RV8 reliability 4.0 v 4.5 v 5.0
Discussion
900T-R said:
Your idea of fun and mine may be slightly different - in the Griffmaera chassis, I gladly trade some low/midrange lairiness that can send you facing the wrong way in traffic if you're not very careful, for a useable rev range that extends past 5K. Nothing too elevated, mind - around 6K rpm is where the peak should be, with a 6.5K redline - which is 1960s muscle car territory rather than turbodiesel style delivery. 
I can see your point there, the torque, combined with a wet road and a badly set up suspension, plus a heavy right foot, can cause exactly the result you describe. I enjoy mine with the extra torque because it suits my driving style, the car is well set up, and I treat the power with respect in the wet and when coming off roundabouts or pulling out to overtake. I do track days for fun, and the car really suits them.
I've had my 500 chim for 16 years, never had any mechanical issues in 30k with engine, regular oil service with good quality oil 10w50, it's now 25 years old so no reliability woes.
It's pretty standard spec but markedly more powerful than 400 s I've driven, and quicker than other 300hp cars I've driven or owned, so don't be perturbed by the low output brigade, they don't all need a rebuild of remap to perform well.
It's pretty standard spec but markedly more powerful than 400 s I've driven, and quicker than other 300hp cars I've driven or owned, so don't be perturbed by the low output brigade, they don't all need a rebuild of remap to perform well.
Years ago whenever people spoke of the 500 chocolate cranks was the term branded about every time!
I once asked who had broken a crank and nobody answered.
How many did breaks cranks is a very good question.
But that stigma stuck for years, thankfully most Don’t use such a derogatory term these days
As Derek mentions, with these old blocks it’s luck of the draw to some extent and clearly how it’s been maintained and used such as starting it and revving it or driving off stone cold, all these things have a bearing, if someone never learnt to toe and heel on down shifts can be another extra wear issue if done for years.
I really don’t think there’s much difference as all variants including bog standard 4 and 4.5 engines can have issues.
From my basic knowledge and observation of my rebuilt engine so totally clean inside and no browning of allay at all when installed, 25,000 miles later it’s still clean, mostly because I replace the oil at most 5000 miles and one winter after lots of cold starts and chugging about in traffic, oil was contaminated and black by semi ignited petrol that naturally finds its way into the oil, that oil was removed after about 2900 miles.
Changing your oil and filter regular as 3000 miles or once a year is probably going to help and preserve the engine more than any other thing you can do and makes a huge difference to the longevity of the engine, the more power you get the more the oil is likely to shear at high engine pick up speeds so when accelerating between the gears very rapidly from say 2500 to 6200 you are putting the crank and it’s lubrication system through a hard time it was never really designed for.
It’s all a compromise so it’s no surprise highly tuned rebuilt engines are rarely warranted.
I once asked who had broken a crank and nobody answered.
How many did breaks cranks is a very good question.
But that stigma stuck for years, thankfully most Don’t use such a derogatory term these days
As Derek mentions, with these old blocks it’s luck of the draw to some extent and clearly how it’s been maintained and used such as starting it and revving it or driving off stone cold, all these things have a bearing, if someone never learnt to toe and heel on down shifts can be another extra wear issue if done for years.
I really don’t think there’s much difference as all variants including bog standard 4 and 4.5 engines can have issues.
From my basic knowledge and observation of my rebuilt engine so totally clean inside and no browning of allay at all when installed, 25,000 miles later it’s still clean, mostly because I replace the oil at most 5000 miles and one winter after lots of cold starts and chugging about in traffic, oil was contaminated and black by semi ignited petrol that naturally finds its way into the oil, that oil was removed after about 2900 miles.
Changing your oil and filter regular as 3000 miles or once a year is probably going to help and preserve the engine more than any other thing you can do and makes a huge difference to the longevity of the engine, the more power you get the more the oil is likely to shear at high engine pick up speeds so when accelerating between the gears very rapidly from say 2500 to 6200 you are putting the crank and it’s lubrication system through a hard time it was never really designed for.
It’s all a compromise so it’s no surprise highly tuned rebuilt engines are rarely warranted.
Classic Chim said:
Years ago whenever people spoke of the 500 chocolate cranks was the term branded about every time!
I once asked who had broken a crank and nobody answered.
How many did breaks cranks is a very good question.
I can recall two reported here off the top of my head. Which doesn't seem like a lot, but even those two catastrophic failures on a total of about 2,300 engines built (1,700 Griff 500 and 600 Chim 500) would indicate a quite unacceptable failure rate by large manufacturer standards...I once asked who had broken a crank and nobody answered.
How many did breaks cranks is a very good question.
Yes you are most unfortunate to have a 500 crank break, don't let it put anyone off buying one, the chances are really rather slim. Only 2 breaks reported on here seems a nice low number considering the 5 litre has been out what .. ? .. 27/28 years ?
The 500s offered by the likes of V8D based around the virtually bulletproof 4.6 bottom end are a different kettle of fish of course, the tvr 500 crank isn't the same.
The 500s offered by the likes of V8D based around the virtually bulletproof 4.6 bottom end are a different kettle of fish of course, the tvr 500 crank isn't the same.
It’s part of owning a Tvr.
Ok they have faults but blatantly talking up the issues has always been something I notice owners do as much as any members of the public.
It’s often doom and gloom about things most of us have no true facts about.
After my first 6 months on here I was tired of reading about faults which I thought I should know about, I started to think the cars were really very poor and constantly letting go but in truth we never come on PH raving about a day out driving probably because someone will come along and question your motives or whatever.
I had a list so long I was starting to think I’d made a bad decision, 15k of mods later it’s well sorted
But that was all by choice, the simple fact is I did 10,000 the first year of ownership and the car has never once failed on its original set up other than idle issues from crap stepper motors, I carried on until I’ve managed 38,000 miles in total but that included engine rebuild and ecu change which was me being decedent rather than the car ever needed either.
It’s a far better car for it which really was the point but not once did it break down, I wasted 15k cos of scare mongers
Ok they have faults but blatantly talking up the issues has always been something I notice owners do as much as any members of the public.
It’s often doom and gloom about things most of us have no true facts about.
After my first 6 months on here I was tired of reading about faults which I thought I should know about, I started to think the cars were really very poor and constantly letting go but in truth we never come on PH raving about a day out driving probably because someone will come along and question your motives or whatever.
I had a list so long I was starting to think I’d made a bad decision, 15k of mods later it’s well sorted
But that was all by choice, the simple fact is I did 10,000 the first year of ownership and the car has never once failed on its original set up other than idle issues from crap stepper motors, I carried on until I’ve managed 38,000 miles in total but that included engine rebuild and ecu change which was me being decedent rather than the car ever needed either.
It’s a far better car for it which really was the point but not once did it break down, I wasted 15k cos of scare mongers
spitfire4v8 said:
Yes you are most unfortunate to have a 500 crank break, don't let it put anyone off buying one, the chances are really rather slim. Only 2 breaks reported on here seems a nice low number considering the 5 litre has been out what .. ? .. 27/28 years ?
The 500s offered by the likes of V8D based around the virtually bulletproof 4.6 bottom end are a different kettle of fish of course, the tvr 500 crank isn't the same.
The tvr crank is fully counterbalanced which is important imo. The 4.6 cranks aren't but given the 2.185" stock journals can be offset ground to a 2" journal at app 86 mm. Almost 5 litres worth. A good place to start.The 500s offered by the likes of V8D based around the virtually bulletproof 4.6 bottom end are a different kettle of fish of course, the tvr 500 crank isn't the same.
It’s strange that both TVR and another British manufacture, McLaren, are tarred with the poor reliability brush. Other makes, in particular Porsche, have suffered from very well documented issues such as IMS failure, Ferrari 458s initially caught fire, but they somehow avoid the bad publicity? At least TVRs didn’t depreciate at the rate McLarens do....
notax said:
It’s strange that both TVR and another British manufacture, McLaren, are tarred with the poor reliability brush. Other makes, in particular Porsche, have suffered from very well documented issues such as IMS failure, Ferrari 458s initially caught fire, but they somehow avoid the bad publicity? At least TVRs didn’t depreciate at the rate McLarens do....
A lot of the bad rep was down to two things:
1. TVR getting each new model on sale as fast as possible and then letting the new owners find the problems that any mainstream manufacturer would have sorted by doing hundreds of thousands of development miles.
2. Journalists, such as the Top Gear team, being given cars to test drive that were badly set up and where bits fell off during the test.
All the comments about un-reliability that I have had said to me have come from people who know nothing but have viewed the latter, but those journalists' comments would never have been made if the cars they tested had been properly screwed together and set up in the first place. The first car they did screw together properly was the Sagaris - watch the TV review on YoofTube - he (I think it was Clarkson) has nothing but praise for a TVR that is fully developed, well built and properly set up.
1. TVR getting each new model on sale as fast as possible and then letting the new owners find the problems that any mainstream manufacturer would have sorted by doing hundreds of thousands of development miles.
2. Journalists, such as the Top Gear team, being given cars to test drive that were badly set up and where bits fell off during the test.
All the comments about un-reliability that I have had said to me have come from people who know nothing but have viewed the latter, but those journalists' comments would never have been made if the cars they tested had been properly screwed together and set up in the first place. The first car they did screw together properly was the Sagaris - watch the TV review on YoofTube - he (I think it was Clarkson) has nothing but praise for a TVR that is fully developed, well built and properly set up.
All granted - but the thread was about the comparative reliability of the different TVR RV8 options, and comparatively the 500 can be reasonably stated to be the more troublesome.
Given some compromises that TVR made in the 500 bottom end mentioned earlier, which both John Eales and V8 Developments have been keen to avoid in their own ~5 litre versions, I would say that should not come as a big surprise.
Given some compromises that TVR made in the 500 bottom end mentioned earlier, which both John Eales and V8 Developments have been keen to avoid in their own ~5 litre versions, I would say that should not come as a big surprise.
I've said some of this stuff earlier, but... I had top end rattle (small ends as it turned out) and porous block in my first year of ownership... when it was stripped there was also noticeable cam wear, this at 34.5K miles... Another thing of interest (to me at least) was that there were no trumpets present.... which apparently explained the low torque figure - I'd dyno'd the car shortly after I got it, and it was 280/280 power and torque respectively. Whilst the bhp was an OK figure I would have expected a bit more torque.
Edited to add: I don't believe the porous block issue had anything to do with it being a TVR built 500...
Edited to add: I don't believe the porous block issue had anything to do with it being a TVR built 500...
baconsarney said:
I don't believe the porous block issue had anything to do with it being a TVR built 500...
You’re right, I think many of the larger capacity RV8 blocks suffered with the slipped liner. I first experienced it with my 4.6 P38 Range Rover, which I put down to running LPG and the engine running hotter than it should ideally have done. Then a few months later after an overheat at a Donington track day the Griff 500 slipped six of its liners! 2009 was a bad engine year!
MisterT said:
baconsarney said:
I don't believe the porous block issue had anything to do with it being a TVR built 500...
You’re right, I think many of the larger capacity RV8 blocks suffered with the slipped liner. I first experienced it with my 4.6 P38 Range Rover, which I put down to running LPG and the engine running hotter than it should ideally have done. Then a few months later after an overheat at a Donington track day the Griff 500 slipped six of its liners! 2009 was a bad engine year!
Inserting top-hat liners avoids liner slippage, but you are looking at £1000 to do it.
I was experiencing water temperature surges on mine recently, and my TVR guy was very worried that my block (of which I have no idea of the history, it was bought from a Range Rover place as a used, top hat lined, block three years ago for £250, complete with a 4.6 crank) was porous, as I had also had issues with the head bolts becoming loose - he had to put inserts into some of the threads.
However, in my case he found instead that I had a small water leak from one of the pipe connections low down in the engine bay, and having solved that issue, the block passed a pressure test.
Back on subject - the only issues with the 500 engine, as stated above, are the occasional crank breaking, and piston slap, caused by the design of the engine. To get 5 litres out of a 4.6, TVR lengthened the stroke. This was achieved by offsetting the crank shaft big end bearings, this taking the rods further out to the side on each stroke and thus lowering the piston further in the down position. If I understand it correctly, this has the effect of exerting more lateral force on the pistons, which over time causes them to wear a bigger path side to side in the bore. The bore becomes slightly oval and so on.
TVR RV8 variants explained in this thread by Rob..........
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Seems the 500 was based on the 4.0 RV8...........
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Seems the 500 was based on the 4.0 RV8...........
Gassing Station | General TVR Stuff & Gossip | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff