Should it do what is says on the tin??
Discussion
quote:
Yes a dyno test does involve taking the engine out, and yes if I'm paying for 420 horses I do want them.
TVR should come clean on it, if they are not putting out the power they are supposed to be then fair enough, change the specification sheets.
The results of a rolling road dyno are usually pretty accurate. As I understand it, transmission losses are measured by running the rollers with the car out of gear and measuring the amount of force required to turn the transmission. This is usually expressed as a BHP loss in my experience of having race cars dynoed.
Jas.
Just a thought but irrespective of power output, TVR's do stand up to claimed performance figures.Which is the nett requirement. Or am I missing the point?.While there may be doubts with regard BHP I think there are few doubts with actual performance figures.Most testers finding the manufacturers claims to be a little conservative.
Steve
Steve
The worst part is all the postings about forgiving the various significant engine failures on the basis that "TVR's own engines are race engines" so failure is to be expected. The reality is they don't produce what is claimed, sound like a bag of spanners, and fail regularly. A great advert for British engineering.
Porsche, BMW and Merc V8's, in reality, probably produce much the same power, but they don't try to say it's a race engine - it will, however do a couple of hundred thousand reliable miles. Why are we such a gullible and forgiving nation of consumers?
Porsche, BMW and Merc V8's, in reality, probably produce much the same power, but they don't try to say it's a race engine - it will, however do a couple of hundred thousand reliable miles. Why are we such a gullible and forgiving nation of consumers?
Steady on, you'll start a heated debate. Again.
The point is figures don't tell the real story. Especially when the figures are innacurate. Best to drop the chat and just race them for a test.
There are loads of honest people one here that have told their story of racing one brand against another. The usual result is bugger all in it. It comes down to some figures being exaggerated and some figures being conservative.
The point is figures don't tell the real story. Especially when the figures are innacurate. Best to drop the chat and just race them for a test.
There are loads of honest people one here that have told their story of racing one brand against another. The usual result is bugger all in it. It comes down to some figures being exaggerated and some figures being conservative.
Does it really matter if the output figures are exaggerated or not? As for weights, that is a notoriously difficult to measure figure - loaded / unloaded / full of fuel / empty / standard load etc... the list goes on.
As was mentioned above - the performance is pretty much on the spot when it comes to the figures. So who really cares if the engine is around 240 rather than 275 (in my case with a 4.0HC). Performance is what is says and thats all that matters.... I think that you are all taking this a little too far....
At the end of the day you have a choice, if you want guaranteed 400 BHP buy a Porsche. I dont care. But, remember one important factor that has been partially brought up already.... without the EXACT methods that TVR used to test the weight and power output of the cars you will FAIL in any legal cases. Only if you get the exact method and stick to these - and they report low - do you have any chance of sucess. I suggest that your first port of call would be to ascertain what these are before you start pointing fingers.
Of course a manufacturer will make their product look the best...
Cheers,
Paul
As was mentioned above - the performance is pretty much on the spot when it comes to the figures. So who really cares if the engine is around 240 rather than 275 (in my case with a 4.0HC). Performance is what is says and thats all that matters.... I think that you are all taking this a little too far....
At the end of the day you have a choice, if you want guaranteed 400 BHP buy a Porsche. I dont care. But, remember one important factor that has been partially brought up already.... without the EXACT methods that TVR used to test the weight and power output of the cars you will FAIL in any legal cases. Only if you get the exact method and stick to these - and they report low - do you have any chance of sucess. I suggest that your first port of call would be to ascertain what these are before you start pointing fingers.
Of course a manufacturer will make their product look the best...
Cheers,
Paul
Raced a Ferrari Modena 360 the other day, and it is quoted as having 400 BHP, I battered it easily, shutting down at about 140mph, it was quite embarrassing. Mind you power to weight the Ferrari is about 300 BHP, and my Cerbera LW 4.5 RR must be putting out 380ish at the wheels as well.
I buy a car for its performance which is why I got the Cerbera, nothing came close to it in any test drive and the test drive I had was in a 4.2. It is an added bonus that it has more road presence as well, and better looking, British, lighter, better handling... etc.
Can anyone tell I love my car
I buy a car for its performance which is why I got the Cerbera, nothing came close to it in any test drive and the test drive I had was in a 4.2. It is an added bonus that it has more road presence as well, and better looking, British, lighter, better handling... etc.
Can anyone tell I love my car
quote:
Just a thought but irrespective of power output, TVR's do stand up to claimed performance figures.Which is the nett requirement. Or am I missing the point?.While there may be doubts with regard BHP I think there are few doubts with actual performance figures.Most testers finding the manufacturers claims to be a little conservative.
Steve
I think this is a very important point, OK the power figures may be subject to some form of mystical interpretation. However the performance figures are pretty much 'as it says on the tin' if a little bit pessimistic
. How many times have you been in 'other' marques which is supposed to have the performance and power of X, Y and Z and it doesn't feel like it, virtually every marque this side of a Tiv.
As has been said on previous postings on this topic power figures are good for bar room banter and w*llie waving contests, but real world performance that Joe average can achieve are there for the taking in a TVR.
If you like dropping the clutch on a green light at 4000rpm and doing 0.3 sec gear changes you may achieve the performance figure claims of some 'other marques', then go ahead.
Me I still think I 'need' a 500 though
Harry
The question is why do it?
If TVR want to retain credibility then just give the truth.
The problem I suppose is that of marketing. It just isn't sexy to say that the Cerbera 4.5 has less than 400 BHP and that the Griff has less than 300 when so many competitors have accurate claims over these figures.
If TVR want to retain credibility then just give the truth.
The problem I suppose is that of marketing. It just isn't sexy to say that the Cerbera 4.5 has less than 400 BHP and that the Griff has less than 300 when so many competitors have accurate claims over these figures.
see the below if you're really interested in a debate on BHP and its calculation (there are links to a bunch of articles on power & torque measurements)
www.pumaracing.co.uk/mainmenu.htm
Before you lay into TVR, you might want to start with Pioneer/Kenwood/Sony et al for their outrageous "4x30Watts" head unit power claims...
www.pumaracing.co.uk/mainmenu.htm
Before you lay into TVR, you might want to start with Pioneer/Kenwood/Sony et al for their outrageous "4x30Watts" head unit power claims...
quote:
see the below if you're really interested in a debate on BHP and its calculation (there are links to a bunch of articles on power & torque measurements)
www.pumaracing.co.uk/mainmenu.htm
There's some interesting stuff in there. So, who knows the Cd and frontal area of a Cerbera?
Surely the point is that TVR are allegedly being dishonest. It's not about pub bar w*llie waving. If the quoted figures are without alternators, power steering, flywheels, & drivebelts, this is at best mis-representation surely? Is there a recognised industry standard for methods of measuring power output? Until there is, manufacturers are free to quote in any way which best suits them.
Despite top speeds and 0-60 times, if a manufacturer quotes that their product performs in a certain way, then as far as I am concerned they have a legal and moral obligation to the consumer. After all, no-one likes to be sold a lie! (Allegedly!).
Jas.
Despite top speeds and 0-60 times, if a manufacturer quotes that their product performs in a certain way, then as far as I am concerned they have a legal and moral obligation to the consumer. After all, no-one likes to be sold a lie! (Allegedly!).
Jas.
Don't even get me started on Kenwood / Dixons hifi output claims! These plastic boxes of tat often claim 2x200 watts or more. What they leave off is thats at 100% wave clipping distortion AND it's not measured in RMS (industry standard). Lying bastids. They only do it as everybody else in shit box tat 'hifi' (Ha!) does too. The uninformed man in the street does'nt realise a claimed '300watt' system will be trounced by a 30watt RMS system. Never mind about quality. I could go on forever.....
And another thing -- I've looked at a number of the old road tests and JC/Top Gear videos featuring cars like N244 KCW (the rosso "4.2").
It looks like no 4.2 I've ever seen -- the Top Gear programme (and video) clearly show it to have the carbon fibre air trumpets instead of the cast units now fitted to the 4.2. In fact, they look more like the original carbon units that were intended for the 4.5 but had to be replaced by silicone due to stress fractures. And the original 4.5 was supposed to be 440, iirc. The bottom line is that I think the original road-test 4.2s were a long way off standard. Tuscan engine, anyone?
Maybe this explains why (apparently) the same car trounced everything else in that drag race.
So, if they tested a car with an engine that may or may not have been a 4.5, then it's no wonder they found it had about 360bhp!
It looks like no 4.2 I've ever seen -- the Top Gear programme (and video) clearly show it to have the carbon fibre air trumpets instead of the cast units now fitted to the 4.2. In fact, they look more like the original carbon units that were intended for the 4.5 but had to be replaced by silicone due to stress fractures. And the original 4.5 was supposed to be 440, iirc. The bottom line is that I think the original road-test 4.2s were a long way off standard. Tuscan engine, anyone?
Maybe this explains why (apparently) the same car trounced everything else in that drag race.
So, if they tested a car with an engine that may or may not have been a 4.5, then it's no wonder they found it had about 360bhp!
Gassing Station | Griffith | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff