RE: TVR sold to British buyer?

[Garlick]

CDP said:

JonRB said:

gsuk1 said:

Hmmm I read your comment and thought I should do some research so typed: "TVR Speed6 engine" into Google and it auto corrected with:
"tvr speed 6 engine problems" and
"tvr speed 6 engine rebuild"...

I think I'll stand by my "Crap Engine" comment....

Then you clearly have no clue what you are talking about. You could just as easily type "M3 vanos" into google and read all about the Vanos failures on the M3 and conclude BMW engines are crap too.

The speed 6 engine is expensive and whether the reputation is grounded or not it unfortunately carries one. I don't think most TVR buyers have anything like the money of Ferrari owners and will be more than prepared to accept a bought in engine in return for the peace of mind that brings.

Also, start off with a stock LS engine and just think of the tuning potential.

I like the LS, but that SS built today (using the knowledge of what went wrong last time) would be a cracker. It would also add the uniqueness a TVR needs. If specialists can offer high mileage warranties these days, the same could happen on the showroom floor.

[DonkeyApple]

ugg10 said:

TVR - traction control/stability control - sorry does not compute ;-)

if the chassis is designed correctly then no ABS and no traction control is OK - see what the Ultima does without these, all part of the charm and the challenge !

Although the only reason TVRs didn't have TC was because they couldn't get it to work with the MBE system well enough. My car left the factory with TC sensors etc and they have now been plumbed in to a modern ECU and works well.

Likewise things like sequential injection. There were many things they wanted to fit but the tech was too expensive back then for the price point they were having to sell at.

[gsuk1]

ugg10 said:

TVR - traction control/stability control - sorry does not compute ;-)

if the chassis is designed correctly then no ABS and no traction control is OK - see what the Ultima does without these, all part of the charm and the challenge !

Lol I completely agree. However I don't know the process of how TVR could avoid the legislation that's coming in requiring traction/stability control etc.
Assuming they make production rather than kit cars I don't know they can avoid it. Also the crash safety legislation has moved on a lot since TVR were last making cars.

Does anyone know how the legislation for low volume production vehicles actually works?

[Fetchez la vache]

[Stuart J]

CDP said:

This is Britain: there are loads of excellent companies who could help develop a tub. I can think of several good ones (who aren't household names) straight off the top of my head. Having said that, I can't help thinking a well designed steel chassis couldn't do the job safely and retain the benefits of low cost. Especially if you integrate a cage into the design.

Agree with your point on the steel chassis, I just quoted KTM for the tub as they have already done it & might be a quicker way to get it into production

If funds will allow I feel the tub is the way forward as it saves so much weight which gives better performance & reduces mpg & thus emissions. The new Alfa is 100 kilos lighter than a 500 Abarth, + is it will remap to 300 bhp

[JonRB]

CDP said:

The speed 6 engine is expensive

True. It is a hand-built low volume engine. But what an engine!

CDP said:

whether the reputation is grounded or not it unfortunately carries one.

Sadly also true, but then again TVR cars also have a reputation for unreliability that is equally ungrounded.

Owners go in with their eyes open and confidence in the S6 engine is growing all the time. The engine failures of old are pretty much a thing of the past now, especially when the Syvecs ECU is used as it has knock sensors that actively guard against the detonation on #6 cylinder that lunched a lot of S6 engines in the past.

Racing Green's completely redesigned head with Jaguar-style bucket tappets rather than finger followers also has major benefits, although TVR Power have stuck with finger followers and have great reliability too. There has never been so much choice for TVR owners.

[900T-R]

Noble makes a £200K supercar on a tubular spaceframe (and jolly good it appears to be). Donkervoort combines their tubular spaceframe with carbon/sandwich panelling for stiffening the structure just like TVR did on the Tuscan R/ T4xxR/Typhon and again, it seems to work bl00dy well given their Nordschleife track record. Tubular spaceframes are still quite attractive from a stiffness/weight/cost POV if properly engineered.

As for the Eurocrats, much if not all of what's touted here as 'the law' isn't in any law - mandatory ESP, average CO2 emissions limits et al are no more than the result of gentleman agreements between the European Commission and the Cecra (the association of European car manufacturers). One offs and low volume manufacturers are unaffected, you can stil pass cars through a full Type Approval procedure without having all that stuff. The flipside is that of course, the Cecra won't be doing any lobbying work for you in Brussels.

[CDP]

Garlick said:

CDP said:

JonRB said:

gsuk1 said:

Hmmm I read your comment and thought I should do some research so typed: "TVR Speed6 engine" into Google and it auto corrected with:
"tvr speed 6 engine problems" and
"tvr speed 6 engine rebuild"...

I think I'll stand by my "Crap Engine" comment....

Then you clearly have no clue what you are talking about. You could just as easily type "M3 vanos" into google and read all about the Vanos failures on the M3 and conclude BMW engines are crap too.

The speed 6 engine is expensive and whether the reputation is grounded or not it unfortunately carries one. I don't think most TVR buyers have anything like the money of Ferrari owners and will be more than prepared to accept a bought in engine in return for the peace of mind that brings.

Also, start off with a stock LS engine and just think of the tuning potential.

I like the LS, but that SS built today (using the knowledge of what went wrong last time) would be a cracker. It would also add the uniqueness a TVR needs. If specialists can offer high mileage warranties these days, the same could happen on the showroom floor.

But the EU regulations march on, keeping the SS engine in touch will be increasingly expensive. Sticking with a volume production engine like the Jaguar or LS means a lot of that R&D is done for you.

It's a bit defeatist but the new TVR won't even be anything like the old TVR when it comes to volume so buying in powertrains is the only viable option. If it's more than a car a week for the first couple of years it will be an amazing achievement.

[gsuk1]

Garlick said:

Or, you could re-read Jon's post. There were early issues that are now well documented and the engines are strong as a result of retrospective fettling and upgrades. Some rebuilds offer comprehensive warranties to back that up (you need to be sure of success when offering high mileage warranties)

Knowing what we know now the SS engine could be made again today, very successfully indeed. Although I'm not sure why I typed this as I suspect you have your hands over your ears saying 'La, La not listening'.

It's not the point if the fixed it afterwards it should have worked when they sold it!
Justified or not it carried the reputation of being a Crap engine, which added the TVR's already poor reliability reputation. Add to that the fact it cost a fortune to design a build, and by common opinion was missing 2 cylinders and you have one of the major factors that brought down the company in the first place.

Should have just bought in someone else's V8. It's not like there weren't any around.

[wombat172a]

gsuk1 said:

Hmmm I read your comment and thought I should do some research so typed: "TVR Speed6 engine" into Google and it auto corrected with:
"tvr speed 6 engine problems" and
"tvr speed 6 engine rebuild"...

I think I'll stand by my "Crap Engine" comment....

Amazing research, purely fantastic.

Based upon this:

• audi engines are crap because "audi 2.0 tdi" corrects to "audi 2.0 tdi engine problems"
• mercedes engines are crap because "mercedes m272 engine" corrects to "mercedes m272 engine problems"
• as above M3 Vanos = "m3 vanos failure"
• etc. etc.

And what's been proven?

[Nors]

Haven't read all posts in detail, but, As much as I like TVR, I'm most curious to see what strategy they adopt, e.g. do they make cars in the spirit of the old ones to attract back their 'existing' type of clients, or are they going to rip up the TVR rule book and go for a completely different type of customer, by making EU compliant, better built with more expensive price tags?

I guess this will be one of the most critical decisions they'll have to make?

[Skyedriver]

Sadly the world has moved on a long way since the turn of the century when TVR was king of the road.
Any new TVR would need to be substantially different to the Chimaera/Griffith Tuscan etc era I suspect.
Someone earlie said the hoped any new TVR wouldn't be a kit car. Well the new buyers ofthe company could do a lot worse than talk to Mr Mills of MEV & Replicar who has produced some remarkable "kit cars" over the last few years at sensible prices. I'm not suggesting TVR should become an MX5 rebody company but a blend of TVR and Stiggy could be an interesting proposition as an alternative to the current MX5/MR2/Elise etc

[dirty boy]

JonRB said:

CDP said:

The speed 6 engine is expensive

True. It is a hand-built low volume engine. But what an engine!

But if TVR decided to use it again, with what is now known, the cost will come down considerably.

I think the S6 and AJP are both viable power plants. Some decent engine management would do wonders too.

[Zircon]

Triple7 said:

There is nothing left aside the name....

....and the history!

However, in 2013 the good old of days of men in a Blackpool shed keeping costs down and the cars simple have probably been lost for good, especially as it has been nearly a decade since its demise.

I have all digits crossed that something good comes of this news.

[RichB]

touching cloth said:

Nice to see Autocar extending journalistic excellence

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/tvr-thr...


Seriously?


So well known that they opted to use another car in the pic.


...and again


FFS, really!!

Laughable...

[900T-R]

Let's just say that ties to a major(ish) manufacturer for powertrain and electronics would be extremely welcome (see Donkervoort/Audi, KTM/Audi, Wiessmann/BMW). Failing that, buying in a GM LS engine would be a workable short term alternative but it is unlikely that you'd get anything like the same support from the General beyond procuring the engines. JLR would of course be an ideal candidate, being local(ish) and having the right sort of engines & technologies in their portfolio - short of a manual 'box to go with their V6 and V8 engines

[Frimley111R]

DonkeyApple said:

Frimley111R said:

Of course it'd be great to have TVR back but I don't see how. I've been to the Lotus factory and when you see how much effort and cost there is to making 50 cars a week to modern standards I seriously wonder how a business case for TVR can stack up. The up front costs would be huge. The old cars are simply too old IMO to be viable going forward. However, maybe they are looking at buying another company, lets fact it, there have been plenty of 'nearly' start ups in the past.

I guess the route may be to use an existing chassis and drivetrain which is future proofed and run a small operation to fit a body and interior. Starting ground up makes it hard to see how enough units could ever be sold to recover costs.

Even then it'd be so tough. For example, Lotus have to put a 2 stage air bag into Evoras if they want to keep selling them in the USA (for stupid Americans who don't wear seat belts!). Lotus reckon the total cost of doing so is £4m! Now I am not saying TVR would want to/be able to sell in the USA but I am sure this is one of many examples facing car manufacturers, big, small and start up all over the world.

I could see TVR becoming like a Morgan though, making 'classic' sports cars the old way (but better!). That could work I think.

[Twincam16]

[redacted]

[RichB]

SuperBaaaad said:

Twincam16 said:

The problem with using an LS engine is that it puts whatever they come up with in the firing line of the Corvette, which will probably undercut it in every LHD market and make it look a bit pointless, especially once you've factored in the enormous GM dealer network.

Whilst looks are entirely subjective, Corvettes are pretty ugly and LHD. I still think the TVR brand has a lot of equity, and were a new model to appear, LS engined or not it would sell.

I have never understood this comparison between TVR and Corvette. Aside from them both having 4 wheels and a V8 they are as different as chalk and, well, charcoal...

[gsuk1]

CDP said:

But the EU regulations march on, keeping the SS engine in touch will be increasingly expensive. Sticking with a volume production engine like the Jaguar or LS means a lot of that R&D is done for you.

It's a bit defeatist but the new TVR won't even be anything like the old TVR when it comes to volume so buying in powertrains is the only viable option. If it's more than a car a week for the first couple of years it will be an amazing achievement.

...Exactly! And there is a wide selection of awesome V8 engines to choose from. Morgan got it spot on with there BMW sources V8. Alternatively there is plenty of choice from across the pond.