Who's a B'stard?
Discussion
I think It’s time to ruffle some feathers.
The expression “bastard“ refers to the condition of being born to parents who are not married to one another. When one advances the idea that classic TVRs are being bastardized, this propagates the notion that TVRs were not cross-bred bastards to begin with. Let’s all please remember that these cars were the product of a commercial venture whose intent, above love and passion, was to turn a profit. Lilley and company, as it happens, built some of our favorite cars, but let’s recognize them for what they are. TVR’s board could only purchase engines that would fit their parameters not only for long term availability, weight, and build quality, but they also had to be units that fit within budgetary constraints. Until the advent of the AJP V8, all TVRs were bastards. After all, aside from purchasing components, there were no financial ties between TVR and Ford or BL that might constitute a “marriage.”
Beyond this point, it appears as though some imbeciles would pass moral judgment and condemn those who may be wishing to maintain or improve their property as they deem appropriate for their own enjoyment. I say: It’s your car, you paid for it, have at it! Who, after all, has the final say on what modification is OK and what isn’t? Where are we to draw the line? Is exchanging thirty year old rubber suspension bushings with urethane an example of bastardising a classic? The resulting behavior and character is certainly not identical to what the factory was selling in 1977. If the Essex engine was not originally supplied in a TVR with triple Weber down-draft IDF or DCNF carburetors, but an owner decides that this suits his or her need, why is this not simply called gilding the lily? In the same vein, if an owner of a 1600cc M-series car decides to modify their car by installing a turbocharged Essex, bored and stroked to 3450cc, would it be “bastardising a classic” or a vast improvement? In one sense the parentage would remain the same and in another, the design intent could not be questioned.
Consider another example. Would it be considered bastardising a classic if somebody were to fit a Vantage specification, dry sump Aston Martin straight six to a TVR M chassis? If not, then what makes any other engine choice any different? A high school friend fit a Mazda 13B rotary to his M. He loved it. My only complaint was, and is, –no turbo.
In the end these may merely be individual perspectives, yet while one person considers an engine swap an improvement and another perceives it as “bastardising a classic,” only one of these individuals is likely to be an ignorant, stupid, offensive imbecile with little to no regard for someone else’s joy.
There is a world of difference between those who do this with a sense of humor and those fools that are serious. Go on, let the feathers fly.
The expression “bastard“ refers to the condition of being born to parents who are not married to one another. When one advances the idea that classic TVRs are being bastardized, this propagates the notion that TVRs were not cross-bred bastards to begin with. Let’s all please remember that these cars were the product of a commercial venture whose intent, above love and passion, was to turn a profit. Lilley and company, as it happens, built some of our favorite cars, but let’s recognize them for what they are. TVR’s board could only purchase engines that would fit their parameters not only for long term availability, weight, and build quality, but they also had to be units that fit within budgetary constraints. Until the advent of the AJP V8, all TVRs were bastards. After all, aside from purchasing components, there were no financial ties between TVR and Ford or BL that might constitute a “marriage.”
Beyond this point, it appears as though some imbeciles would pass moral judgment and condemn those who may be wishing to maintain or improve their property as they deem appropriate for their own enjoyment. I say: It’s your car, you paid for it, have at it! Who, after all, has the final say on what modification is OK and what isn’t? Where are we to draw the line? Is exchanging thirty year old rubber suspension bushings with urethane an example of bastardising a classic? The resulting behavior and character is certainly not identical to what the factory was selling in 1977. If the Essex engine was not originally supplied in a TVR with triple Weber down-draft IDF or DCNF carburetors, but an owner decides that this suits his or her need, why is this not simply called gilding the lily? In the same vein, if an owner of a 1600cc M-series car decides to modify their car by installing a turbocharged Essex, bored and stroked to 3450cc, would it be “bastardising a classic” or a vast improvement? In one sense the parentage would remain the same and in another, the design intent could not be questioned.
Consider another example. Would it be considered bastardising a classic if somebody were to fit a Vantage specification, dry sump Aston Martin straight six to a TVR M chassis? If not, then what makes any other engine choice any different? A high school friend fit a Mazda 13B rotary to his M. He loved it. My only complaint was, and is, –no turbo.
In the end these may merely be individual perspectives, yet while one person considers an engine swap an improvement and another perceives it as “bastardising a classic,” only one of these individuals is likely to be an ignorant, stupid, offensive imbecile with little to no regard for someone else’s joy.
There is a world of difference between those who do this with a sense of humor and those fools that are serious. Go on, let the feathers fly.
Thanks to you all, I now have slightly more clarity than before and I recognize that there are simply divergent views on this subject although I do still wonder what logic some of them are based on.
Some of you are clearly mad. I mean that only in the best of ways.
I have another, related, question.
I know a man in the USA who owns a Jaguar. The car in question left the factory as an XKC model. During its long racing career, it has had many pieces replaced, some because of wear and some because of "incidents" along the way that left large portions of car strewn about the track. I believe much of the subframe as well as most of the bodywork have been replaced. I personally believe that the only components that this chassis left the factory with that are still part of the car are the gear box casing, the engine block, and (maybe) the cylinder head. The serial number gives this beautiful machine provenance but my question to you is: would you consider this an “original” C type?
Some of you are clearly mad. I mean that only in the best of ways.
I have another, related, question.
I know a man in the USA who owns a Jaguar. The car in question left the factory as an XKC model. During its long racing career, it has had many pieces replaced, some because of wear and some because of "incidents" along the way that left large portions of car strewn about the track. I believe much of the subframe as well as most of the bodywork have been replaced. I personally believe that the only components that this chassis left the factory with that are still part of the car are the gear box casing, the engine block, and (maybe) the cylinder head. The serial number gives this beautiful machine provenance but my question to you is: would you consider this an “original” C type?
Gassing Station | TVR Classics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff