Thinking about getting another Tuscan, but which?
Discussion
Morning all,
Having formerly owned TVRs I find myself being drawn back them them.
The background
I had a 97' 4.2 Cerb for 9 months, which I then changed for a 00' Red Rose Tuscan ... Both were my only car and used as daily drivers.
The Cerb took it reasonably well.
The Tuscan was tbh absolutely woeful ... Fantastic car when it worked, but windows opening themselves and popping doors, engine, interior, dash problems (literally spent 2 months of my 7 months ownership in TVR Power for electrical faults which were fixed but came back a week later .. It was a joke and even Dom told me I was very unlucky with that car.
I then had a 996 turbo for 5yrs, then a lovely red Ferarri 360 for a year, now have an Aston Martin Vanquish which is brilliant and a supercharged range rover sport for the daily work horse.
The Vanquish is great - fast, glorious sound, good looking, strong a 2+2 so my daughter gets in e back ok ... BUT, I fancy something more of a thug car. I was thinking of changing it for a Murcielago but I'd lose the ability to take the wife & daughter out. So then I started thinking of keeping the cars I have and adding an Atom, Sagaris, Tuscan to the pack (thinking that Tuscan 2's would not be so troublesome).
As an ex-owner, I'm not expecting any TVR to be trouble free any I don't mind fixing things, but in 7 months ex the usual petrol, ins, etc I spent in region of £5-6k just getting it fixed and keeping it on the road .. Then the engine started knocking which is why I went the Porsche route (but always missed rawness of my TVRs).
I'm not oposed to spending money on my pride & joys ... I've spent around £12k on my Vanquish over the last 2 yrs I've had her (but parts are much more and bigger bills are kind of expected with a Vanq) and I'm quite happy, but 5-6k in 6 months on a Tuscan seemed excessive.
So, reason for the post ....
Mk2 Tuscan's ... Any good?
Much difference in power wise (reality rather than paper stats) between 3.6 & 4.0?
James Agger has 2 cars that both look clean but are only 3.6 litres
Having formerly owned TVRs I find myself being drawn back them them.
The background
I had a 97' 4.2 Cerb for 9 months, which I then changed for a 00' Red Rose Tuscan ... Both were my only car and used as daily drivers.
The Cerb took it reasonably well.
The Tuscan was tbh absolutely woeful ... Fantastic car when it worked, but windows opening themselves and popping doors, engine, interior, dash problems (literally spent 2 months of my 7 months ownership in TVR Power for electrical faults which were fixed but came back a week later .. It was a joke and even Dom told me I was very unlucky with that car.
I then had a 996 turbo for 5yrs, then a lovely red Ferarri 360 for a year, now have an Aston Martin Vanquish which is brilliant and a supercharged range rover sport for the daily work horse.
The Vanquish is great - fast, glorious sound, good looking, strong a 2+2 so my daughter gets in e back ok ... BUT, I fancy something more of a thug car. I was thinking of changing it for a Murcielago but I'd lose the ability to take the wife & daughter out. So then I started thinking of keeping the cars I have and adding an Atom, Sagaris, Tuscan to the pack (thinking that Tuscan 2's would not be so troublesome).
As an ex-owner, I'm not expecting any TVR to be trouble free any I don't mind fixing things, but in 7 months ex the usual petrol, ins, etc I spent in region of £5-6k just getting it fixed and keeping it on the road .. Then the engine started knocking which is why I went the Porsche route (but always missed rawness of my TVRs).
I'm not oposed to spending money on my pride & joys ... I've spent around £12k on my Vanquish over the last 2 yrs I've had her (but parts are much more and bigger bills are kind of expected with a Vanq) and I'm quite happy, but 5-6k in 6 months on a Tuscan seemed excessive.
So, reason for the post ....
Mk2 Tuscan's ... Any good?
Much difference in power wise (reality rather than paper stats) between 3.6 & 4.0?
James Agger has 2 cars that both look clean but are only 3.6 litres
Hi there,
Good to hear your coming back to the dark side.
I'm rather new to TVR ownership, however like you I knew Tuscan Mk2's were the best built.
I personally bought a Tuscan Mk2 S and I have had (touch wood) only one slight electrical niggle. I prefer the looks of the mk2, coupled with the better build quality kinda make it a no brainer.
As per your decision between a Sagaris and Tuscan? I wouldn't want to sway your decision but Sagaris are going up in price and Tuscans are staying still, also roof down driving of the Tuscan beats all!
As for 3.6 and 4.0, I cannot comment on performance, my 4.0 is insainly quick, however I can only guess the 3.6 is identical. However I would add the 4.0 'S' has some aditional agressive aero parts fitted.
Hope I've helped a little. Happy hunting.
Regards
Good to hear your coming back to the dark side.
I'm rather new to TVR ownership, however like you I knew Tuscan Mk2's were the best built.
I personally bought a Tuscan Mk2 S and I have had (touch wood) only one slight electrical niggle. I prefer the looks of the mk2, coupled with the better build quality kinda make it a no brainer.
As per your decision between a Sagaris and Tuscan? I wouldn't want to sway your decision but Sagaris are going up in price and Tuscans are staying still, also roof down driving of the Tuscan beats all!
As for 3.6 and 4.0, I cannot comment on performance, my 4.0 is insainly quick, however I can only guess the 3.6 is identical. However I would add the 4.0 'S' has some aditional agressive aero parts fitted.
Hope I've helped a little. Happy hunting.
Regards
Sim
Most of the troubles with any of the Tuscans should have been sorted by previous owners by now. My MarkII covered 30,000 miles in 3 years and the only problem was a failed steering rack, the Sag is on 46,000 with 2 clutches and 1 coil pack. They are generally very good so long as looked after.
Personal view on the 3.6 versus the 4.0, 3.6 slightly less power but revs more keenly and the 4.0 has better torque but not so keen to rev. Depends on where your driving will be done really if on give and take roads then not much in it 4.0 will be easier and pulls a slight early advantage which the 3.6 tends to pull back when it gets up the revs. Can't comment about on track though.Best bet would be to drive one of each and see which suits your driving style best.
Most of the troubles with any of the Tuscans should have been sorted by previous owners by now. My MarkII covered 30,000 miles in 3 years and the only problem was a failed steering rack, the Sag is on 46,000 with 2 clutches and 1 coil pack. They are generally very good so long as looked after.
Personal view on the 3.6 versus the 4.0, 3.6 slightly less power but revs more keenly and the 4.0 has better torque but not so keen to rev. Depends on where your driving will be done really if on give and take roads then not much in it 4.0 will be easier and pulls a slight early advantage which the 3.6 tends to pull back when it gets up the revs. Can't comment about on track though.Best bet would be to drive one of each and see which suits your driving style best.
If you are going for a MK2, get a Mk2 with the curvy dash (rather than the Baboons Bum one) or get a convertible. The instruments and electrics are much more reliable. The curvy dash is "simpler" in appearance and may not have the same visual impact as the periscope pod , but at least you can read your screen.
Very few 3.6 MK2s were made , only very early 2005 built ones. I find Air Con on the MK2 very good, so definitely worth having.
Very few 3.6 MK2s were made , only very early 2005 built ones. I find Air Con on the MK2 very good, so definitely worth having.
I have had both an early MK1 (September 2000) and one of the last MK2's or MK3's as they have become known with the wavy dash. The MK1 did have it's issues, but was quiet well sorted in the end, the MK2 however has been very good. I have spent a bit on various up-grades i.e carbon fibre air box, bump steer modification etc but there not 100% necessary. The 4 litre engine particularly an S does have noticeably more torque than a 3.6 litre.
Thanks for the super quick responses chaps.
The convertible Tuscan (IMHO) spoils the roofline and overall look of the car compared to the coupe/hardtop ... Still a nice looking car but the hardtop would be my preference as with the roof and rear screen stowed in the boot, it's as good as a soft-top really.
(I am right in assuming that the top and rear screen both come out on mk2's as they did on mk1s aren't I?)
I'll go out and rive a few I think, I like the wilder colours on a Tuscan ... My Vanquish is a reliable, beautiful, refined gentlemans car with a good growl and a bite on it when it wants (ie. the wife) but, I also want a dirty slut on the side that sets my pulse racing (ie the mistress) ... If that makes sense.
I remember my mate had a gorgeous formula red Tuscan 3.6 with different wheels, at the same time as I had my red rose 4.0 and there didn't seem any difference in power when we went hooning up on the 'back home' trip back in (racking brains) around 2003/4.
Hmmm classified going to take a battering over next few weeks I can see!!!
The convertible Tuscan (IMHO) spoils the roofline and overall look of the car compared to the coupe/hardtop ... Still a nice looking car but the hardtop would be my preference as with the roof and rear screen stowed in the boot, it's as good as a soft-top really.
(I am right in assuming that the top and rear screen both come out on mk2's as they did on mk1s aren't I?)
I'll go out and rive a few I think, I like the wilder colours on a Tuscan ... My Vanquish is a reliable, beautiful, refined gentlemans car with a good growl and a bite on it when it wants (ie. the wife) but, I also want a dirty slut on the side that sets my pulse racing (ie the mistress) ... If that makes sense.
I remember my mate had a gorgeous formula red Tuscan 3.6 with different wheels, at the same time as I had my red rose 4.0 and there didn't seem any difference in power when we went hooning up on the 'back home' trip back in (racking brains) around 2003/4.
Hmmm classified going to take a battering over next few weeks I can see!!!
Had my mk2 for two and a half years, it's had a few niggles mainly due to the very low mileage when I bought it so had to persevere and iron them out (I think the first owner normally does this with a TVR..). Once sorted it's been brilliant, never broken down, been on euro trips and I'd trust it implicitly. I quite like the baboon dash but not everyones cup of tea. It's also a 3.6 but I've never felt short changed in performance- really revs almost like a big motorbike. Get a good one and it will give you the experience you're craving- a really terrific car.
Having said all that, with enormous regret it's being sold tomorrow- a very sad day.
Having said all that, with enormous regret it's being sold tomorrow- a very sad day.
S1M VP said:
The convertible Tuscan (IMHO) spoils the roofline and overall look of the car compared to the coupe/hardtop ... Still a nice looking car but the hardtop would be my preference as with the roof and rear screen stowed in the boot, it's as good as a soft-top really.
I understand your point about the roof line of the Targa.Having said that I love my convertible so much that I can deal it.
The Mk2 build quality is very good and I've had very few problems in the last 3 years.
I understand, as has been said, that the 3,6 is more free reving and fewer have needed rebuilds but then fewer of the later engines have needed rebuilds compared to the earlier cars.
Good hunting.
Best advice I can give is drive a few, lots of Tuscan drive differently, there are lot of changes between my 2000 4.0 and my 2002 4.0S so as with most TVR's the car evolved as they were produced. I drove a mk2 convertible and found I didn't like it as much as the mk1, guess its down to personal taste.
Message Board | Tuscan | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff