The Firefox car - Statement
Discussion
This is simply a statement -
I would suggest it might be useful if it could be kept as a sticky for a little while - as a point of reference perhaps - without reply?
I have not at any time referred to my car as a TVR 420 SEAC.
I have not at any time advertised it as a TVR 420 SEAC, and shall continue to do the same.
I have pointed out the differences with the car when I have advertised it and shall continue to do the same.
A written declaration was drawn up and printed by me some time ago describing the car and the differences, has been placed with the history file, and this shall be given to the new owner with the paperwork that transfers with the car.
Historically:-
The car was sent out by the factory as a TVR 420 SEAC, metallic black with modified windscreen aperture. This is information held by the TVRCC and was taken from actual factory TVR documents.
The engine number is NCK010
It is not definitively known why the car has a body that is different to that which is accepted as 'standard' SEAC.
The theories are:-
The car has been crashed and the body replaced.
The finish on the aramid body was so poor the owner had it changed
The car left the factory with this body.
The answer in actual fact is not known.
The first owner of the car was a City financial institution - not a Manchester doorman as has been said.
A previous owner insists quite categorically that the car was a development car and originally had a 3.9 engine which was later repleaced with a 4.2 engine. This owner also says they believe it had been crashed twice - once at a bus stop. This has also been discussed in the past.
The car is referred to in the documents in a number of places as a 420 SE and did wear 420 SE badges in the past, and the photos that came with the car showing it black prior to repainting in yellow show the car wearing 420 SE badges - I have disclosed this several times before.
Red paint chips have been found on the car including the bonnet - one observer commented that the bonnet came from a red car. What he didn't know was that red paint was found elsewhere. This has been mentioned before.
The factory document at first registration shows the weight to be 1056 Kg.
There is no other description at first registration that shows the car to be a 420 SE, 420 SEAC, 365 GTB, 250 Boano, Model A, or anything other than or additional to 'TVR'. The model type is not shown.
The delivery sheet/receipt from The TVR Centre in September 1986 does not identify the model.
A letter from The TVR Centre (clearly in reply to an enquiry) in 1990 says they have no information on the car, and that they have looked.
Thank you.
JJ
I would suggest it might be useful if it could be kept as a sticky for a little while - as a point of reference perhaps - without reply?
I have not at any time referred to my car as a TVR 420 SEAC.
I have not at any time advertised it as a TVR 420 SEAC, and shall continue to do the same.
I have pointed out the differences with the car when I have advertised it and shall continue to do the same.
A written declaration was drawn up and printed by me some time ago describing the car and the differences, has been placed with the history file, and this shall be given to the new owner with the paperwork that transfers with the car.
Historically:-
The car was sent out by the factory as a TVR 420 SEAC, metallic black with modified windscreen aperture. This is information held by the TVRCC and was taken from actual factory TVR documents.
The engine number is NCK010
It is not definitively known why the car has a body that is different to that which is accepted as 'standard' SEAC.
The theories are:-
The car has been crashed and the body replaced.
The finish on the aramid body was so poor the owner had it changed
The car left the factory with this body.
The answer in actual fact is not known.
The first owner of the car was a City financial institution - not a Manchester doorman as has been said.
A previous owner insists quite categorically that the car was a development car and originally had a 3.9 engine which was later repleaced with a 4.2 engine. This owner also says they believe it had been crashed twice - once at a bus stop. This has also been discussed in the past.
The car is referred to in the documents in a number of places as a 420 SE and did wear 420 SE badges in the past, and the photos that came with the car showing it black prior to repainting in yellow show the car wearing 420 SE badges - I have disclosed this several times before.
Red paint chips have been found on the car including the bonnet - one observer commented that the bonnet came from a red car. What he didn't know was that red paint was found elsewhere. This has been mentioned before.
The factory document at first registration shows the weight to be 1056 Kg.
There is no other description at first registration that shows the car to be a 420 SE, 420 SEAC, 365 GTB, 250 Boano, Model A, or anything other than or additional to 'TVR'. The model type is not shown.
The delivery sheet/receipt from The TVR Centre in September 1986 does not identify the model.
A letter from The TVR Centre (clearly in reply to an enquiry) in 1990 says they have no information on the car, and that they have looked.
Thank you.
JJ
Give it a rest, if you like your car what does it matter what anyone else calls it. If you don't like it or can't stand the continuous comments about your car (which incidently you wouldn't get if you didn't keep posting about it in this manner!), then sell it and be done with it.
Personally I could give a flying f**k what it is, there are many tens of cars that have left the factory with little or no paperwork, duplicate chassis numbers, no chassis number, etc. and another significant number with dubious histories.
Just be proud that you drive a TVR
davidy
Personally I could give a flying f**k what it is, there are many tens of cars that have left the factory with little or no paperwork, duplicate chassis numbers, no chassis number, etc. and another significant number with dubious histories.
Just be proud that you drive a TVR
davidy
andymadmak said:
firefox1712 said:
This is simply a statement -
I have not at any time referred to my car as a TVR 420 SEAC.
I have not at any time referred to my car as a TVR 420 SEAC.
on the list firefox s1712 said:
102 firefox1712 1986 420 SEAC alt body, yellow, black/yell int
firefox1712 said:
I am the new owner of the 'mystery' yellow TVR 420 SEAC
Yes - I referred to it as a TVR 420 SEAC alt. body - or 420 SEAC alternative body - NOT as a 420 SEAC.
Try engaging brain before opening mouth.
'I am the owner of the mystery 420 SEAC' - this was said when the car had just been acquired and everyone else was referring to the car as the yellow SEAC or mystery SEAC - please note I called it at the time the 'mystery SEAC'.
Stop being so fu**ing pedantic. Anyone would think you had something important to say.
I thought it would be of interest to make this a sticky, no answer post - for reference purposes for a while, shall we say.
Just remember - all I did was buy a car. It emerged there were possibly certain difficulties and/or discrepancies with that car. There is little I can do about that. The ongoing arguing about what it is and what its history is simply serves to satisfy the childish egos of a few apparently small-minded contributors who will seemingly stop at nothing to get their own way.
The statement was made in an atempt to clarify the situation.
Thank you for your interest.
JJ
Try engaging brain before opening mouth.
'I am the owner of the mystery 420 SEAC' - this was said when the car had just been acquired and everyone else was referring to the car as the yellow SEAC or mystery SEAC - please note I called it at the time the 'mystery SEAC'.
Stop being so fu**ing pedantic. Anyone would think you had something important to say.
I thought it would be of interest to make this a sticky, no answer post - for reference purposes for a while, shall we say.
Just remember - all I did was buy a car. It emerged there were possibly certain difficulties and/or discrepancies with that car. There is little I can do about that. The ongoing arguing about what it is and what its history is simply serves to satisfy the childish egos of a few apparently small-minded contributors who will seemingly stop at nothing to get their own way.
The statement was made in an atempt to clarify the situation.
Thank you for your interest.
JJ
Not being the fully clued up fanatic that so many of you are on this site. And may i say i respect your Knowledge and cannot not begin to tell all of you how much i appreciate the times you lot have helped me out of the preverbial. But this car is obviously a bit special and i am sure if you all put your heads together you will come up with the correct life history and future of this speciel car.
Regards
Rob
Regards
Rob
And find a solution to this situation.
JJ i've just seen this post,been busy all day,not had a drink, i would just like to call you a total cock.Sick to death over you and your car.You have called it a 420 SEAC ,and we all know its not,the other year the SEAC pic was a total 
up because of you.I've some money free in a couple of months if you will take 2K (more than i think its worth)for it i will buy it and scrap the ing thing.
up because of you.I've some money free in a couple of months if you will take 2K (more than i think its worth)for it i will buy it and scrap the ing thing.
Gassing Station | Wedges | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff