Get your £4,000 ready Peter
So what would you reckon an OEM-style adaptive system (which more often than not doesn't work out as well as the standard passive option on the same car, anyway) plus calibration for a totally different car than it was meant to go on, would cost? Intrax/Ohlins/Penske may be expensive, but at least they're not utopian.
900T-R said:
ChimpOnGas said:
Get your £4,000 ready Peter
So what would you reckon an OEM-style adaptive system (which more often than not doesn't work out as well as the standard passive option on the same car, anyway) plus calibration for a totally different car than it was meant to go on, would cost? Intrax/Ohlins/Penske may be expensive, but at least they're not utopian.
People spend their money how they wish, I had a friend who used to spend £4,000 a year shooting clay pigeons out of the sky, whatever floats your boat I guess.
But I think for most of us £4,000 is a bit disproportionate, after all it's a third of the total value of a decent whole 4.0 Chimaera. I'd hazard a guess throwing £4k at suspension might amount to a spend too far for most owners, but please don't see this as a criticism of your choice.
My comments are merely a statement of fact.
ChimpOnGas said:
But I think for most of us £4,000 is a bit disproportionate
Given the amounts that many on here spend on their engines, oversize brakes, wheels and tyres; given that relative newbies with standard cars are bing advised to rip the engine management out of their cars and go aftermarket at the tune of a couple of grand and several return visits to get the stuff sorted, where the CUX14 is as adaptable as any and all you need is programmable ignition, I can't really agree with that statement. The first and by far most important thing you need to sort on these, is suspension (and geo set up). All the rest are 'nice to haves' at best.
An anquaintance of mine has an S3c. He bought Gaz. Then, after half a season he threw the Gaz stuff away and bought Intrax. He's happy now. Buy cheap, buy twice.
Current values don't come into it. The cars have the intent and the performance of a contemporary Ferrari or 911 & should be treated as such.
Tell you what - I'm about to embark on a winter project that will cost a few grand again and won't give more than maybe 20-30 extra horsepower. Silly, huh? Should bolt a turbo to my RV8 or throw a dirty big iron Ford lump on carbs in it instead? Erm, no, because I want to make the car better, not faster (on paper) and less good to drive than it was when it left Bristol Ave.
Edited by 900T-R on Wednesday 21st September 14:35
My first TVR was Chimaera 450, and I never once imagined it as slow. What it could have done with was handling upgrades, as it was very hairy going around corners fast, and axle tramp was always present when pulling off swiftly.
If they have a good handling set-up, that should be enough. there will always be faster stuff out there, but I have found that, when driving my TVR, a lot of the enjoyment is the actual experience of driving it for driving's sake. Most modern mass produced cars do not offer this unless you want to pay four or fives times the price, and even then the experience may be muted due to always on electronic aids.
Just enjoy it for what it is, a nice looking light and beefy British sports car - with perhaps room for better suspension and other upgrades related to handing and stopping. I think that if you worry too much about being quicker than the other guy, you have to bare in mind that if it goes all tits up, the othr guy has the electronics and extra safety equipment to help sort out the mess, you do not.
If they have a good handling set-up, that should be enough. there will always be faster stuff out there, but I have found that, when driving my TVR, a lot of the enjoyment is the actual experience of driving it for driving's sake. Most modern mass produced cars do not offer this unless you want to pay four or fives times the price, and even then the experience may be muted due to always on electronic aids.
Just enjoy it for what it is, a nice looking light and beefy British sports car - with perhaps room for better suspension and other upgrades related to handing and stopping. I think that if you worry too much about being quicker than the other guy, you have to bare in mind that if it goes all tits up, the othr guy has the electronics and extra safety equipment to help sort out the mess, you do not.
chris watton said:
My first TVR was Chimaera 450, and I never once imagined it as slow. What it could have done with was handling upgrades, as it was very hairy going around corners fast, and axle tramp was always present when pulling off swiftly.
If they have a good handling set-up, that should be enough. there will always be faster stuff out there, but I have found that, when driving my TVR, a lot of the enjoyment is the actual experience of driving it for driving's sake. Most modern mass produced cars do not offer this unless you want to pay four or fives times the price, and even then the experience may be muted due to always on electronic aids.
Just enjoy it for what it is, a nice looking light and beefy British sports car - with perhaps room for better suspension and other upgrades related to handing and stopping. I think that if you worry too much about being quicker than the other guy, you have to bare in mind that if it goes all tits up, the othr guy has the electronics and extra safety equipment to help sort out the mess, you do not.
I get all of this, I've just upgraded my, brakes, suspension and had 4 wheel alignment done. Did change the chip to a Mark Adams Tornado, and it's made the car run smoother, not necessarily more powerful but more free revving at <3500 rpm. But the handling has made the car feel quicker just due to the fact that it: 1. Feels more attached to the road, 2. I know I can confidently brake later, and that's it. If they have a good handling set-up, that should be enough. there will always be faster stuff out there, but I have found that, when driving my TVR, a lot of the enjoyment is the actual experience of driving it for driving's sake. Most modern mass produced cars do not offer this unless you want to pay four or fives times the price, and even then the experience may be muted due to always on electronic aids.
Just enjoy it for what it is, a nice looking light and beefy British sports car - with perhaps room for better suspension and other upgrades related to handing and stopping. I think that if you worry too much about being quicker than the other guy, you have to bare in mind that if it goes all tits up, the othr guy has the electronics and extra safety equipment to help sort out the mess, you do not.
bigkeeko said:
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 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.
208 GTI is most deffo not slow as F star star K (unless you are comparing it to a super car).....I think its all about how it delivers the power the 208 has another 20Nm of torque over the Corsa VXR so this will make a difference for sure. The new corsa VXR looks bland as "F star star K" so it doenst surprise me its bland to drive too !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.
The TVR is a very different beast and on paper is faster and lighter (by a couple hundred KG's) but its the way it puts it down....I would need to do a side by side comparison for full review
ClassiChimi said:
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
Agree with this. I'd be amazed if any Chim has a speedo anywhere near the truth. I fitted a GPS speedo alongside the original to see how far out it was. On the motorway at set speeds the difference was shocking. While the law allows a 10% error margin, mine was indicating 70 when actually it was only 61 mph.So I sent it off for a refurb and gave the builder the necessary sizes. It came back on the 10% margin but only just. So now when it says 70, I am actually doing 64 mph.
Of course I now drive at 80 on the motorway........
N7GTX said:
Agree with this. I'd be amazed if any Chim has a speedo anywhere near the truth. I fitted a GPS speedo alongside the original to see how far out it was. On the motorway at set speeds the difference was shocking. While the law allows a 10% error margin, mine was indicating 70 when actually it was only 61 mph.
So I sent it off for a refurb and gave the builder the necessary sizes. It came back on the 10% margin but only just. So now when it says 70, I am actually doing 64 mph.
Of course I now drive at 80 on the motorway........
I agree with the above. All you need is an app on your phone, I have "Speedometer" for iPhone, it shows GPS accurate speed and a lot more besides. Was free too.So I sent it off for a refurb and gave the builder the necessary sizes. It came back on the 10% margin but only just. So now when it says 70, I am actually doing 64 mph.
Of course I now drive at 80 on the motorway........
N7GTX said:
Agree with this. I'd be amazed if any Chim has a speedo anywhere near the truth. I fitted a GPS speedo alongside the original to see how far out it was. On the motorway at set speeds the difference was shocking. While the law allows a 10% error margin, mine was indicating 70 when actually it was only 61 mph.
So I sent it off for a refurb and gave the builder the necessary sizes. It came back on the 10% margin but only just. So now when it says 70, I am actually doing 64 mph.
Of course I now drive at 80 on the motorway........
Ditto mine is the same I have a Snooper Lynx GPS speed trap detector and I use that to for a more accurate reading.So I sent it off for a refurb and gave the builder the necessary sizes. It came back on the 10% margin but only just. So now when it says 70, I am actually doing 64 mph.
Of course I now drive at 80 on the motorway........
Not bothering with sending it off to be calibrated 70mph on the speedo is about 60mph...I can live with it over reading
I thought mine was out by a similar margin, as somewhere in its history there was an advisory on an invoice saying so (in fairness, there was a repair bill for the speedo in the oflder too, from after that date) and they all seem to be, right?
A couple of recent fines for minimal transgressions of the speed limit, however, say otherwise.
PS how many of these cars built before '96 are running 225/50/16 rear tyres nowadays (which is the correct size for later cars, but the old ones were equipped with 205/60/15 - rocking horse droppings and universally replaced with the later 205/55 size - front and 225/55/16 rear) - the difference would account for 3-4% on its own...
A couple of recent fines for minimal transgressions of the speed limit, however, say otherwise.
PS how many of these cars built before '96 are running 225/50/16 rear tyres nowadays (which is the correct size for later cars, but the old ones were equipped with 205/60/15 - rocking horse droppings and universally replaced with the later 205/55 size - front and 225/55/16 rear) - the difference would account for 3-4% on its own...
Best way to sort this is to come along to Shakey on 8th, see thread here http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
A healthy Chim 450 should run a low 13 at about 105
A healthy Chim 450 should run a low 13 at about 105
Gassing Station | Chimaera | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff