New TVR still under wraps!

[swisstoni]

Let's not forget that this car has to be rock solid and deliver. The old stereotype TVR 'reputation' has to be taken out of the hands of every lazy motoring hack and pub know-all and burnt in front of their faces.
So in this respect, this first car may not be as crazy as some might have hoped, but is a solid foundation for a niche car company in the 21st century.

[DonkeyApple]

Englishman said:

DonkeyApple said:

Remember when the new Rolls came out? Old Rollers said that new owners couldn't join the club as the new cars weren't Rolls.

Same with the DB7. Old Aston owners said they couldn't join the club because they weren't Astons.

It just takes a few cold winters and some sex scandals and the voices die down eventually.

Indeed.

Just because some existing TVR owners haven’t been totally blown away by the launch car, it doesn’t mean we don’t support the new TVR company or the Griffith itself. I certainly expect them to be welcomed at TVR events, especially track days!

Yup. In the build up to this launch there have been a handful of people who have run with the view that if it wasn't built in Blackpool then it wasn't a TVR. Even recently this view has appeared in varying forms.

However, I've always felt the overriding ethos of TVR owners has never been rooted in that kind of snobbery, pedantry or small mindedness. One of the very important attributes that sets TVR miles apart from so many British marques. No one should or not I only does give two hoots as to what type of TVR someone is driving. It has been the fundamental reason why I've not left and bought something mainstream where image and modern world, new money pikeness seem to uncomfortably dominant.

You just don't seem to get the snobbery that blights most marques. And I agree whole heartedly with you in that expectation of greetings to the new cars. It would be an incredibly sad day for TVR if that were not the case and it were to transpire that the marque had descended to being no better than the others.

[Byker28i]

Max_Torque said:

HarryW said:

FlipFlopGriff said:

RichardD said:

It looks to be that YouTube is providing the 480bhp caption that gets shown on the website, so maybe that is wrong (it is dated a week ago too)?

At that level its 384bhp/tonne not the 400 quoted. It is on the official website so you'd think it would be updated if it was wrong. But then we're waiting for a callback from over a week ago so maybe there isn't any depth of staff behind the front.
I hope Les manages to get sorted quickly as the opportunity for marketing is now while its still fresh and everyone is talking about it.
FFG

Its one of the areas I've asked questions of TVR previously and never got an answer. The standard Coyote is around 435hp and the aluminator 5.0 (high compression Gucci pistons and rods) is around 500hp. What engine have Cosworth been working on? I suspect the base engine.

However you can put the GT350 heads on a 5.0 aluminator or even the 5.2 version of the aluminator (cross plane crank not flat plane as per the Gt350) and get between 540 and 580hp out of the box.

Pretty sure there won't be any engine h/w mods except different exhaust and aftertreatment (because it's only doing low volume SVA not full ETA) and a recal of the engine management (not confirmed if they are sticking with the MBE 9A9 controller, or going to use the OE ecu). The benefit of using a crate engine is the reliability brought by the high volume line build and supply processes, and opening the engine up to swap heads etc would negate most of that bought in reliability.......

There's a 40bhp gain just with a few bolt on parts, larger throttle body than the stock 80mm, and some exhaust work, so I'm guessing finding 65bhp extra wasn't hard for Cosworth
http://www.powerperformancenews.com/tech-articles/...
http://www.mustangandfords.com/how-to/engine/1604-...

The question is, whose going to be the first to work out how to remove/change the crossbrace and supercharge
http://www.hotrod.com/articles/build-bullet-proof-...

[wanacoop]

swisstoni said:

Let's not forget that this car has to be rock solid and deliver. The old stereotype TVR 'reputation' has to be taken out of the hands of every lazy motoring hack and pub know-all and burnt in front of their faces.
So in this respect, this first car may not be as crazy as some might have hoped, but is a solid foundation for a niche car company in the 21st century.

That's a very good and valid point.

One other thing to remember, well for me personally anyway, is that I've often criticised a feature of a new car design, only to then slowly change my mind over a couple of years to the point where that very criticism became the definitive reason for finding that said car interesting and different.
I hated the E60 5 series when it came out because of the headlights, but now I think they look great, and fresh looking.

I hope that this will happen for this new Griffith.

It's very exciting times, and I was especially gutted when I checked my euro millions numbers this morning, as I would definitely be after this TVR.

[madcal]

VULCANT said:

The Car magazine photos are great; a million times better than the ones from TVR or Goodwood. Makes the car look 1,000x better.

Feeling happier about my deposit now!

[DonkeyApple]

Byker28i said:

The question is, whose going to be the first to work out how to remove/change the crossbrace and supercharge
http://www.hotrod.com/articles/build-bullet-proof-...

I wonder how much extra heat an exhaust system like the Griff can handle? Would that end up being a limiting factor?

[Speed 3]

DonkeyApple said:

I wonder how much extra heat an exhaust system like the Griff can handle? Would that end up being a limiting factor?

You could always bleed copious amounts of hot air into the cabin, I'm sure that's in the DNA

[HarryW]

Speed 3 said:

DonkeyApple said:

I wonder how much extra heat an exhaust system like the Griff can handle? Would that end up being a limiting factor?

You could always bleed copious amounts of hot air into the cabin, I'm sure that's in the DNA

[TA14]

Byker28i said:

The question is, whose going to be the first to work out how to remove/change the crossbrace

For the prototype it's welded in but for the customer cars it will un-bolt.

[RichardD]

Byker28i said:

There's a 40bhp gain just with a few bolt on parts, larger throttle body than the stock 80mm, and some exhaust work, so I'm guessing finding 65bhp extra wasn't hard for Cosworth
http://www.powerperformancenews.com/tech-articles/...
http://www.mustangandfords.com/how-to/engine/1604-...

To me it seems quite crazy that an engine gets out there compromised (down by 40bhp) because of relatively minor components. Hence me suggesting that cams would be needed to be changed to get to 500bhp Deliberate compromise so that in a year or two the same engine can come out with minor upgrades and ta-da slightly more power! But that is the world of production cars I guess!
Good for TVR though as on seeing images of the new engine bay I wasn't particularly a fan of the look of the intake - thinking the low rpm manners may suffer depending on tuning for the engine due to not having individual butterflies (as the AJP8 and SS have). However with just those mods then the engine isn't really tuned at all, merely enhanced .

[RichardD]

DonkeyApple said:

I wonder how much extra heat an exhaust system like the Griff can handle? Would that end up being a limiting factor?

Am sure GMD will know how much heat the current design can handle and how to increase it if need be. A guess for the current setup would be not to attempt a v-max run with a blown car, slam on the brakes and then turn everything off - rather than having a cooling off phase.

A supercharger would be a very good way of getting extra press coverage in a few years time and given how small and slippy the shape is, very big numbers could be reached, the limiting factor being the length of the runway.

[Byker28i]

RichardD said:

DonkeyApple said:

I wonder how much extra heat an exhaust system like the Griff can handle? Would that end up being a limiting factor?

Am sure GMD will know how much heat the current design can handle and how to increase it if need be. A guess for the current setup would be not to attempt a v-max run with a blown car, slam on the brakes and then turn everything off - rather than having a cooling off phase.

A supercharger would be a very good way of getting extra press coverage in a few years time and given how small and slippy the shape is, very big numbers could be reached, the limiting factor being the length of the runway.

The 'small' bolt on superchargers are around $5000 for the kit to up the standard 435bhp engine to around 575bhp, so call it 600 in the TVR?
https://www.americanmuscle.com/roush-r2300-phase-1...

675bhp for $7100 or perhaps 700bhp?
http://www.roushperformance.com/parts/2015-mustang...

Thats quite a neat package and doesn't seem to add much height and then there's options up to 800bhp! :O

Edited by Byker28i on Saturday 16th September 15:53

[RichB]

Jhonno said:

RichB said:

Jhonno said:

Because a Chimp/Griff/Tamora/T350 are so wild..?

I didn't mention wildness. I was simply stating my opinion that the front looks bland to me.

Edited by RichB on Friday 15th September 19:49

No but bland is the other end of wild.. They are more bland than the new Griff.

You do seem determined to have a pedantic argument about someone's opinion of the front of a new car, which seems odd. I really don't understand what you expect to achieve by dragging this out, as I said in my brief initial comment, I agree the rear is harks back to previous TVRs. So, let's say I don't find the front very "distinctive" by which I mean if you badged it, for example, a Jaguar or a Toyota I'd believe you.

And, believe it or not, as several people have said, I wish TVR every success with the new Griffith and look forward to seeing them in many different colours at TVR events in the coming year. OK?

[Bluebottle]

RichardD said:

FlipFlopGriff said:

At that level its 384bhp/tonne not the 400 quoted. It is on the official website so you'd think it would be updated if it was wrong. But then we're waiting for a callback from over a week ago so maybe there isn't any depth of staff behind the front.
I hope Les manages to get sorted quickly as the opportunity for marketing is now while its still fresh and everyone is talking about it.
FFG

Sorry my point was that I believe the 480 number isn't on the TVR website in any form. It "passes through" as the title from YouTube.com, so TVR would not be able to edit the number, it would need to be edited on YouTube....
(Agree with it wanting to be sorted of course - just think what would happen to an employee of a German car company that wasn't 100.000000% accurate !)

The car was originally meant to be 1200kg which would 480bhp to get the 400/tonne quote so i guess thats where youtube got that figure from. Now the car is 1243kg (the figure quoted to me by LE and the reveal) which means they need 497bhp minimum to achieve real world bhp/tonne and not the super inflated TVR of old bhp figures. At the time of the reveal, LE told me that the engine spec was stock crate engine and the only physical mods were lightened fly wheel modified ball housing and dry sump....So that mean Cosworth';s ecu has got to drag another 65 bhp out of a stock 435 bhp motor...is that possible?

[Byker28i]

Bluebottle said:

RichardD said:

FlipFlopGriff said:

At that level its 384bhp/tonne not the 400 quoted. It is on the official website so you'd think it would be updated if it was wrong. But then we're waiting for a callback from over a week ago so maybe there isn't any depth of staff behind the front.
I hope Les manages to get sorted quickly as the opportunity for marketing is now while its still fresh and everyone is talking about it.
FFG

Sorry my point was that I believe the 480 number isn't on the TVR website in any form. It "passes through" as the title from YouTube.com, so TVR would not be able to edit the number, it would need to be edited on YouTube....
(Agree with it wanting to be sorted of course - just think what would happen to an employee of a German car company that wasn't 100.000000% accurate !)

The car was originally meant to be 1200kg which would 480bhp to get the 400/tonne quote so i guess thats where youtube got that figure from. Now the car is 1243kg (the figure quoted to me by LE and the reveal) which means they need 497bhp minimum to achieve real world bhp/tonne and not the super inflated TVR of old bhp figures. At the time of the reveal, LE told me that the engine spec was stock crate engine and the only physical mods were lightened fly wheel modified ball housing and dry sump....So that mean Cosworth';s ecu has got to drag another 65 bhp out of a stock 435 bhp motor...is that possible?

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.

Edited by Byker28i on Sunday 17th September 08:22

[Pupp]

Not without *better* breathing - ie cams and/or head work if the ehxaust is left as is... with a de-cat and silencer free-up, who knows

[BJWoods]

"“I’ve been to Le Mans for 33 years in a row, I brought Aston Martin back there, the DBR9 was my project. So I know a thing or two about racing at Le Mans."

Les Edgar - TVR

http://www.tvrblog.com/tvr-griffith-undercover-rac...

getting excited yet....

https://www.theautochannel.com/news/writers/lrober...

[christof]

Reality:


[/quote]

Wishful thinking:






Typhon successor:

[fatbutt]

christof said:

Reality:

Wishful thinking:






Typhon successor:

A quick and simple illustration of the difference between 'engineering led design' and 'design led engineering'.

[Byker28i]

Someone left the back end in the paint oven too long. It's melted