RE: TVR Cerbera 4.0 | The Brave Pill

RE: TVR Cerbera 4.0 | The Brave Pill

Author
Discussion

8Speed

306 posts

19 months

Tuesday 17th March
quotequote all
The thing is that low mileage/use doesn't do cars any good (especially TVRs).
Regularly used and maintained TVRs should be as reliable as most other makes. Admittedly having a fibreglass body does make them susceptible to the odd electrical problem but, if looked after properly and driven as intended, there's no reason to be scared of them. The low mileage of this example isn't doing it any favours.

Blown2CV

23,486 posts

156 months

Tuesday 17th March
quotequote all
here we go

ok so, some TVR RV8 and AJP-8 owners engine swapped to LS yes, but what is clear to me is that different owners like different things. Some just want a solid reliable V8 to burble around in, and a setup that is less likely go bang. Some (and I like to think the conossieurs) want the characteristics of the TVR engine because it's more of a distinct and different experience. It's quite a polarising topic in TVR circles... some believe what makes a TVR is just the looks. Some feel it's the whole package, warts and all.

rockin

7,801 posts

198 months

Tuesday 17th March
quotequote all
Lotus destroyed the Jensen car company by supplying engines that hadn't been properly developed.

TVR did the same thing - - - to itself.

Blown2CV

23,486 posts

156 months

Tuesday 17th March
quotequote all
rockin said:
Lotus destroyed the Jensen car company by supplying engines that hadn't been properly developed.

TVR did the same thing - - - to itself.
it's an extensively covered topic. Technically, TVR designed the engines very well, but the compromises brought in to cut costs ruined that good design. Different people will say different things, but there are numerous ways that Sp6 engines are improved by the specialist community to remove those compromises. Anyway your comments ignore the fact that the AJP-8 is in fact an awesome engine and didn't do the brand any harm at all.

Olivera

3,886 posts

192 months

Tuesday 17th March
quotequote all
Blown2CV said:
It's quite a polarising topic in TVR circles... some believe what makes a TVR is just the looks. Some feel it's the whole package, warts and all.
There's no way I'd be ditching the AJP8 for any yank V8.

I've noticed some of the LS V8 converted TVRs require another air intake/bump in the bonnet, I'm sure there's a PHer with an LS7 powered Cerbera that has this. These styling changes are an abomination.

Blown2CV

23,486 posts

156 months

Tuesday 17th March
quotequote all
Olivera said:
Blown2CV said:
It's quite a polarising topic in TVR circles... some believe what makes a TVR is just the looks. Some feel it's the whole package, warts and all.
There's no way I'd be ditching the AJP8 for any yank V8.

I've noticed some of the LS V8 converted TVRs require another air intake/bump in the bonnet, I'm sure there's a PHer with an LS7 powered Cerbera that has this. These styling changes are an abomination.
and wider wheels, arches, bigger brakes, space for turbo(s)... i mean some people went to town with it. I'd rather put a charged LS into an old granada ir something

cerb4.5lee

14,733 posts

133 months

Tuesday 17th March
quotequote all
I think that it is a difficult one to be fair. But I think that if TVR had stuck with the RV8 engine(or used another proven engine) instead of making their own engines they may well have survived.

The speed 6 engine was the death of TVR for me.

Blown2CV

23,486 posts

156 months

Tuesday 17th March
quotequote all
cerb4.5lee said:
I think that it is a difficult one to be fair. But I think that if TVR had stuck with the RV8 engine(or used another proven engine) instead of making their own engines they may well have survived.

The speed 6 engine was the death of TVR for me.
the RV8 had had its day. It served the motor industry incredibly well over the decades and decades, but just didn't have the capability required for the next generation of models in order to remain desirable and keep pace with competitor advancements. People buying them new were very different people to the owner base now of course.... I mean that could generate a whole stack of debate in itself, but that was why. Heavily developing a 3rd party engine would have been the way to push the numbers of units and keep costs down, but as said before i think the new breed of homegrown engines did offer something other options didn't, and they nearly made it work... kind of. Not sure keeping the RV8 and everything that that era represented about British sports cars, and the British motor industry in general, would have lengthened the lifespan of the company.... quite possibly would have shortened it.

cerb4.5lee

14,733 posts

133 months

Tuesday 17th March
quotequote all
Blown2CV said:
the RV8 had had its day. It served the motor industry incredibly well over the decades and decades, but just didn't have the capability required for the next generation of models in order to remain desirable and keep pace with competitor advancements. People buying them new were very different people to the owner base now of course.... I mean that could generate a whole stack of debate in itself, but that was why. Heavily developing a 3rd party engine would have been the way to push the numbers of units and keep costs down, but as said before i think the new breed of homegrown engines did offer something other options didn't, and they nearly made it work... kind of. Not sure keeping the RV8 and everything that that era represented about British sports cars, and the British motor industry in general, would have lengthened the lifespan of the company.... quite possibly would have shortened it.
Yes I agree that the RV8 had-had its day but if they had used another proven engine(like the V8 engine from the Mustang in the new(old!) TVR that is supposed to be coming out) they might have survived. Rather than using arrogance and building an engine that wasn't up to the task of longevity for me.

Either way it was a sad state of affairs for sure. It is funny now though that TVR have a proven engine at last(the Coyote V8)...but the rest of the business is a shambles! hehe

TVRBRZ

13 posts

42 months

Tuesday 17th March
quotequote all
I suspect that at some point in the future when rarity and the classic car market dictates, those LS swapped TVRs will be changed back to the original engines.

A long time prior to my RV8 chim I had a Triumph Stag with a 3.5 RV8 that someone had swapped for the original (clever design but poor coolant) Triumph 3.0 v8. Given the price of Stags now, those RV8 and Essex 3.0 v6 conversions have been ditched and back on OEM. Again, given specialists, modern anti freeze and TLC, the Triumph v8 is considered more characterful and better. OHC as opposed to push rods too.

I've not had the pleasure of many miles in a Sp6 or AJPV8 but both revved and pulled far better than the RV8 in my Chim. With the antiquated push rods, the RV8 was a bit like a diesel in comparison, all low down torque and limited revs.

Both Al Melling engines are revvy, torquey and bags of character. Given the specialist help and knowledge now, with the inevitable premium the OEM engine would command over a LS conversion in a future Classic market, I see no logic in a swap now that the car is 20+ years old.

Would anyone put an RV8 in a Stag now?

swisstoni

8,946 posts

232 months

Wednesday 18th March
quotequote all
If TVRs ever become properly collected like E Types etc, buyers will be wanting the original engines.

To an extent I can see why people do LS swaps for the Chim and Griff as the RV8 was basically a crate engine itself but to swap out a proper TVR engine is not great IMHO.

env

162 posts

143 months

Wednesday 18th March
quotequote all
I have had an early 4.2 for a while now (clatter cam as they are known)... few observations.

You need to buy a good one and be willing to spend on it, an annual service at a specialist will not be cheap if done properly. You should also be ready to replace a lot of the old standard parts (pipes, radiators etc...)

Once you have it running correctly, and keep on top of it, then it becomes a much more enjoyable experience.

I have a SL500 made in the same year (1996) as the Cerbera, the engineering difference between the two is hilarious, with the TVR wiring that looks like a GCSE electronics project and things like bonnet hinges that could have come off a kitchen cupboard. The Merc feels like it was engineered to survive the end of the world.

However, if I want to go somewhere for an experience or to have fun out and about, I will take the TVR. Everytime.


so called

7,502 posts

162 months

Wednesday 18th March
quotequote all
Its interesting though that some people came over to TVR because there was less, and I quote, "snobbery" compared to other marks, when it came to parts "improvements".
The quote comes from discussions I had in North America at a TVR Car Club Meet.
It was with regard being in a car club where people share how they have improved their cars without an underlying tone of disapproval.


Blown2CV

23,486 posts

156 months

Wednesday 18th March
quotequote all
it's really interesting to see how the types of people who are TVR owners has changed so much over time, not least because the models have changed but not least because they haven't been built for 14 years. There has been much talked about how the new TVR has to acknowledge the old TVR and 'stay true' to the ownerbase... even though only the minority of the current owners would be in a position to purchase a new one even if they wanted to, and the ownership has changed massively even since they last made the damn things, so it is pretty much an entirely new market. Someone running a classic car worth £15k is not necessarily someone who has the same desires, pockets, intentions as someone who has £100k to drop on a brand new base model. TVRs from before 2000 are firmly in the british classic sports car space now, so there isn't vast overlap anymore with the 'engine swap forced induction widened arches' brigade anymore. Like any classic car, unmolested examples are the ones people want, after a certain point in time.

TVRBRZ

13 posts

42 months

Wednesday 18th March
quotequote all
Very good point about new potential owners being different from the old enthusiasts.

I was at Goodwood for the launch and was talking to the Marketing Director of new TVR. Through my day job I saw a non profit opportunity for us (MoD) and TVR to hook up a photo shoot with the Lancaster, Spitfire and Hurricane from the BBMF. The marketing Director turned me down flat, as any connection to classic Brit engineering (Merlins and Spitfires) was "not our target audience".

I might be wrong but would any Griff, Chim, Tusc or Cerbie owners turn their noses up at a selfie with a Spitfire?

Blown2CV

23,486 posts

156 months

Wednesday 18th March
quotequote all
TVRBRZ said:
Very good point about new potential owners being different from the old enthusiasts.

I was at Goodwood for the launch and was talking to the Marketing Director of new TVR. Through my day job I saw a non profit opportunity for us (MoD) and TVR to hook up a photo shoot with the Lancaster, Spitfire and Hurricane from the BBMF. The marketing Director turned me down flat, as any connection to classic Brit engineering (Merlins and Spitfires) was "not our target audience".

I might be wrong but would any Griff, Chim, Tusc or Cerbie owners turn their noses up at a selfie with a Spitfire?
wow, i mean that really speaks volumes. I guess how we interpret it may change according to who we are. If I was part of the older / prior owner community I might see that as a disgusting rebuttal of what we feel TVR is... if i was looking at it from the perspective of where TVR might actually carve out a market for itself, I might say yea can understand why they were so sure this wasn't what they wanted. They've obviously done some thinking at least.

I guess there are parallels with the LR 'new Defender'. The major difference is that they are trying to market that thing directly off the name... representing ruggedness, repairability etc in addition off road creds and reputation of the older (proper?) Defender, despite it being massively electronic and complicated, with rear light clusters costing thousands etc... it couldn't be further from where the new product is, by some of those measures at least.

TVRBRZ

13 posts

42 months

Wednesday 18th March
quotequote all
The measured answer I got was that the new engineering (Gordon Muuray etc) meant that they wanted to distance themselves from exactly the old TVR we have been discussing. As a previous owner (who had a £20k BRZ) and was no way going to afford a new £100k TVR, it made no sense. To my mind the engineering of a Merlin or a Spitfire is exemplary no matter - but then I'm biased.

If I was in the money for a £100k car then my heroes would be Apple, Google or Tesla, not , Avro, Hawker or Supermarine. So I guess for new TVR it made sense.

Byker28i

24,147 posts

170 months

Wednesday 18th March
quotequote all
Yup, market for previous TVR owners was small for the new model, that wasn't the market they were going for, when I spoke to Les and the finance guy all those years ago at a London car show (when it was under a blanket). They were after the Porsche, Jaguar F type owner who wanted something different to the masses

Tyre Smoke

14,337 posts

214 months

Wednesday 18th March
quotequote all
Byker28i said:
Yup, market for previous TVR owners was small for the new model, that wasn't the market they were going for, when I spoke to Les and the finance guy all those years ago at a London car show (when it was under a blanket). They were after the Porsche, Jaguar F type owner who wanted something different to the masses
And there's the problem.

Even back in the 90s and early 00s, TVR tried to position itself against Porsche, etc. Morgan was not seen as a competitor. For TVR even then, a glorified kit car, or parts bin tart if you prefer, built in a shed in Blackpool with some very questionable quality control, it was never at the races. Yes, it was quick, yes it was always an event to drive. Reliability was always a question and yes, cue endless anecdotes about Porsches being an unreliable mess. The fact is (was) Porsche doesn't have a name for unrelaible plastic cars made in a shed. Quite the opposite. Along with all their other German manufacturer colleagues, they are seen as quality.

For TVR, especially trying to break into the £100k market, they haven't a chance. There is now Porsche, Audi, Jaguar, McLaren, Ferrari, Lamborghini - ok those last three are going to be used, but the point is the market is far more crowded now.

WhyTwo

1,070 posts

145 months

Wednesday 18th March
quotequote all
Byker28i said:
The aircon at best is like a mouse farting in anything less than 20C, you just open the windows. As for the heatsoak, you need to decat them to get the heat away from the tunnel - at least on the V8 engines.
I sat in traffic for at least 1/2 hour trying to get out of the Great British Welcome at Le Mans 3 or 4 years ago. It was a scorching hot day. The first time I can remember having the windows up. The air con worked fine, OK it's not like in a brand new BMW, but then again nothing about the car is in anyway like a brand new BMW! (2004 4.2 AJP, not decatted)