New TVR still under wraps!
Discussion
Pupp said:
Not without *better* breathing - ie cams and/or head work if the exhaust is left as is... with a de-cat and silencer free-up, who knows
Just adding a 5mm larger throttle body and a cold air intake, simple bolt on devices, gives a significant gain. from the article"When we installed the larger 85mm BBK throttle-body and the cold air package we got 385.27 hp and 354.70 lb-ft of torque"
Going up to the 90mm throttle body gave another 20bhp gain and a different exhaust system from the stock mustang one gave another 37bhp
So we know it has a different exhaust system and if you look at the simple bolt ons then 500bhp from the stock 435 is easy to get. After that you'd need more work.
Byker28i said:
Just adding a 5mm larger throttle body and a cold air intake, simple bolt on devices, gives a significant gain. from the article
"When we installed the larger 85mm BBK throttle-body and the cold air package we got 385.27 hp and 354.70 lb-ft of torque"
Going up to the 90mm throttle body gave another 20bhp gain and a different exhaust system from the stock mustang one gave another 37bhp
So we know it has a different exhaust system and if you look at the simple bolt ons then 500bhp from the stock 435 is easy to get. After that you'd need more work.
Surely they've done the mods on the engine so must know if its 480 or 500bhp by now, and had it on numerous rolling roads? Sounds like typical TVR posturing to me."When we installed the larger 85mm BBK throttle-body and the cold air package we got 385.27 hp and 354.70 lb-ft of torque"
Going up to the 90mm throttle body gave another 20bhp gain and a different exhaust system from the stock mustang one gave another 37bhp
So we know it has a different exhaust system and if you look at the simple bolt ons then 500bhp from the stock 435 is easy to get. After that you'd need more work.
FFG
Having owned a 2016 Mustang and a Tuscan I can offer the following.
The UK car is approx 414bhp compared to 435 bhp for the US one due to the redesign of the right hand drive cars headers due to the steering system getting in the way,and they consequently flow less well .
One thing that surprised many owners was the lackluster torque which most were not expecting from a reasonably large V8,albeit a heavy car.It reminds me of the Tuscan I owned which as you know needs 4k revs to really start to fly.The torque comes on a little below 4k with the Coyote I found.But disappointing none the less.
A number of owners have applied a Lund tune (remote US tuner) and have gained 20-40 ish bhp with stock headers.So with properly flowing headers/tune/fueling 485bhp sounds feasible.
I ended up Whipple supercharging mine which made a very substantial power difference with the Stock Whipple tune.I tinkered with a Lund tune for a very short period and this took the power to silly levels but for me smoothness/stability were lost and rough running/check engine lights ran rampant so I reverted back to Whipple tune.
With 1250 kg as opposed to 1800 kg -ish you will have some interesting possibilities.
The UK car is approx 414bhp compared to 435 bhp for the US one due to the redesign of the right hand drive cars headers due to the steering system getting in the way,and they consequently flow less well .
One thing that surprised many owners was the lackluster torque which most were not expecting from a reasonably large V8,albeit a heavy car.It reminds me of the Tuscan I owned which as you know needs 4k revs to really start to fly.The torque comes on a little below 4k with the Coyote I found.But disappointing none the less.
A number of owners have applied a Lund tune (remote US tuner) and have gained 20-40 ish bhp with stock headers.So with properly flowing headers/tune/fueling 485bhp sounds feasible.
I ended up Whipple supercharging mine which made a very substantial power difference with the Stock Whipple tune.I tinkered with a Lund tune for a very short period and this took the power to silly levels but for me smoothness/stability were lost and rough running/check engine lights ran rampant so I reverted back to Whipple tune.
With 1250 kg as opposed to 1800 kg -ish you will have some interesting possibilities.
Byker28i said:
Erm yes - easily, see my posts above, (or just for you how about: http://www.mustangandfords.com/how-to/engine/1604-... )
a simple two minute google tells you all you need to know about whats available to gain power from the sock with simple mods. With just a bigger throttle body and different exhaust system on a mustang. Well we know we have a different exhaust, so a simple throttle body change 85mm or 90mm rather than the stock 80 and you're away with 40bhp more. I easily have confidence that cosworth can find 65bhp on that engine with that exhaust system seeing as there are a huge array of tuning kits in the US for it.
And where did you you get the original was 1200kg? I've seen Les talk about the car 4 times in the last 3 years and it's always been 1250kg was the target weight, never lower.
Thats good to know as i would hate for it to be TVR horse power again. As for the weight, that was directly from Les the original design brief was 1200kg and he told me at the depositors reveal that it had crept over that to the 1243kg figure he told mea simple two minute google tells you all you need to know about whats available to gain power from the sock with simple mods. With just a bigger throttle body and different exhaust system on a mustang. Well we know we have a different exhaust, so a simple throttle body change 85mm or 90mm rather than the stock 80 and you're away with 40bhp more. I easily have confidence that cosworth can find 65bhp on that engine with that exhaust system seeing as there are a huge array of tuning kits in the US for it.
And where did you you get the original was 1200kg? I've seen Les talk about the car 4 times in the last 3 years and it's always been 1250kg was the target weight, never lower.
Edited by Byker28i on Sunday 17th September 08:22
Edited by Bluebottle on Sunday 17th September 14:59
dxg said:
bomb said:
Are there any photos showing the boot, and how big / small it is ??
From what I could work out from an animation on the GM site(?), the boot appears to be three boxes with two chassis legs running through it. I could be wrong though, but it looked very odd indeed...EDIT: the video is the one that plays here: http://istreamtechnology.co.uk/
Looks like they are extra storage in the boot floor... I'm guessing one for battery and one for puncture compressor and gell. So maybe the one in the middle is extra storage...
Edited by dxg on Wednesday 13th September 21:40
Aside from that the boot looked OK. Not massive, but probably what you'd expect from a modern coupe. Not as big as a T350, but bigger than a Jag F-type I'd estimate.
Edited by ChrisPap on Sunday 17th September 16:20
Hi guys,
I was at the launch and had a good look at the car over a few days. Also had a good chat to LE. I also took a lot of pictures, and will add some interesting ones below.
For the record, Les told me that the car you see here is the finished product. He is also very pleased with it (naturally) and as with someone saying your baby is ugly, criticism hasn't been terribly well received, and I'd say there has been enough positive reinforcement to give the team confidence to continue. And for sure the car looks better in the skin than in the photos. I also like it much more in the chameleon purple photoshop that has been doing the rounds, or in the grey. But that's personal choice. I don't understand why on earth anyone buys a black car, but there they are...
Les also said the styling was inspired by a combination of old Griff and T350,
Diffuser is very good for a road car (though you may have expected it to be in carbon- maybe it'll be an option later on). Front exit exhausts definitely a concession for flat bottom/diffuser design. Interesting to note anderson plug underneath, nostalgia or just so the show can sit on a stand for 3 days with the lights on? Latter I think.
Engine bay is CRAMPED, like all modern cars. Don't fancy paying for the service labour costs!
Engine may be better described as 'lightly breathed on by Cosworth' but I'm sure performance will be ample in this chassis. Would love to see someone throw in a gt350 flat plane crank and ITB's at some point, but I expect anyone wanting even more performance will just go with a supercharger.
I feel like most of the criticism of the front stems from the headlights. In my view, the launch colour (which is normally a colour I like), plus bad lighting exacerbated the issues with it both in photos and on display. To me, the black light buckets designed to merge into the air inlet below generally makes the light look droopy from most angles. It's been done before in a fashion with the T350 and Sag, which I think is done quite well. However in this instance, I don't feel it works well, nor does it on the McLaren 720, but that's my opinion. I know other people love both the Mac and the Griff. For me, the combination of high single LED light, horizontal DRL and then the bucket and lens rolling over into nothingness and the duct is all a bit awkward. I preferred the earlier design sketches. I have some ideas to make it better, like some others, but then Les didn't ask me!
I think the interior is pretty good. There are always limitations when you don't have the electronics R&D budget of say, Audi, but it's good considering. But that said, I like the McLaren interior too, and this is basically a simpler version.
Buttons to open the doors (from the inside at least), and they're even labeled!
The rear, well, my over riding thought is- they've made the taillight lamps as blades, to tie into the blades in the vent below. Looks ok from dead behind, but I think the execution falls over from most angles as there are too many conflicting angles between the light blades, vent blades, light lens, vent angle and bumper side- and the lack of continuity jars my eye at least.
I know almost everyone is doing it these days, but not very impressed with the fake exhaust tip dress rings.
The other thing that bugged be was that the 'B' pillar of the body did not line up with the cars structure, so there was exposed metalwork box section and tube floating in the rear side window. Shouldn't be an issue on the convertible....
There was a wheel on solo display with a tyre mounted on the stand. It had a more complex pitch changing surface in the diamond cut edge.
And then there was the race car mock up on display- I'm sure it's the preview mock-upcar re-liveried. I was told that a one make race series was under consideration, maybe a parallel to the old Tuscan Challenge.
Clever tribute, there's a name missing though, depending on your perspective...
I was at the launch and had a good look at the car over a few days. Also had a good chat to LE. I also took a lot of pictures, and will add some interesting ones below.
For the record, Les told me that the car you see here is the finished product. He is also very pleased with it (naturally) and as with someone saying your baby is ugly, criticism hasn't been terribly well received, and I'd say there has been enough positive reinforcement to give the team confidence to continue. And for sure the car looks better in the skin than in the photos. I also like it much more in the chameleon purple photoshop that has been doing the rounds, or in the grey. But that's personal choice. I don't understand why on earth anyone buys a black car, but there they are...
Les also said the styling was inspired by a combination of old Griff and T350,
Diffuser is very good for a road car (though you may have expected it to be in carbon- maybe it'll be an option later on). Front exit exhausts definitely a concession for flat bottom/diffuser design. Interesting to note anderson plug underneath, nostalgia or just so the show can sit on a stand for 3 days with the lights on? Latter I think.
Engine bay is CRAMPED, like all modern cars. Don't fancy paying for the service labour costs!
Engine may be better described as 'lightly breathed on by Cosworth' but I'm sure performance will be ample in this chassis. Would love to see someone throw in a gt350 flat plane crank and ITB's at some point, but I expect anyone wanting even more performance will just go with a supercharger.
I feel like most of the criticism of the front stems from the headlights. In my view, the launch colour (which is normally a colour I like), plus bad lighting exacerbated the issues with it both in photos and on display. To me, the black light buckets designed to merge into the air inlet below generally makes the light look droopy from most angles. It's been done before in a fashion with the T350 and Sag, which I think is done quite well. However in this instance, I don't feel it works well, nor does it on the McLaren 720, but that's my opinion. I know other people love both the Mac and the Griff. For me, the combination of high single LED light, horizontal DRL and then the bucket and lens rolling over into nothingness and the duct is all a bit awkward. I preferred the earlier design sketches. I have some ideas to make it better, like some others, but then Les didn't ask me!
I think the interior is pretty good. There are always limitations when you don't have the electronics R&D budget of say, Audi, but it's good considering. But that said, I like the McLaren interior too, and this is basically a simpler version.
Buttons to open the doors (from the inside at least), and they're even labeled!
The rear, well, my over riding thought is- they've made the taillight lamps as blades, to tie into the blades in the vent below. Looks ok from dead behind, but I think the execution falls over from most angles as there are too many conflicting angles between the light blades, vent blades, light lens, vent angle and bumper side- and the lack of continuity jars my eye at least.
I know almost everyone is doing it these days, but not very impressed with the fake exhaust tip dress rings.
The other thing that bugged be was that the 'B' pillar of the body did not line up with the cars structure, so there was exposed metalwork box section and tube floating in the rear side window. Shouldn't be an issue on the convertible....
There was a wheel on solo display with a tyre mounted on the stand. It had a more complex pitch changing surface in the diamond cut edge.
And then there was the race car mock up on display- I'm sure it's the preview mock-upcar re-liveried. I was told that a one make race series was under consideration, maybe a parallel to the old Tuscan Challenge.
Clever tribute, there's a name missing though, depending on your perspective...
Edited by ChrisPap on Sunday 17th September 19:37
And if anyone cares- I think it looks better and definately more TVR-y on spiders. Would be good to see them make a return:
and I like the photoshop someone did where the vent below the light was painted body colour, or maybe better, if the was a body colour strip covering the empty void of headlight lens between the DLR and the vent.
and I like the photoshop someone did where the vent below the light was painted body colour, or maybe better, if the was a body colour strip covering the empty void of headlight lens between the DLR and the vent.
Edited by ChrisPap on Sunday 17th September 19:36
It’s weird because it looks completely different from different angles, sometimes I see it and think it looks great, others I think it looks really awkward and a bit ugly. 
I’m still surprised that they’ve made it at this price. There must be a limited number of people willing to spend £100,000 on what is basically a new car from a new manufacturer, especially when you consider what you could buy as an alternative from a known product and the associated support.
At least with the old TVRs they had an extensive dealer network all over the country and the cars were priced cheaper than those with similar performance from established brands.
This car appears to be priced similarly to premium existing products. I wonder if they would have npbeen better off starting with something cheaper and a bit more exciting and then developing this car once they were more established.
I’m still surprised that they’ve made it at this price. There must be a limited number of people willing to spend £100,000 on what is basically a new car from a new manufacturer, especially when you consider what you could buy as an alternative from a known product and the associated support.
At least with the old TVRs they had an extensive dealer network all over the country and the cars were priced cheaper than those with similar performance from established brands.
This car appears to be priced similarly to premium existing products. I wonder if they would have npbeen better off starting with something cheaper and a bit more exciting and then developing this car once they were more established.
El stovey said:
... premium existing products...
Good word there, if a product is wanted then a (complex & heavy) mass produced product can be purchased irrespective of if TVR have a car or not as it isn't (as LE has stated) meant to compete. I've always thought a TVR is about the enjoyment of using rather than the prestige of purchasing.
Edited by RichardD on Monday 18th September 08:18
ChrisPap said:
And if anyone cares- I think it looks better and definately more TVR-y on spiders. Would be good to see them make a return:
and I like the photoshop someone did where the vent below the light was painted body colour, or maybe better, if the was a body colour strip covering the empty void of headlight lens between the DLR and the vent.
Thanks for your posts, good info. I've never seen the front look better than in your pics (the ones in your first post), although the "problematic" angle is the more frontal one, as can be seen in the lower pic (from the istream video). Not sure, but it mainly manifests itself in the soft "roundness" in the left upper front corner, around the left front light. It's lacking edginess and drive there. I've got no problem with the mouth itself, it's reminiscent of the Cobra which looks like a tadpole, if you look at it for too long. Still noone would say that is a friendly car. and I like the photoshop someone did where the vent below the light was painted body colour, or maybe better, if the was a body colour strip covering the empty void of headlight lens between the DLR and the vent.
Edited by ChrisPap on Sunday 17th September 19:36
Also i agree that the lighting in the hall was far from supportive. I think it should be their first priority to get a professional car photograph and get some high-end shots in daylight, from realistic angles, different distances, without fisheye lenses, with some other TVRs next to it, with real people standing next to it to give hints of true size etc. An additional video with sound might also help. Difficult to do that before the launch when you're basically limited to indoors because noone must take a look or get a picture of it.
I also guess the weeks and days before the launch haven't been all fun and games for them
. 
RichardD said:
El stovey said:
... premium existing products...
Good word there, if a product is wanted then a (complex & heavy) mass produced product can be purchased irrespective of if TVR have a car or not as it isn't (as LE has stated) meant to compete. I've always thought a TVR is about the enjoyment of using rather than the prestige of purchasing.
Now the TVR is priced similarly to loads of cars with performance and other factors that might attract customers like dealer support and other notions of brand etc,
There was kind of a trade off with old TVRs, you got a wild car that was fun to drive but it was cheaper than anything else with similar performance, now you’re choosing between the Griffith and some really great cars and the TVR is basically now a brand new company.
ChrisPap said:
dxg said:
bomb said:
Are there any photos showing the boot, and how big / small it is ??
From what I could work out from an animation on the GM site(?), the boot appears to be three boxes with two chassis legs running through it. I could be wrong though, but it looked very odd indeed...EDIT: the video is the one that plays here: http://istreamtechnology.co.uk/
Looks like they are extra storage in the boot floor... I'm guessing one for battery and one for puncture compressor and gell. So maybe the one in the middle is extra storage...
Edited by dxg on Wednesday 13th September 21:40
Aside from that the boot looked OK. Not massive, but probably what you'd expect from a modern coupe. Not as big as a T350, but bigger than a Jag F-type I'd estimate.
Edited by ChrisPap on Sunday 17th September 16:20
DonkeyApple said:
Yup. They did aero for the T400R shape. I think I have a memory that the engineer who oversaw the project told me the design even saw a tunnel and that it was the first TVr to have positive downforce. As that would have been around 1999 I've always assumed, rightly or wrongly, that they paid some heed to aero on the cars like the Sag that came after it?
I do have fond memories of finally realising that the speed boat sensation that seemed to be emanating from the footwell in the Griff as I dashed to the Chunnel (back in the days when they didn't crush your car but just asked for a donation) was the front of the car lifting. It was the suddenly light steering that inspired the thought!!!
Possibly, but the engineer in me, however inferior to a wind tunnel, says that the wing can only put as much downforce into the rear tyres as it can stand when I put my hand on it and press.I do have fond memories of finally realising that the speed boat sensation that seemed to be emanating from the footwell in the Griff as I dashed to the Chunnel (back in the days when they didn't crush your car but just asked for a donation) was the front of the car lifting. It was the suddenly light steering that inspired the thought!!!
Considering it was flexing at about 2kg and looked like it would break with less than 5kg I think its effect is/was cosmetic only.
julian64 said:
Possibly, but the engineer in me, however inferior to a wind tunnel, says that the wing can only put as much downforce into the rear tyres as it can stand when I put my hand on it and press.
Considering it was flexing at about 2kg and looked like it would break with less than 5kg I think its effect is/was cosmetic only.
Point load vrs UDL but yes, if it flexes its not doing much.Considering it was flexing at about 2kg and looked like it would break with less than 5kg I think its effect is/was cosmetic only.
julian64 said:
Possibly, but the engineer in me, however inferior to a wind tunnel, says that the wing can only put as much downforce into the rear tyres as it can stand when I put my hand on it and press.
Considering it was flexing at about 2kg and looked like it would break with less than 5kg I think its effect is/was cosmetic only.
I think someone mentioned that the wing on the showcar was not adequately fixed because the showcar still lacked the proper mechanism and holes. So it was basically just "lying" there, hence the "cosmetic" feel. But the general consensus seems to be that it looks better with the wing down anyway and i totally agree. Considering it was flexing at about 2kg and looked like it would break with less than 5kg I think its effect is/was cosmetic only.
bullittmcqueen said:
I think someone mentioned that the wing on the showcar was not adequately fixed because the showcar still lacked the proper mechanism and holes. So it was basically just "lying" there, hence the "cosmetic" feel. But the general consensus seems to be that it looks better with the wing down anyway and i totally agree.
Nope made no comment about the new griff. The wing on the new griff looks ten times stronger than the wing on the saggy.Gassing Station | General TVR Stuff & Gossip | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff