Difference between a Lightweight and `normal` Cerbera
Difference between a Lightweight and `normal` Cerbera
Author
Discussion

Phil-S

Original Poster:

95 posts

267 months

Friday 15th February 2008
quotequote all
Can anyone tell me the difference between a Cerbera Lightweight and a standard model? I appreciate that given the name something has been lightened somewhere but what changes are there? These 4.5 models seem to attract a small premium, are they worth the extra?

Gazzab

21,658 posts

312 months

Friday 15th February 2008
quotequote all
This question is asked loads but broadly the differences are two fold :-
1) Interior uses poor quality tuscan seats and exterior has different lights plus a higher wind screen
2) Chassis - better painted and less likely to fall apart,

Raw Cerb

603 posts

278 months

Friday 15th February 2008
quotequote all
Do they actually weigh in lighter? I heard the early models are the lightest.


RUSSELLM

6,002 posts

277 months

Friday 15th February 2008
quotequote all
On mine the 2001 owners handbook says 1140, and the car (LW) has been on a bridge and read 1130.

The 96 logbook reads 1100 and on the same bridge read 1025.

Accuracy with figures didn't seem to be much of A priority in Blackpool smile

The original PH review http://www.pistonheads.com/tvr/cerbera/newCerbera....






Edited by RUSSELLM on Friday 15th February 16:13

ceejay

1,287 posts

284 months

Friday 15th February 2008
quotequote all
The LW and later cars also have a revised roll bar above the windscreen which is much slimmer than the 99 and earlier cars, giving a more air feel to the cabin. They're supposed to be lighter with thinner panels (my 2001 LW bonnet is definitely more flimsy than the 99 4.5 I owned) but I doubt theres more than 40kg difference to a standard car.

ceejay

Nickccc

1,682 posts

278 months

Friday 15th February 2008
quotequote all
there's nothing wrong with the tuscan seats. 2001 4.5 rrlw 1244 kg with 1/4 tank of fuel and 75kg in the drivers seat. So about 1150kg.

thegreengoblet

1,040 posts

246 months

Friday 15th February 2008
quotequote all
Nickccc said:
there's nothing wrong with the tuscan seats.
I agree. They are much better than the old seats for my large frame!

Gazzab

21,658 posts

312 months

Friday 15th February 2008
quotequote all
I understand that the seat side bolsters break often and that they arent as comfortable a seat as the old style

Mr Tank

5,799 posts

305 months

Friday 15th February 2008
quotequote all
Hi

This reply should start some thing!

It all balances on what "LW" stands for?
Some owners say it means Lightweight but no one has come up with written proof of this from the factory, i. e. Order form or advertising stating that "LW" is lightweight.
The LW came around 2000/2001 when they changed the rear lights, seats and the change to the larger windscreen area.
As mentioned earler old cars are in fact lighter, so it to me, means the LW is not Lightweight!!!
Is this yet another TVR folklore to add to the rest?
I know its going to upset some who belieive there cars are lighter/faster etc but they are not!
Even some dealers will claim this, as that will help sell the cars!
The only answer is if there is written proof from the factory or from PW himself what LW stands for!!!!!!!

volospian

494 posts

227 months

Friday 15th February 2008
quotequote all
Mr Tank said:
The LW came around 2000/2001 when they changed ... to the Larger Windscreen area.

The only answer is if there is written proof from the factory or from PW himself what LW stands for!!!!!!!
Maybe you have just answered yourself biggrin

Mr Tank

5,799 posts

305 months

Friday 15th February 2008
quotequote all
True! But I bet a lt will not agree!

Mr Tank

5,799 posts

305 months

Friday 15th February 2008
quotequote all
True! But a bet a lot will not agree!

Mr Tank

5,799 posts

305 months

Friday 15th February 2008
quotequote all
B_ _ _y computer!
True! But I bet a lot will not agree!

dempsey

297 posts

240 months

Friday 15th February 2008
quotequote all
Gazzab said:
I understand that the seat side bolsters break often and that they arent as comfortable a seat as the old style
My driver's side bolster has broken right off. Partly to do with the fact that getting out of the car puts the whole of one's weight on the bolster (unless you're more atheletic than me).

Anyone had one repaired? Looks to me like the seat needs coming out completely and dismantling.

Phil-S

Original Poster:

95 posts

267 months

Friday 15th February 2008
quotequote all
Thanks for this, I wasn't sure having looked at what is for sale and having been told different things by a couple of dealers. Based on your replies the Lightweight versions appear to be sold as having something a bit extra, but in reality just enabled TVR to achieve some parts sharing across the range as much as anything.

Looks like a standard 4.5 is the way to go. I preferred the seats as well!

ceejay

1,287 posts

284 months

Saturday 16th February 2008
quotequote all
When choosing between a LW and earlier 4.5 the odd thing is weight doesn't really come into it. I think it will boil down to the styling differences, mainly the revised headlights, rear lights, colour coded window trims, seats, windscreen and spider wheels. The changes to the chassis coating are significant though but in any case a very thorough examination of your potential purchase is highly recommended(preferably on a ramp)

ceejay

P.S. I think mid-late 99 cars onwards should have the later style clutch too


jesfirth

1,743 posts

272 months

Saturday 16th February 2008
quotequote all
if its any help i had my 97 4.2 weighed last week as 1224 kg with circa 15 litres of fuel so approx 1210 kg dry weight. Mine also has aircon which adds about 15 kg to the dry weight

arebrec

3,545 posts

253 months

Saturday 16th February 2008
quotequote all
If I were on the hunt for a cerb I'd want a LW, mainly for the larger view out of the front windscreen, and the lighter bonnet, and I prefer the LW tuscan seats.

Byker28i

92,187 posts

247 months

Saturday 16th February 2008
quotequote all
jesfirth said:
if its any help i had my 97 4.2 weighed last week as 1224 kg with circa 15 litres of fuel so approx 1210 kg dry weight. Mine also has aircon which adds about 15 kg to the dry weight
Interesting. I had mine 4 corner weighed at Rockingham last year (96 4.2) and it was 1170 with 3/4 tank of fuel.