400se v 450se
400se v 450se
Author
Discussion

snookes

Original Poster:

262 posts

313 months

Friday 10th August 2007
quotequote all
early next yr i shall have the funds to buy a 400se. do i save a bit more and go for the 450se. is there much differance in performance, running etc please advise thanks

rev-erend

21,622 posts

314 months

Friday 10th August 2007
quotequote all
I would just every car on it's condition and merits..

It's entirely possible that you might see a 400 se with a 4.5 or 4.6 in it..

The only difference was the engine ..

The bhp difference was about 25 bhp..

BadRedWedge

3,450 posts

258 months

Friday 10th August 2007
quotequote all
IF you can find a good 450, you should buy it biggrin



Edited by BadRedWedge on Friday 10th August 17:27

TVRleigh

6,553 posts

243 months

Friday 10th August 2007
quotequote all
The 450 are rarer I think 50 ish and had a bigger engine, compated to about 240 400SE's depends on age and tune, for BHP you can find some 4ltr car that have more BHP than the 4.5, but a general rule the 450 will have more, 400SE will vary from 220-270 most 4.5 are about 240-260.

but the rest is the same, unless you have had a 400SE for a long time it could be hard to notice the differance, if its your 1st one and depending on what 400SE and what 450SE you may not notice the differance, as your not going to be pushing that hard on a test drive.

I'm not sure if the later 450SE had a cross bolted block, as that could be the only benifit if you want to later tune it more.

Also the 450 will have more tuning ability as you are starting out with a bigger engine.

So depends on what your looking for. they are all so small in numbers and all individual so you just have to take look at each one as they come up.

Gandalf

2,381 posts

268 months

Friday 10th August 2007
quotequote all
BadRedWedge said:
IF you can find a good 450, you should buy it biggrin



Edited by BadRedWedge on Friday 10th August 17:27
Shame you just missed the one in the picture it was only sold in the last week or so, and that one had been sorted, the owner was mad in my opinion, but he wanted something more medditteranean to go with his new thick dark hair apparently!

L33

3,469 posts

254 months

Friday 10th August 2007
quotequote all
I totally aggree with what Rev said - buy based on condition.

Peformance is noticably better with the 450 but I'd rather have an excellent 400 rather than "just" a good 450.

smile

rev-erend

21,622 posts

314 months

Friday 10th August 2007
quotequote all
Badred's was not a good 450 .....





It was exceptional ..biggrin


The new owner is very lucky smile

It all depends on what you want and what your budget is.

If you have 5K - then you wont be buying a 450 or 400 SE..

between 6 and 12K is the whole market..


snookes

Original Poster:

262 posts

313 months

Saturday 11th August 2007
quotequote all
thanks for the input, food for thought i think

jvaughan

6,025 posts

313 months

Monday 13th August 2007
quotequote all
To be honest, there is very little between the 400 and 450 SE ... I have "played" with a few 450's and also one or SEAC's and you only really notice the extra cc's when you are north of 80 --> 100mph. Then the 450 / SEAC's pull away

JR

14,332 posts

288 months

Monday 13th August 2007
quotequote all
snookes said:
thanks for the input, food for thought i think
There's a lot of running down the 450s on this thread. TVR figures were 269bhp for the 400 and 325 for the 450. OK TVR figures have a life of their own but they are in proportion. The 450 engine in the 450SE has little to do with the much later, milder tune 4.5/460 engine found in Chimps and RangeRovers, it's got a Chevvy crank and is 4,441cc (IIRC) together with one of the wierdest bhp curves you'll ever see. Then there's the double crankshaft seal to stop it floating...

TVRleigh

6,553 posts

243 months

Monday 13th August 2007
quotequote all
I would not say anyone is running them down, just saying theres not a lot of diffance than a 400SE.

There was so few SE's made less that 300 total SE each one is diffent and special in its own way.

Would you say a 4.3 Griff was better than a 4.0 or a 4.5 SEAC is better than a 4.2 SEAC or a 4.5 Cerbi is that much better than a 4.2 cerbi.

as will all of the above 90% of the time the bigger engine will have a bit more go and HP. but will not be overly noticable, unless you comparing a very good one v a bad one.

Also some people rate the flapper over the hot wire, and visa versa.

Also depends on how much you want to spend also if you want it 100% standard.
as most people would say Karls 4.6 SEAC is one of the best wedges about. but its far from standard. 4.6 Engine and Custom Exhorst.

Some mods seem to be acepted and some not.

Also you have to decide if you want a genuine 450SE or a 400SE with a 4.5 engine and a re-badge. it can get a bit of a mine field.

JR

14,332 posts

288 months

Tuesday 14th August 2007
quotequote all
TVRleigh said:
I would not say anyone is running them down, just saying theres not a lot of diffance than a 400SE...as will all of the above 90% of the time the bigger engine will have a bit more go and HP. but will not be overly noticable, unless you comparing a very good one v a bad one.
Unless there's something very odd going on with the second hand ones today I strongly disagree with that. In the early 90s the 20% difference in bhp was VERY noticable comparing very good 400s with 450s. I remember a certain Mr Thorpe in his 450SE making a 4.5 Griff work very hard, (and that was a special engine) 400SEs were not even close.

TVRleigh

6,553 posts

243 months

Tuesday 14th August 2007
quotequote all
Well im sure Mr Thorpe's 450SE would not have been standard at the time either, or if iwas it was set-up the best it could be, as he was mr Wedge. as said a if you going to tune a car it's allways best to get the biggest engine you can to start with. Also the SE was allways more tunes that standrad Griff's and chims.

Also at the time you could order extra tuning or a SEAC engine or Solid lifters as TVR was a lot smaller then, as was open to custom mods.

If you looked at the figure for the rolling road results the 450 was about 10% better than a 400SE, one 400SE did manage IIRC about 270, some people say it not a 4lr but the owner know's of no mods done. Also my 400SE that I know is standard, had 236 BHP last time it was on a RR.

We are not saying the 450 is not better than a 400 just for 95% of people it not going to make a lot of differance,

If you looking for a best wedge then you better off getting a 450 SEAC or if you want a SE then the 400SX. or put a 5lr griff Engine in a SE as this has been done at works.

JR

14,332 posts

288 months

Tuesday 14th August 2007
quotequote all
TVRleigh said:
Well im sure Mr Thorpe's 450SE would not have been standard at the time either
No, you just don't seem to understand the 450SE at all. Richard's 450SE was immaculate and completely standard. The 450SE is not just a larger cc like the 460 engine, look at the power figures, it's a tuned engine from the factory gates - no aftermarket stuff - IIRC based on the Tuscan racers.

TVRleigh

6,553 posts

243 months

Tuesday 14th August 2007
quotequote all
Well if that's the case I stand corrected, but as I also stated how many of the badged 450SE are these real highly tuned ones.

Also how many of these still have there highly tune engine still on one pice. and at the same tune.
not many race engines last 15 years.

Also I have not see the real power figures of a factory 450SE, and any one got a RR printout.
as the 450SE's at the last BBWF was not as impressive as you say. all I can go on is what I know and seen.

If I could find I clean Std 450SE with proven 320BHP I'll sell my kidney's to buy it.
The same goes for a Any Rouse 390SE with 275BHP

as everyone has stated Each car sould be looked at as a one off. but just because a car has a 450SE badge on it, that means nothing. unless it got back-up.

I think we should call it a day now. no one is saying the 450 is not a good car, just its not somthing to wet your pants over either.

If you do have all the facts on the 450SE and what tuning was done, it would make an interesting read.

Edited by TVRleigh on Tuesday 14th August 10:48

JR

14,332 posts

288 months

Tuesday 14th August 2007
quotequote all
TVRleigh said:
Well if that's the case I stand corrected, but as I also stated how many of the badged 450SE are these real highly tuned ones.
Ah, that's another issue though. Good point.

TVRleigh said:
Also how many of these still have their highly tuned engine still on one piece and at the same tune. Not many race engines last 15 years.
30,000 miles was the generally expected life. Note: I wasn't suggesting that the 450SE has a race engine, merely based on one and at a higher state of tune that the 400SE.

TVRleigh

6,553 posts

243 months

Tuesday 14th August 2007
quotequote all
Do you know the state of tune for the 450SE, and was they flapper or hotwire, of did they do both.
The strange thing with the SE is they seemed to get less tuned the later they got. I think dude to corner cutting and cost cutting.

rev-erend

21,622 posts

314 months

Tuesday 14th August 2007
quotequote all
Leigh,

This also seems to be the case with 'most' TVR models..

The Griff 500 sees to be milder in the later cars too..

and with the age of the wedge models - it would be rare to find one with the original unmolested TVR or NCK engine.

L33

3,469 posts

254 months

Tuesday 14th August 2007
quotequote all

Gandalf

2,381 posts

268 months

Tuesday 14th August 2007
quotequote all
rev-erend said:
Leigh,

This also seems to be the case with 'most' TVR models..

The Griff 500 sees to be milder in the later cars too..

and with the age of the wedge models - it would be rare to find one with the original unmolested TVR or NCK engine.
I`ve got one with an unmolested 400 NCK engine - which is incidentally looking for a new home as i`ve gone an bought another which is also fitted with an "apparently" unmolested 450 NCK motor!