4.0 Chimaera with 183 bhp @ wheels
Discussion
jsr said:
As far as i know it's standard. When i bought it a month ago the advert said it was a 4.0HC, but i can't find any evidence to prove this.
It's dry tonight, so i'm gonna do a run in 2nd gear (accelerate from 15mph to 60ish) and see what this produces.
Ah didn't realise it was a HC so has a slightly hotter cam from thefactory, which may explain the 'longer legs' of the power band, probably a 214 based cam from new.
Out of innteret how much did the AP cost you
, as I think I could have some serious fun with one of those, dear father christmas are you still listening 
. Harry
Wacky Racer said:
Sorry, have I missed something here 
183 bhp from four litres (at the wheels)on a sports car, does not seem very much to me,for instance, the Jaguar XJ6 SALOON straight six XK engine was producing 245 bhp (not at the wheels) as long ago as 1969 with twin SU's.
Well its acedemic really its the performance that counts and they pretty much do whats expected of them and in most cases a bit more
. If you checkout the figures for any Rover V8 you'll see the bhp/ltr is pisss poor across the board, but the torque is more than adequate, hence the performance
Harry
Wacky Racer said:
Sorry, have I missed something here
183 bhp from four litres (at the wheels)on a sports car, does not seem very much to me,for instance, the Jaguar XJ6 SALOON straight six XK engine was producing 245 bhp (not at the wheels) as long ago as 1969 with twin SU's.
245 BHP at the fly (if it actually makes it)could be as low as 195 BHP at the wheels.
Then there is the weight differential
jsr said:
You have missed something. I'm not claiming it to be the most power engine ever, just stating what i recorded. My chim would still mince the jag you mention since it weighs about half as much!
Yeah, sorry I wasn't trying to be pedantic,
I am sure your car is ultra rapid It's just with all the increase in technology over the last thirty years I would have thought 250bhp at the wheels would be easily achievable from 4 litres, but obviously not. It must be cos the Rover V8 itself is ages old - developed by Buick in 1969 (i think). TVR tune them and used them since the 80's, but essentially it is an old, simple engine.
Harry, i think i paid about £120 for the AP22. It is a cool gadget - especially when you put it in cornering g-force mode and get a real-time visual display of g's
I also bought the PC software Race Technology offer too.
Harry, i think i paid about £120 for the AP22. It is a cool gadget - especially when you put it in cornering g-force mode and get a real-time visual display of g's
I also bought the PC software Race Technology offer too.
jsr said:
It must be cos the Rover V8 itself is ages old - developed by Buick in 1969 (i think). TVR tune them and used them since the 80's, but essentially it is an old, simple engine.
The Buick engine dates from around 1963 I think, Peter Morgan first put it in his Plus 8 in 1968, in standard tune (3.5litre) it developed around 150 bhp, but loads of torque, (and of course that fabulous V8 burble)
jsr,
If its an HC it will say it on the plenum chamber, and in the hand book. The chap I brought my car from said it was an HC but phoned tvr to check, and they confirmed it. So it may be worth a quick phone call if your interested.
As far as the 4.0HC figures go it should produce 275bhp at the flywheel so about 220bhp at the rear wheels and that accounts for a 20% transmition loss.
If its an HC it will say it on the plenum chamber, and in the hand book. The chap I brought my car from said it was an HC but phoned tvr to check, and they confirmed it. So it may be worth a quick phone call if your interested.
As far as the 4.0HC figures go it should produce 275bhp at the flywheel so about 220bhp at the rear wheels and that accounts for a 20% transmition loss.
Wacky Racer said:
Sorry, have I missed something here
183 bhp from four litres (at the wheels)on a sports car, does not seem very much to me,for instance, the Jaguar XJ6 SALOON straight six XK engine was producing 245 bhp from 4.2 litres (not at the wheels) as long ago as 1969 with twin SU's.
>> Edited by Wacky Racer on Wednesday 3rd December 18:58
The figures quoted for torque and bhp are almost identical to the BBR220 Mini Cooper S conversion...
Seemed low to me as well I have to say...
Peak power doesn't tell you the whole story. In the BBR Mini to get that power you probably have to go another 2000revs higher than in a Chimaera.
Generally, the bigger the displacement of an engine, there is more power and torque than a similary peak-powered smaller engine.
That's what make a TVR so much quicker (in a straight line) compared to the Mini with a similarly poeak-powered engine and similar weight too.
My car doesn't show HC on the plenum nor does it state it in the handbook. Probably just a 4.0. Not that i care - i love it!
Generally, the bigger the displacement of an engine, there is more power and torque than a similary peak-powered smaller engine.
That's what make a TVR so much quicker (in a straight line) compared to the Mini with a similarly poeak-powered engine and similar weight too.
My car doesn't show HC on the plenum nor does it state it in the handbook. Probably just a 4.0. Not that i care - i love it!
Gassing Station | Chimaera | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff