If TVR went bust
Discussion
what plannet are you on, everybody wants a blast of a car - but not everybody wants to loose 'northern house money' on one in 2 years.
a 2000/x 996 Carrera 2 (8k mls) is still worth 52.5k in the trade it cost 58k new
i was offered a 2000/X Tuscan (3k with reflex paint, air con, 18" spiders) for 27k, it cost £47k new.
Now lets see thats 5.5k loss on the Porker or 20k on the TVR - surely you cant be happy with that drop!
The prob has come about as a Griffith used to cost 28k whilst a 325 BMW cost 28k or a 911 70k. Today the average TVR is 40-50k, the BM is now 26k the 911 is 55k. Its a more competitive market place i'm afraid.
Bennno
a 2000/x 996 Carrera 2 (8k mls) is still worth 52.5k in the trade it cost 58k new
i was offered a 2000/X Tuscan (3k with reflex paint, air con, 18" spiders) for 27k, it cost £47k new.
Now lets see thats 5.5k loss on the Porker or 20k on the TVR - surely you cant be happy with that drop!
The prob has come about as a Griffith used to cost 28k whilst a 325 BMW cost 28k or a 911 70k. Today the average TVR is 40-50k, the BM is now 26k the 911 is 55k. Its a more competitive market place i'm afraid.
Bennno
quote:
what plannet are you on, everybody wants a blast of a car - but not everybody wants to loose 'northern house money' on one in 2 years.
What like a Ferrari 456 that cost £170K in 1996 and is now worth £60K, Ben?????
Or a F355 that cost £100,000 in 97 and is now worth £50K???
Or a Porsche Boxster that cost £42K three years ago and is now worth £25K????
I could go on and on.... My Old Griffith was £25,000 new in 1992 and I sold it NINE years later for £12K.....
All cars lose money, all sports cars go wrong (including fecking Porsches) and all expensive cars cost a bloody fortune to fix. There are good ones and bad ones out there, you either get lucky or you don't. If your fed up with TVR because your Cerb kept breaking down or because your S6 engine kept needing a re-build then I don't blame you for not wanting another TVR, but for f**ks sake STOP slagging them off just for the sake of it. 99% of us don't want a TVR with a bloody BMW/Ford/whatever engine in it. We mostly want a V8 or an S6.
I will have a Ferrari one day, when I have the money to run one, but one thing I won't do is then come on here and rubbish TVR's when I have had so much pleasure out of owning one.
There is nothing worse than coming on here and reading some bloke saying " I was thinking of getting a TVR but you lot have scared me off them and now I'm getting a Z3" Grrrrrrr...
Rant over....
( and hardly any of that was aimed at you Benno (just the depreciation bit) before you cancel Le Mans mate !!
) Hats off to Peter Wheeler- Great British Sportscars and long may it continue......
quote:
I constantly hear people whinging about TVR residuals but are they really that bad? Now personally I don't care......OK so you've seen a 2000 year Tuscan for 25k 'ish and it cost say 42-43k new......People who buy second or third cars as toys do so because they want them not because they have “strong” residuals, that’s the sort of nonsense people go into when trying to justify the next model-up BMW to their boss as a company car, not when they are buying a toy.
Flasher, not having a pop responding to this guys e-mail mate. he is a loon. read it for yourself and see if you agree.
For sure all cars depreciate.....certainly not arguing with that. I dont think the right TVR is too much of a problem, but take some time to read below next time before you blow your top please..
and lets not foget that you could buy a whole TVR for just the 30% depreciation you would have suffered if you had bought the 355 a few years back.
Bennno
>> Edited by bennno on Wednesday 1st May 23:02
quote:
There are a huge number of people waiting in the wings with their deposits in hand, ready for the time tvr's are engine trouble free. If it was announced tomorrow that they've struck a deal with an engine supplier (Hartge / whoever) and the Tuscan was now available with it as an option, they would be swamped with orders. I reckon their customer base would double over night. Never mind it'll be better in a few years etc....
I think the quality problem is bigger than the engine.
I think that if TVR employed a few Quality Assurance folks
to make sure the cars were put together properly, then they
would sell a lot more cars.
Even if the QA added 10% to the price of the car,
I suspect their annual sales would rise ten-fold.
In some districts of the country, a 911 is a default
choice of sports car.
quote:
quote:
I constantly hear people whinging about TVR residuals but are they really that bad? Now personally I don't care......OK so you've seen a 2000 year Tuscan for 25k 'ish and it cost say 42-43k new......People who buy second or third cars as toys do so because they want them not because they have “strong” residuals, that’s the sort of nonsense people go into when trying to justify the next model-up BMW to their boss as a company car, not when they are buying a toy.
Flasher, not having a pop responding to this guys e-mail mate. he is a loon. read it for yourself and see if you agree.
For sure all cars depreciate.....certainly not arguing with that. I dont think the right TVR is too much of a problem, but take some time to read below next time before you blow your top please..
and lets not foget that you could buy a whole TVR for just the 30% depreciation you would have suffered if you had bought the 355 a few years back.
Bennno
>> Edited by bennno on Wednesday 1st May 23:02
Trouble is Ben, I don't think TVR's are any worse than any other car when it comes to depreciation. It's something that you are always banging on about but the guy you quoted is bang on in one aspect....
I didn't buy any of my TVR's with ANY fore-thought whatsoever to residual value, like the bloke said ,it was a lifetime ambition and has never been intended as my everday car. The simple fact is that I have hardly lost any money on any of my TVR's. I lost £3K in two years on the Griff, I made money on the Tasmin, and I lost £1,000 in six months on the Cerbera.
I will probably change the Tamora after two years and get another TVR. Build quality on mine is superb and apart from the dashboard fault I had, it is very reliable after the first 5500 miles. I would reccomend a TVR to anyone.....
Just thought I'd expand on the presumed rationale behind the newer cars / reliability thing. This also rolls in some of the points above into one theory.
Tooling up an engine plant requires heavy, major investment and, I imagine in TVR's case, complicit banks. Said financiers would demand a return on their investment very fast, especially from a high risk company like TVR. Consequently the company did not have the option of building, refining and soak-testing many hundreds of new powerplants at great expense and no income (a la BMW, a la Porsche). To balance the cashflow, TVR would have to a) shift as many older cars (Griff / Chim) as possible, preferably with an increased margin, and b) get the new powerplants in cars asap to generate a return. In short they had an unsustainable financial weakness, offset by intense brand loyalty, and a highly desirable product.
Solution - balance the strengths and weaknesses. Do the engine testing 'in-market'. Generate a return as soon as possible to repay the debt and balance the cashflow. Accept inevitability of increased warranty work but incremental costs of warranty servicing are less risky short term than foreclosure by the banks, and also allow mechanics to learn 'on the job' on engines that have already developed a revenue stream (one earlier post suggested TVR had made recent lay-off's - this would be why). The risk is loss of brand loyalty and customer disatisfaction, but then TVR never had an amazing reliability record anyway and people still bought the cars. It was worth the gamble.
If this was the plan (and I suspect it was), did it work? Nearly. Only nearly, because the price of the cars has gone up in real terms, so the balancing act was not quite perfect, meaning that TVR have had to recover some of the new costs through price hikes, which is unfortunate because this, more than anything else I suspect, has damaged the brand appeal (as many posts here point out, the new TVR's are getting close in cash terms to more established, reliable and residual friendly cars).
Still - I take my hat off to PW. In the medium term (for this is where we are) the gamble has paid off. The engines are becoming more reliable and the brand equity is definately still there. The factory is (painfully) slowly beginning to underpin the integrity of its cars. Some (but by no means all) dealers seem to be improving. There is still some long way to go, and TVR could make some real progress through simple changes (UNDERSEAL THE BLOODY CARS...). I would love to see the Finances of the Company, but I suspect the reason they don't is that it's all just ticking along at the moment. There are no shareholders, the debt is being serviced and PW is as rich as he wants to be. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
Shame though. As someone whose job it is to advise companies on control risks and efficiencies, I can see many things I would like to have a closer look at in Blackpool... (Phew - thats about £100 of my time...)
Tooling up an engine plant requires heavy, major investment and, I imagine in TVR's case, complicit banks. Said financiers would demand a return on their investment very fast, especially from a high risk company like TVR. Consequently the company did not have the option of building, refining and soak-testing many hundreds of new powerplants at great expense and no income (a la BMW, a la Porsche). To balance the cashflow, TVR would have to a) shift as many older cars (Griff / Chim) as possible, preferably with an increased margin, and b) get the new powerplants in cars asap to generate a return. In short they had an unsustainable financial weakness, offset by intense brand loyalty, and a highly desirable product.
Solution - balance the strengths and weaknesses. Do the engine testing 'in-market'. Generate a return as soon as possible to repay the debt and balance the cashflow. Accept inevitability of increased warranty work but incremental costs of warranty servicing are less risky short term than foreclosure by the banks, and also allow mechanics to learn 'on the job' on engines that have already developed a revenue stream (one earlier post suggested TVR had made recent lay-off's - this would be why). The risk is loss of brand loyalty and customer disatisfaction, but then TVR never had an amazing reliability record anyway and people still bought the cars. It was worth the gamble.
If this was the plan (and I suspect it was), did it work? Nearly. Only nearly, because the price of the cars has gone up in real terms, so the balancing act was not quite perfect, meaning that TVR have had to recover some of the new costs through price hikes, which is unfortunate because this, more than anything else I suspect, has damaged the brand appeal (as many posts here point out, the new TVR's are getting close in cash terms to more established, reliable and residual friendly cars).
Still - I take my hat off to PW. In the medium term (for this is where we are) the gamble has paid off. The engines are becoming more reliable and the brand equity is definately still there. The factory is (painfully) slowly beginning to underpin the integrity of its cars. Some (but by no means all) dealers seem to be improving. There is still some long way to go, and TVR could make some real progress through simple changes (UNDERSEAL THE BLOODY CARS...). I would love to see the Finances of the Company, but I suspect the reason they don't is that it's all just ticking along at the moment. There are no shareholders, the debt is being serviced and PW is as rich as he wants to be. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
Shame though. As someone whose job it is to advise companies on control risks and efficiencies, I can see many things I would like to have a closer look at in Blackpool... (Phew - thats about £100 of my time...)
quote:
I think that if TVR employed a few Quality Assurance folks to make sure the cars were put together properly, then they would sell a lot more cars.
They do as a matter of fact but they can only go so far. All the cars are tested before they leave the factory, no car would be allowed out to a customer if it was faulty. I admit that sometimes things slip through the net, a lot of the time the guys get it right. Sometimes its down to the components and thats just the luck of the draw.
Like I have said time and time again if you buy a TVR especially a new model YOU are the test driver, trying an unknown car so stop complaining when niggly things go wrong as they will, all cars go wrong at some stage. TVR can't afford to spend years and millions on R&D - thats why they are half the price of the Porkers etc.
You don't have to buy one if you don't want one and seeing as Peter isn't likely to sell TVR for a good few years yet - if he ever does, there is not much point in speculating who will buy it...Hell Peter may even buy out Porsche.
Flasher,
dont want to argue with you, i was not saying they depreciate worse (read my last post again).
Mike E and Roadrunner have brought the residual word up, I was just saying that the comments from the guy below that said nobody even cares about depreciation...is total bollocks.
I remember you making the comment when you got your deal on the Tamora that it was worth doing not just for the colour, but to ensure you had paid less and therefore would loose less at resale time. Therefore you fib Mr Flasher.
There is some good debate on this thread, it is just a shame that if anybody says anything like 'fek me you have to buy sealant from B&Q to slick you 40k car back together or I am worried that it will be worth only half in 2 years ( TVR enthusiast mike E)'...then why do you all get aggressive.
Ok I acknowledge that they outperform all other cars, depreciate less, are more reliable and the dealer service is unmatched. Hopefully now thats the end to our arguement Flash.
Bennno
Morning gaffer. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of us think PW has done a fantastic job with TVR. What some forget is that he had already made a lot of money in chemical engineering, and sank that money into TVR. That means he is an extremely shrewd businessman, and not a fly-by-night entrepreneur, and knows the ins and outs of company finances. The last accounts showed TVR had approx £1500 cash in the bank, on turnover of approx £36million. There's a lot of investment and probably loan repayment going on, which I think we will all feel the benefit from over the next few years. The only change I would suggest at TVR is to change the production lines to run on specific issues (as I mentioned earlier in the thread) - get the workforce to specialise, rather than be jacks of all trades. That way, quality will improve with no extra outlay. PW must have thick skin and incredible self belief. More power to his elbow, I say!!!
£1500 cash at the bank sounds like good accounting to me i.e next to no corporation tax
Only problem with having "specialists" on a production is it leaves holes when people are sick, leave, promoted etc. The modern cliche in industry is "multi skilling" where jobs are not massively technical such as production, "Jack of all trades" sounds like a bunch of bodgers but if it's done properly is the most efficient way with every one doing a process in the same manner. Shit listen to me guess who's not long done his MBA.
Only problem with having "specialists" on a production is it leaves holes when people are sick, leave, promoted etc. The modern cliche in industry is "multi skilling" where jobs are not massively technical such as production, "Jack of all trades" sounds like a bunch of bodgers but if it's done properly is the most efficient way with every one doing a process in the same manner. Shit listen to me guess who's not long done his MBA.
Interesting thread this one.
What's clear is that everyone loves what TVR are about. Curvy and original British designs with stonking power to weight ratios etc etc.
Long may they live!
My personal thought is that it wouldn't bother me if they took a Ford (or other) 5.0 litre V8 and made a few mods to the head so that they can put the TVR badge on it and slipped it into the Tuscan.
Residuals and depreciation are a matter of personal choice - if you can afford it - buy the car you want, not the car your accountant tells you to buy.
But for the many TVR wannabees out there - for which cost of ownership is (unfortunately) a real issue - the security of rock solid engines would make the decision to buy one much easier.
And in the long run more loyal customers is what will ensure the long term survival of this fantastic company.
All of course IMHO.
Praise be to the cult of PW and TVR!
But lets keep the debate open for new ways of thinking.
Even god's can make mistakes.
What's clear is that everyone loves what TVR are about. Curvy and original British designs with stonking power to weight ratios etc etc.
Long may they live!
My personal thought is that it wouldn't bother me if they took a Ford (or other) 5.0 litre V8 and made a few mods to the head so that they can put the TVR badge on it and slipped it into the Tuscan.
Residuals and depreciation are a matter of personal choice - if you can afford it - buy the car you want, not the car your accountant tells you to buy.
But for the many TVR wannabees out there - for which cost of ownership is (unfortunately) a real issue - the security of rock solid engines would make the decision to buy one much easier.
And in the long run more loyal customers is what will ensure the long term survival of this fantastic company.
All of course IMHO.
Praise be to the cult of PW and TVR!
But lets keep the debate open for new ways of thinking.
Even god's can make mistakes.
quote:I don't necessarily have a problem with that. However, I do think that TVR should have bit the bullet and come clean with the earlier engines. Instead of saying "nope, nothing wrong with our engines, that will be £xxxx for an engine rebuild, no its not covered by the warranty", they should have said "yes, sorry about that, development engine and all that, we'll fix it free of charge."
Do the engine testing 'in-market'. Generate a return as soon as possible to repay the debt and balance the cashflow. Accept inevitability of increased warranty work but incremental costs of warranty servicing are less risky short term than foreclosure by the banks, and also allow mechanics to learn 'on the job' on engines that have already developed a revenue stream
The reason for a lot of people's loss of confidence in the Speed 6 engine is fear of expensive engine rebuilds. If TVR had removed that source of fear - ie. the expense - on the earlier engines then people might have been more inclined to say "ok, the engine blew up. But it is a development engine, and TVR did fix it for me and give me a little certificate for being a test driver and not charge me, so I don't mind as much" instead of all the tales of woe we've had which only undermine and devalue the marque.
If TVR had treated these customers better, it would have got good press over the Speed 6 problems, instead of bad press and bad feelings.
quote:
Yes but the difference with Morgan, Westfield, Caterham etc. is they all use someone elses tried and trusted engines.
What worries me is the residual values when the speed six engined cars hit two years old (i.e out of manufacturers warrantee). I reckon they're going to plummet as buyers confidence in these engines will be very low and, to make matters worse, the rebuild costs will be astronomical.
So if residuals plummet then new sales will suffer as buyers run shy of 50% depreciation in 24 months ownership.
The above areas are new problems for TVR. All through the nineties the Griff, Chimp and S models had great residuals and robust and relatively cheap mechanicals which gave buyers some degree of comfort when considering the other niggly build quality issues. Given this then there are many owners of this era of TVR cars who will (rightly) defend them to the end - me included, for all the reasons listed in this thread.
So IMHO I think it could well all end in tears
- and if you think I'm exagerating it's a fact that TVR are STILL rebuilding Tuscan engines, some for the 3rd time, despite claiming that the original problems were down to a bad batch of components (clearly not a design fault then). Lets all keep are fingers crossed that the Tamora engines prove to be more robust - the next 6 months should tell.....
Mike (former owner of a faultless griff and TWO not so faultless Tuscans)
You've hit the nail on the head there, Mike!
I owned my Griff for 3 years and loved the driving experience, but the ownership experience left a lot to be desired. These cars are a LOT more expensive to run than people think and I'm afraid I would be financially terrified if I had a Tuscan sitting on the drive.
Morning Nubbin - hows the Tamora..?
Sorry I just get so pissed off, we have been down this road before like a bloke who won't ask for directions.
The guys at TVR work bloody hard Dad used to keep a sleeping bag in his office and slept under his desk on many occasions. When I was a little girl and it was stock take time I was the one that used to climb up the racking shelves to count by hand all the nuts and washers so I have done my bit.
Just give them a break. If your happy let people know. It would make a nice change.
Off to calm down now.
>> Edited by Gaffer on Thursday 2nd May 19:34
Sorry I just get so pissed off, we have been down this road before like a bloke who won't ask for directions.
The guys at TVR work bloody hard Dad used to keep a sleeping bag in his office and slept under his desk on many occasions. When I was a little girl and it was stock take time I was the one that used to climb up the racking shelves to count by hand all the nuts and washers so I have done my bit.
Just give them a break. If your happy let people know. It would make a nice change.
Off to calm down now.
>> Edited by Gaffer on Thursday 2nd May 19:34
quote:
Flasher,
dont want to argue with you, i was not saying they depreciate worse (read my last post again).
Mike E and Roadrunner have brought the residual word up, I was just saying that the comments from the guy below that said nobody even cares about depreciation...is total bollocks.
I remember you making the comment when you got your deal on the Tamora that it was worth doing not just for the colour, but to ensure you had paid less and therefore would loose less at resale time. Therefore you fib Mr Flasher.
There is some good debate on this thread, it is just a shame that if anybody says anything like 'fek me you have to buy sealant from B&Q to slick you 40k car back together or I am worried that it will be worth only half in 2 years ( TVR enthusiast mike E)'...then why do you all get aggressive.
Ok I acknowledge that they outperform all other cars, depreciate less, are more reliable and the dealer service is unmatched. Hopefully now thats the end to our arguement Flash.
Bennno
I agree with you Bennno with the exception of the depreciation - from my experience it's pretty frightening. To give my example (again) I paid £45K for my Swordfish spec Tuscan in Jan 2001 and sold in Jan 2002 for £30K (the BEST I could get). That's 33% depreciation in 12 months/6000 miles (obviously) or to put it another way £2.50/mile in depreciation. Now the reason I say this is anyone who thinks they're going to see early 1990's levels of depreciation is going to be disappointed and I think it's fair to point this out to potential owners.
As I said before I've been a die hard TVR fan since 91 (when I first saw the Griff at the Motorshow) and have been priviledged enough to afford to buy a Griff and 2 new Tuscans S6s. Whilst I would happily buy a (2nd hand) Griff again I will not be buying a new Tuscan/Tamora/Cerbera because I just don't think I can justify the total running costs (the majority of which is the depreciation). So would I buy a 3 year old Tuscan/Cerbera - again no I wouldn't because I would then be concerned with the cost of maintaining a fragile engine IMHO.
Now don't take this the wrong way Flasher, but you are probably still in the 'honeymoon period' with your Tamora. Lets hope it doesn't happen but, if you end up having two or three engine rebuilds in the next 18 months resulting in your car being off the road for 6 months and then you find the best return you can get is say £19K I don't think you'd be too happy with that (as some Tuscan owners have found over there 2 year ownership).
So that all goes back to my original comments, I think TVRs decision to build their own range of engines, whilst very brave, was a mistake and has shaken a lot of previous owners faith in the original virtues of TVRs (value for money, ease of maintenance and relatively cheap running costs).
And finally, for the guy who says he doesn't care about residuals - how about this, why not just go and spend more money on the new Lambo happy in the knowledge that the lower depreciation you suffer will off-set the huge interest payments you have to make on the finance deal - the world then becomes your lobster
Mike.
>> Edited by MikeE on Thursday 2nd May 10:10
Gassing Station | General TVR Stuff & Gossip | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff