Re : TVR appoints new CEO; laments factory issues
Discussion
neutral 3 said:
Tyre Smoke said:
swisstoni said:
Chims and Griffs were the equivalent of more than £60k today. The Cerbera and the T cars were a good bit more than that.
Umm. You're wrong I'm afraid. I was offered a brand new Cerbera from a main dealer in 2004 for £42000. Allowing for inflation that is £60900 today. I was looking at used, but all the cars fell into two camps; those under list looked like a tramp had lived in them, and those in good condition were at or even a little over list.
Due to the waiting lists and strong residuals, I never heard of discounts, although perhaps some got them. I do know many of the city guys would replace theirs every year, speccing and ordering a new car as soon as the current one arrived.
swisstoni said:
Tyre Smoke said:
swisstoni said:
Chims and Griffs were the equivalent of more than £60k today. The Cerbera and the T cars were a good bit more than that.
Umm. You're wrong I'm afraid. I was offered a brand new Cerbera from a main dealer in 2004 for £42000. Allowing for inflation that is £60900 today. That’s £65k today.
I know all this because I bought a TVR new that year.
Digga said:
Price indexes from 1998 to 2020 put the change at 1.77. So by that reckoning, £40k then is £70k now, roughly.
Trouble is that those indices are generic and pretty pointless. They may generate an accurate number but it would only be by luck. For example, the enormous rise in the cost of labour over the last 20 years would have an enormous impact on such a labour intensive product. The rise in administration costs and compliance requirements.
I wouldn’t be surprised that if you wanted to build the old TVR cars today with a 300 strong labour force and meeting today’s legislative requirements each car would cost considerably more than new TVR are quoting.
DonkeyApple said:
Digga said:
Price indexes from 1998 to 2020 put the change at 1.77. So by that reckoning, £40k then is £70k now, roughly.
Trouble is that those indices are generic and pretty pointless. They may generate an accurate number but it would only be by luck. For example, the enormous rise in the cost of labour over the last 20 years would have an enormous impact on such a labour intensive product. The rise in administration costs and compliance requirements.
I wouldn’t be surprised that if you wanted to build the old TVR cars today with a 300 strong labour force and meeting today’s legislative requirements each car would cost considerably more than new TVR are quoting.
Digga said:
Could be. The other thing, with cars, is the huge price hikes over the GFC. I can remember my second Discovery 3 cost something ridiculous like getting on for almost 20% more than the first.
Yup. That wasn’t so much the price of the car going up but the value of what it was being priced against slumping as the printing presses went into over drive. TVR will have the legacy for a long time of coming into the public consciousness at the exact time that the largest and wealthiest demographic to ever exist were all retiring at 55 with money to burn, the tech boom that gave youngsters money to burn and practically no competition. A window that closed as the tech boom matured, pensioners matured and you began to be able to buy sports cars with fully integrated life support systems such as assisted seat moving, pile and neck warmers. And of course the arrival of big, tall objects that resembled Range Rovers with which to project success more comfortably and easily.
It’s a totally different world today and it’s frankly a miracle to find anyone mad enough to try and bring an analogue V8 sports car back to market at an affordable price.
DonkeyApple said:
Digga said:
Could be. The other thing, with cars, is the huge price hikes over the GFC. I can remember my second Discovery 3 cost something ridiculous like getting on for almost 20% more than the first.
Yup. That wasn’t so much the price of the car going up but the value of what it was being priced against slumping as the printing presses went into over drive. TVR will have the legacy for a long time of coming into the public consciousness at the exact time that the largest and wealthiest demographic to ever exist were all retiring at 55 with money to burn, the tech boom that gave youngsters money to burn and practically no competition. A window that closed as the tech boom matured, pensioners matured and you began to be able to buy sports cars with fully integrated life support systems such as assisted seat moving, pile and neck warmers. And of course the arrival of big, tall objects that resembled Range Rovers with which to project success more comfortably and easily.
It’s a totally different world today and it’s frankly a miracle to find anyone mad enough to try and bring an analogue V8 sports car back to market at an affordable price.
I remember a chap locally from the TVRCC who worked for Jaguar and was, I believe, involved in the 'invention' of the XK8, but for a long while there weren't alternative products as there are today.
TVR was a fairly unique proposition for a while.
Marcos was interesting but more expensive and with challenging looks.
Lotus was expensive and frankly a bit weedy if you fancied a V8.
There wasn’t much about in the mid 90’s.
Even when the Boxter first appeared it was expensive and a bit pathetic by comparison.
Marcos was interesting but more expensive and with challenging looks.
Lotus was expensive and frankly a bit weedy if you fancied a V8.
There wasn’t much about in the mid 90’s.
Even when the Boxter first appeared it was expensive and a bit pathetic by comparison.
swisstoni said:
TVR was a fairly unique proposition for a while.
Marcos was interesting but more expensive and with challenging looks.
Lotus was expensive and frankly a bit weedy if you fancied a V8.
There wasn’t much about in the mid 90’s.
Even when the Boxter first appeared it was expensive and a bit pathetic by comparison.
Boxter was cheaper than most (all) TVRs by 2000. I looked at one but it was a bit small. It was cheaper than my Tamora. Now the basic one is about 45k, amazing value. Marcos was interesting but more expensive and with challenging looks.
Lotus was expensive and frankly a bit weedy if you fancied a V8.
There wasn’t much about in the mid 90’s.
Even when the Boxter first appeared it was expensive and a bit pathetic by comparison.
DonkeyApple said:
El stovey said:
Boxter was cheaper than most (all) TVRs by 2000. I looked at one but it was a bit small. It was cheaper than my Tamora. Now the basic one is about 45k, amazing value.
They can’t really start to charge more until girls are paid a fair salary. 
Even a V6 engined S was much brawnier and noisier than a Boxster. I think the Boxster is a decent car - probably saved Porsche - but in terms of hairy chested, bare knuckle fun, TVR had everyone beat, even before the Griffith and Chimaera arrived.
I can remember my first sight and (more's the point) sound of a 400SE. I was utterly smitten. It was one exactly like this:
DonkeyApple said:
The problem today is that the Boxster is a very cheap and phenomenally good sports car that is also loaded with all the mod cons.
Was loaned a 718 least year when the GT3 was in for service. Actually was not expecting anything vaguely interesting, as I'd explicitly asked for "something they would not mind my dog traveling in", so I thought it rather generous.I never found the TVR convertible 'claustrophobic' roof up, but I found the Boxster felt somehow like I was wearing blinkers - seemingly large blindspot. Didn't mind the 4-pot, turbo boxer engine, but it was not a substitute for a 6, let alone a big, beefy V8.
DonkeyApple said:
The problem today is that the Boxster is a very cheap and phenomenally good sports car that is also loaded with all the mod cons.
I think that the Boxster/Cayman were one of the big reasons why TVR died previously. Punters didn't want to spend £40k plus on a sports car that didn't work very often...so they took their money to Porsche instead of TVR. Don't get me wrong I love TVR's but punters don't seem to have as much patience anymore. Although Jaguar/Land Rover are still doing very well though!
I do think their one big chance was styling, and they missed it.
People will make some compromises for something that is either gorgeous and/or spectacular. The Cerbera and T-cars were evidence of that.
This TVR is neither. It's no more exciting to look at than a Z4 or Boxster.
They should have re-engineered the Tuscan or T350 and made some very minor changes to interior and exterior styling. Either of those cars would be vastly more exciting than the new Griffith.
It would have been easier to engineer, and it would have sold more readily. IMHO.
People will make some compromises for something that is either gorgeous and/or spectacular. The Cerbera and T-cars were evidence of that.
This TVR is neither. It's no more exciting to look at than a Z4 or Boxster.
They should have re-engineered the Tuscan or T350 and made some very minor changes to interior and exterior styling. Either of those cars would be vastly more exciting than the new Griffith.
It would have been easier to engineer, and it would have sold more readily. IMHO.
SpeckledJim said:
This TVR is neither. It's no more exciting to look at than a Z4 or Boxster.
In my extraordinarily biased opinion, and as someone who, in the late 80's/early 90's was smitten with the TVR 400/450SE, the Griffith was utterly revolutionary. Nothing else out there looked nearly as good.I can remember going down to the Earls Court motor show when it launched and sitting in one, utterly spellbound.
Digga said:
SpeckledJim said:
This TVR is neither. It's no more exciting to look at than a Z4 or Boxster.
In my extraordinarily biased opinion, and as someone who, in the late 80's/early 90's was smitten with the TVR 400/450SE, the Griffith was utterly revolutionary. Nothing else out there looked nearly as good.I can remember going down to the Earls Court motor show when it launched and sitting in one, utterly spellbound.
That for me was TVR's real USP. Not engines or speed or absent 'nannying' technology or bulls
t about hungry dogs. I don't think the way the thing drives is going to sell much to today's buyers. Styling was and still is the key.
Digga said:
SpeckledJim said:
I don't think the way the thing drives is going to sell much to today's buyers. Styling was and still is the key.
From the 400SE onward, the styling was pretty outrageous and distinctive.The TVR buyer wants his car to stand out. A lot. And a Porsche, for all its unconquerable-by-mortals-in-sheds brilliance, no longer stands out in 2020. That (IMHO) was the gap they should have gone for, and they've missed by miles.
SpeckledJim said:
Digga said:
SpeckledJim said:
I don't think the way the thing drives is going to sell much to today's buyers. Styling was and still is the key.
From the 400SE onward, the styling was pretty outrageous and distinctive.The TVR buyer wants his car to stand out. A lot. And a Porsche, for all its unconquerable-by-mortals-in-sheds brilliance, no longer stands out in 2020. That (IMHO) was the gap they should have gone for, and they've missed by miles.
You can't 'out drive' a Porsche, you can't 'out practical' a golf. However what has been missed is the ability to go straight for a desire line. Everyone I know sticks an impractical car on their wall. I still chuckle when my car goes In for an MOT and AGAIN the tester has forgotten how to put the hazards on.
Its a breath of fresh air as a car, and even without driving it you still gain pleasure from it. That's a giant gap In the market for anyone brave enough to stick two fingers up at convention.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff