Will TVR's ever be sold in the USA?
Discussion
Unfortunately.. no. I can't even take mine back with me when I move home some day.
I guess it's because the TVR is just a bare essentials fast sports car. Emmisions, safety equipment, etc etc etc are not really even considered. I wonder sometimes how TVR even gets away with building these things (I'm glad they do !) As long as TVR is content serving only the UK market, they would probably never spend the money needed to make the car truly "exportable". And if they did... it would cost a lot more, and then it wouldn't be a TVR.
There really isn't anything comparable on the USA market. For now, I'll just enjoy myself driving my Chim, knowing that one day I'll go back to driving a chevy pick up.
I guess it's because the TVR is just a bare essentials fast sports car. Emmisions, safety equipment, etc etc etc are not really even considered. I wonder sometimes how TVR even gets away with building these things (I'm glad they do !) As long as TVR is content serving only the UK market, they would probably never spend the money needed to make the car truly "exportable". And if they did... it would cost a lot more, and then it wouldn't be a TVR.
There really isn't anything comparable on the USA market. For now, I'll just enjoy myself driving my Chim, knowing that one day I'll go back to driving a chevy pick up.
I think the answer to this one is definitely maybe...
There have been a number of avenues that have been pursued by the factory and others recently (largely following the positive reaction the Tuscan has received) - there's loads of discussion on this here:
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/forum.asp?f=35&h=0
There have been a number of avenues that have been pursued by the factory and others recently (largely following the positive reaction the Tuscan has received) - there's loads of discussion on this here:
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/forum.asp?f=35&h=0
thirsty said: Unfortunately.. no. I can't even take mine back with me when I move home some day.
Why can't they be imported into the USA? If one can drive a Viper or Cobra then surely a TVR can be driven legaly? I have ever intention of bringin my Tuscn with me if and when I move back...
blackmonday said:
thirsty said: Unfortunately.. no. I can't even take mine back with me when I move home some day.
Why can't they be imported into the USA? If one can drive a Viper or Cobra then surely a TVR can be driven legaly? I have ever intention of bringin my Tuscn with me if and when I move back...
I'm not sure.. as I'm not an expert on the subject. There are a lot of threads on this issue buried in this site, but as I am told.. the car must meet the same safety and emmisions requirements as other American cars in the year it was built. After 25 years you can take it in with no restrictions as it would now be considered an antique??? That means that if I do buy a new T350, I can take it back to the USA in 2027 !!!
Importing a car is not the same as buying one from a US dealer. If the factory wants to sell cars in the US they have to meet current US legislation. But this is not (I believe) the case for Personal Imports. What kind of regular check (MOT) do you need out there? It may require something to meet emmisions regs for this? I reckon it should be possible to import a TVR.
edited to add a few more 'yes' smileys
>> Edited by the dodger on Wednesday 1st January 17:16
edited to add a few more 'yes' smileys
>> Edited by the dodger on Wednesday 1st January 17:16
I got this right off the US Customs Service Web site:
Both the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency advise that although a nonconforming car may be conditionally admitted, the modifications required to bring it into compliance may be so extensive and costly that it may be impractical and even impossible to achieve such compliance.
Moreover, under Federal Regulations 49 CFR parts 591 through 594, effective
January 31, 1990, some vehicle models are prohibited from importation. It is highly recommended that these prohibitions and modifications be investigated before a vehicle is purchased for importation.
Furthermore...
The following vehicles need not conform to emission or safety requirements but may NOT be sold in the U.S. and may require EPA and DOT declarations:
Those imported by nonresidents for personal use not exceeding one year. The vehicle must be exported at the end of that year-no exceptions or extensions.
Both the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency advise that although a nonconforming car may be conditionally admitted, the modifications required to bring it into compliance may be so extensive and costly that it may be impractical and even impossible to achieve such compliance.
Moreover, under Federal Regulations 49 CFR parts 591 through 594, effective
January 31, 1990, some vehicle models are prohibited from importation. It is highly recommended that these prohibitions and modifications be investigated before a vehicle is purchased for importation.
Furthermore...
The following vehicles need not conform to emission or safety requirements but may NOT be sold in the U.S. and may require EPA and DOT declarations:
Those imported by nonresidents for personal use not exceeding one year. The vehicle must be exported at the end of that year-no exceptions or extensions.
thirsty said: Unfortunately.. no. I can't even take mine back with me when I move home some day.
I guess it's because the TVR is just a bare essentials fast sports car. Emmisions, safety equipment, etc etc etc are not really even considered. I wonder sometimes how TVR even gets away with building these things (I'm glad they do !) As long as TVR is content serving only the UK market, they would probably never spend the money needed to make the car truly "exportable". And if they did... it would cost a lot more, and then it wouldn't be a TVR.
There really isn't anything comparable on the USA market. For now, I'll just enjoy myself driving my Chim, knowing that one day I'll go back to driving a chevy pick up.
According to an interview with Peter Wheeler I read, TVR do have to comply with emission regs. He was talking about how much easier it is to get the Speed Six engine to pass emissions than the V8.
And what safety equipment does TVR lack?
Airbags? I'm glad they don't have airbags because airbags may not properly be considered safety equipment. They are essentially "nanny" devices for people who are too lazy/stupid to wear seatbelts. Also, airbags can easily cause injuries (particularly to children) to occupants even when they are properly restrained. No thanks.
Traction Control? That isn't a safety feature. It is just a hand-holding device for people who don't really understand how throttle pedals work and can't be bothered to learn. Anyone who wants traction control, doesn't really want a TVR.
Anti-lock brakes? Sorry, not a safety feature. To be fair, it is the closest of the three to qualify, but it still doesn't. All ABS does is pump the brakes by computer if it detects that the wheels have lost traction so the driver can just "stomp and steer". ABS can be useful on heavy cars with light-touch brakes (I'm glad my Jaguar has them) but on cars like TVR makes, ABS is rather pointless. Put another way, any car that can go from 100 to a standing stop in something like four seconds doesn't need any help in the braking department.
Also, I would contend that having ABS can be dangerous. People who don't really understand what they are and how they work can be lulled into a false sense of security by them and drive at unsafe speeds in hazardous conditions with the blind faith that if they get into trouble the ABS system will bail them out. If that person was driving a non-ABS-equipped car, they might be induced to slow down in slippery conditions which is what they should do anyway.
JonGwynne said:
thirsty said: Unfortunately.. no......
And what safety equipment does TVR lack?
Airbags? I'm glad they don't have airbags because airbags may not properly be considered safety equipment. They are essentially "nanny" devices for people who are too lazy/stupid to wear seatbelts. Also, airbags can easily cause injuries (particularly to children) to occupants even when they are properly restrained. No thanks.
I take exception to you implying that I am lazy or stupid because I prefer not to wear a seatbelt. I have been involved in several RTA's, none of them at high speed, and in no case (as far as I could see) would a seatbelt have made any difference to my injuries or those of anyone else involved (like a broken thumb?).
I had a cousin who died after a car crash: neither he nor his passenger was wearing a belt; the passenger survived.
My ex-wife's family was in a car that was broadsided by some clown; her mother had almost every rib broken - she'd tried to climb out of the way but the belt stopped her from doing so.
I could cite other examples... and yes, I know the argument is that head-ons are primarily what belts are targetted at... how about the Metro that I ran into 'head-on' after she pulled out in front of me? I'm still here....
Perhaps seatbelts should be considered as 'nanny devices' for those who are too lazy/ stupid to drive correctly in the first place? Or, put another way, the legalization of seatbelts was effectively an admission by HM Govt. that they had allowed too many incompetent arseholes onto the roads in the first place....
Believe me, you drive without a seatbelt these days and it makes you think twice about doing something stupid... in much the same way as your references to ABS and TC apply.
Ian
wedg1e said:
JonGwynne said:
thirsty said: Unfortunately.. no......
And what safety equipment does TVR lack?
Airbags? I'm glad they don't have airbags because airbags may not properly be considered safety equipment. They are essentially "nanny" devices for people who are too lazy/stupid to wear seatbelts. Also, airbags can easily cause injuries (particularly to children) to occupants even when they are properly restrained. No thanks.
I take exception to you implying that I am lazy or stupid because I prefer not to wear a seatbelt. I have been involved in several RTA's, none of them at high speed, and in no case (as far as I could see) would a seatbelt have made any difference to my injuries or those of anyone else involved (like a broken thumb?).
I had a cousin who died after a car crash: neither he nor his passenger was wearing a belt; the passenger survived.
My ex-wife's family was in a car that was broadsided by some clown; her mother had almost every rib broken - she'd tried to climb out of the way but the belt stopped her from doing so.
I could cite other examples... and yes, I know the argument is that head-ons are primarily what belts are targetted at... how about the Metro that I ran into 'head-on' after she pulled out in front of me? I'm still here....
Perhaps seatbelts should be considered as 'nanny devices' for those who are too lazy/ stupid to drive correctly in the first place? Or, put another way, the legalization of seatbelts was effectively an admission by HM Govt. that they had allowed too many incompetent arseholes onto the roads in the first place....
Believe me, you drive without a seatbelt these days and it makes you think twice about doing something stupid... in much the same way as your references to ABS and TC apply.
Ian
Take exception if you like but people who refuse to wear seatbelts are demonstrating either a profound ignorance of basic physics or are unwilling to exert any effort to protect themselves from the inevitable injuries of high speed impacts. Therefore, I think my descrption of such people is fair comment.
Don't take it an insult though, I do lazy and stupid things myself.
You're fortunate not to have been involved in any high-speed collisions thus far. I have also been lucky in this regard. However, I still buckle up. Why? One word: "Inertia".
Put another way, a seat belt is an insurance policy and as the cliche about insurance goes... it is better to have it and not need it than the need it and not have it.
And to address your other point. I don't wear belts because I doubt my own driving ability, I wear them because I doubt the abilities of others. Single car accidents are not a big threat - at least not to anyone with basic driving skill. The problem is when some brain-donor out there loses control and then ruins my day as a result.
Someone with the skills Michael Schumacher himself, is still not going to be able to do much if some pinhead next in the next lane is having an argument with his girlfriend on the mobile phone while trying to change a CD drops a lit cig into his lap and loses control, slamming into his front quarter.
Personally, I don't think seat belt usage should be required by law though. Part of living in a free country is being free to make the wrong decision.
That being said, I think the NHS should be entitled to bill you for treating any injuries you might sustain in a car accident which would have been prevented if you had been wearing your seatbelts.
What do you think?
>> Edited by JonGwynne on Thursday 2nd January 17:01
Having seen firsthand the result of not wearing a seatbelt in a high speed collision (driver walked - no, ran away (stolen car) and left his mate on the bonnet looking like an explosion in an abatoir, having gone through the windscreen) I'd have to say that not wearing one is simply mind boggling...
Jon:
Fair-ish points you make.
My main argument is along your lines there of 'freedom of choice'. Trouble is, if the Guvmint caved in on the compulsory use of seatbelts, next they'd have to allow voluntary euthanasia, which must be a comparable issue?
I agree with the point about 'it's not me, it's everyone else', but if you want to stretch the point of being a competent driver, you should be allowing for the fact that everyone else on the road IS out to get you, and adjust your road stance accordingly (in effect this is what the IAM et al teach).
I used to ride motorcycles (to IAM standard, too), and I say it made me a better car driver. Everyone should start on bikes, then maybe they'd wake up a bit more in a car.
Ultimately I know this is one argument I'm never going to win (although I know a lot of people agree with me), but if you want to take the 'nanny' stance, then why not abolish sports cars, or indeed any vehicle capable of exceeding 22 mph?
Judas: I used to work for an undertakers; know what you mean about the RTA injuries.
Ian
Fair-ish points you make.
My main argument is along your lines there of 'freedom of choice'. Trouble is, if the Guvmint caved in on the compulsory use of seatbelts, next they'd have to allow voluntary euthanasia, which must be a comparable issue?
I agree with the point about 'it's not me, it's everyone else', but if you want to stretch the point of being a competent driver, you should be allowing for the fact that everyone else on the road IS out to get you, and adjust your road stance accordingly (in effect this is what the IAM et al teach).
I used to ride motorcycles (to IAM standard, too), and I say it made me a better car driver. Everyone should start on bikes, then maybe they'd wake up a bit more in a car.
Ultimately I know this is one argument I'm never going to win (although I know a lot of people agree with me), but if you want to take the 'nanny' stance, then why not abolish sports cars, or indeed any vehicle capable of exceeding 22 mph?
Judas: I used to work for an undertakers; know what you mean about the RTA injuries.
Ian
wedg1e said: Jon:
Fair-ish points you make.
My main argument is along your lines there of 'freedom of choice'. Trouble is, if the Guvmint caved in on the compulsory use of seatbelts, next they'd have to allow voluntary euthanasia, which must be a comparable issue?
I agree with the point about 'it's not me, it's everyone else', but if you want to stretch the point of being a competent driver, you should be allowing for the fact that everyone else on the road IS out to get you, and adjust your road stance accordingly (in effect this is what the IAM et al teach).
I used to ride motorcycles (to IAM standard, too), and I say it made me a better car driver. Everyone should start on bikes, then maybe they'd wake up a bit more in a car.
Ultimately I know this is one argument I'm never going to win (although I know a lot of people agree with me), but if you want to take the 'nanny' stance, then why not abolish sports cars, or indeed any vehicle capable of exceeding 22 mph?
Judas: I used to work for an undertakers; know what you mean about the RTA injuries.
Ian
I'll agree with you there. I think it is wrong for the government to mandate the use of seatbelts just as it is wrong of them to mandate the purchase of auto insurance or would be wrong to mandate that all cars come with air bags, TC, ABS, or whatever other Nanny Device du jur comes along.
Seat belts aren't in the same category though. They are like safety glass or rules against sharp things as bonnet ornaments (sorry Rolls Royce and Jaguar).
But sports cars shouldn't be abolished (though I suspect many people would like them to be), they should just be so uncompromising and/or expensive that only enthusiasts would willingly drive them.
That is why I am VEHEMENTLY opposed to making Blackpool's best "idiot proof". Part of their charm is that they are not. As the old saying goes, if you build something that a fool can use then only a fool will want to use it.
Gassing Station | General TVR Stuff & Gossip | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff