AJP engine intended just for Griffith or Chimaera as well?
Discussion
Moved to prevent the highjacking of another thread about how to increase the power of a 400 Chim.
Here are the relevant posts from the previous thread.
Yes, only a Chim owner could have dreampt that one up :-)The good Dr may have been referring to; See under 'Wheeler ownership'
clicky for wiki
Yes, only a Griff owner could have tried to ignore it
Plenty of other mistakes in the 'Wheeler ownership' section of Wiki as well.I agree that things like; "In the 1990s, TVR Power modified a number of Rover V8s, but subsequently developed an in-house engine design." seems to simply ignore the fact of the RV8 being the power plant of the two most highly produced TVRs in history...
However in Melling's interview with PH Al Melling (see: What do you think made the AJP8 so iconic?), he indicates that the engine was built before the Cerbera was designed. He states that it was dyno testing of the first engine that convinced Wheeler he needed a new car for the engine. Perhaps I read to much into that, but if designing the new engine to fit Griffith and Chimaera engine bays before ordering design of the Cerbera....
I wouldn't imagine Griffith with the AJP and Chimaera continuing with RV8? Surely that was never the point of the exercise?
I realise it's easy to sit here 15+ years later and google up 'facts', but Al Melling's time line would indicate that the new V8 was destined for both cars, we know it was only fitted to a Griff for testing, and that it was finally produced for the Cerbera.
I didn't google all this up this morning just to be annoying and difficult, I read these articles some time ago...A bit of correct history is required here. I interviewed Al several years ago for Sprint on a number of subjects and of course the AJP came up in conversation, here's what I wrote from Sprint at the time regarding the AJP;
AJP History
Peter Wheeler originally approached MCD to create an engine to replace the Rover V8, this in itself instantly created a design problem for MCD as the Rover engine is a very compact engine and the underbonnet space in a TVR had been designed around that, even then the tight fit required the exhausts to come forward.
Designing a new 90° V8 would require the engine to be a pushrod engine the same as the Rover, however the problem with large 4.0/4.5 litre pushrod engines is that they are rev limited and the only way to increase power would be to go twin cam 4 valve, but that requires large cylinder heads and would result in an engine about 3 times wider than the Rover which clearly wouldn’t fit.
Thus the only option available was a single O/H cam and two valves per cylinder and MCD had the technology available as they had designed the engines in the Silk Cut Jaguars that had won LeMans two or three years before. Combining this with an angle of 75° they now had a design that would fit.
The other reason for designing this engine was Peter Wheeler at the time wanted TVR power to become a standalone business as up to that point TVR Power had only produced engines for TVR cars and as such had no income, so the idea was to create an engine that could be marketed as a race engine which led to its design as a stress member.
At the time there was a regulation change ongoing in Formula 3000 that led to a large number of defunked chassis being available. MCD promoted this with the intention of creating a single seater series called the Grand Prix Lights with the aim of TVR Power then leasing the engines to the teams and thus creating an income stream for TVR Power. A car was built and successfully tested round Pembery as indeed produced nearly double the torque of a F1 engine of the time. An event was held at the Belfry in conjunction with the RAC and race teams with these spare chassis were invited to attend. At this point, according to Al, Peter Wheeler withdrew his support and as a result the engine was only used in the Cerbera.
That piece was used along side a piece where Melling was intending to offer the AJP as an engine option for his Wildcat and misses out the bit about it's development.
The engine as we all know was installed in John Ravenscroft's development Griffith L110 BFV.
To Quote John Ravenscroft from 'The TVR Griffith Story'
"The story behind the Griffith AJP was that the Griffith building had been temporarily dropped - which enabled teh Chimaera production to generate entry-level sales - so that it (the Griffth) could later be re-introduced/re-launched as the top-of-the-range with the AJP, 4.2 litre 75-degree V8(then rated at 363bhp @7,000 rpm and 348 ft/lbs @ 4,500 rpm). Such an engine had been istalled in a car which PRW assessd from which he determined that revised chassis arrangements would be required to make the best of it's potential - I then went on to use that car as my long term 'test bed' "
In all seriousness, putting Griff/Chim rivalries aside, what is now often forgotton is that one of the the reasons that the Chimaera outsold the Griffith was that Griffith production ceased after one year to allow the much cheaper to produce and hence sell Chimaera to enter production while the Griffith was converted to run the AJP. When it was decided that, as described by John Ravenscroft above, the Chassis wasn't suitable the Griffith re-entered production as the 500, still with an RV8 in 1993.
Several dealers of the time have told me that price differential as well as the Chimaera being a roomier and less edgy car than the Griffith was very much to do with the Chimaera outselling the Griffith and that when the Chimaera gained the 500 engine and the price was more or less the same than the sales of both cars was about the same.
What I can glean from the above and talking to ex-factory workers the Chimaera would never had run the AJP in the same way it was never fitted with the Speed 6 and had the procuction of the AJP contined beyond the Cerbera it would have found it's way either into the Tuscan or indeed another car that never emerged.
Here are the relevant posts from the previous thread.
Goaty Bill said:
JR said:
Goaty Bill said:
JR said:
V8 GRF said:
Dr Mike Oxgreen said:
AIUI, the Chimaera was originally intended to have the AJP engine, but development was running late so the fall-back option was the RV8. Perhaps the Chimaera would have been truly terrifying, so maybe the change of plan was a stroke of luck for TVR: the Chimaera might not have been such a well-rounded package otherwise.
The AJP was intended for the Griffith, the Chimaera has never been mentioned as a recipient.clicky for wiki
Yes, only a Griff owner could have tried to ignore it
However in Melling's interview with PH Al Melling (see: What do you think made the AJP8 so iconic?), he indicates that the engine was built before the Cerbera was designed. He states that it was dyno testing of the first engine that convinced Wheeler he needed a new car for the engine. Perhaps I read to much into that, but if designing the new engine to fit Griffith and Chimaera engine bays before ordering design of the Cerbera....
I wouldn't imagine Griffith with the AJP and Chimaera continuing with RV8? Surely that was never the point of the exercise?
I realise it's easy to sit here 15+ years later and google up 'facts', but Al Melling's time line would indicate that the new V8 was destined for both cars, we know it was only fitted to a Griff for testing, and that it was finally produced for the Cerbera.
I didn't google all this up this morning just to be annoying and difficult, I read these articles some time ago...
AJP History
Peter Wheeler originally approached MCD to create an engine to replace the Rover V8, this in itself instantly created a design problem for MCD as the Rover engine is a very compact engine and the underbonnet space in a TVR had been designed around that, even then the tight fit required the exhausts to come forward.
Designing a new 90° V8 would require the engine to be a pushrod engine the same as the Rover, however the problem with large 4.0/4.5 litre pushrod engines is that they are rev limited and the only way to increase power would be to go twin cam 4 valve, but that requires large cylinder heads and would result in an engine about 3 times wider than the Rover which clearly wouldn’t fit.
Thus the only option available was a single O/H cam and two valves per cylinder and MCD had the technology available as they had designed the engines in the Silk Cut Jaguars that had won LeMans two or three years before. Combining this with an angle of 75° they now had a design that would fit.
The other reason for designing this engine was Peter Wheeler at the time wanted TVR power to become a standalone business as up to that point TVR Power had only produced engines for TVR cars and as such had no income, so the idea was to create an engine that could be marketed as a race engine which led to its design as a stress member.
At the time there was a regulation change ongoing in Formula 3000 that led to a large number of defunked chassis being available. MCD promoted this with the intention of creating a single seater series called the Grand Prix Lights with the aim of TVR Power then leasing the engines to the teams and thus creating an income stream for TVR Power. A car was built and successfully tested round Pembery as indeed produced nearly double the torque of a F1 engine of the time. An event was held at the Belfry in conjunction with the RAC and race teams with these spare chassis were invited to attend. At this point, according to Al, Peter Wheeler withdrew his support and as a result the engine was only used in the Cerbera.
That piece was used along side a piece where Melling was intending to offer the AJP as an engine option for his Wildcat and misses out the bit about it's development.
The engine as we all know was installed in John Ravenscroft's development Griffith L110 BFV.
To Quote John Ravenscroft from 'The TVR Griffith Story'
"The story behind the Griffith AJP was that the Griffith building had been temporarily dropped - which enabled teh Chimaera production to generate entry-level sales - so that it (the Griffth) could later be re-introduced/re-launched as the top-of-the-range with the AJP, 4.2 litre 75-degree V8(then rated at 363bhp @7,000 rpm and 348 ft/lbs @ 4,500 rpm). Such an engine had been istalled in a car which PRW assessd from which he determined that revised chassis arrangements would be required to make the best of it's potential - I then went on to use that car as my long term 'test bed' "
In all seriousness, putting Griff/Chim rivalries aside, what is now often forgotton is that one of the the reasons that the Chimaera outsold the Griffith was that Griffith production ceased after one year to allow the much cheaper to produce and hence sell Chimaera to enter production while the Griffith was converted to run the AJP. When it was decided that, as described by John Ravenscroft above, the Chassis wasn't suitable the Griffith re-entered production as the 500, still with an RV8 in 1993.
Several dealers of the time have told me that price differential as well as the Chimaera being a roomier and less edgy car than the Griffith was very much to do with the Chimaera outselling the Griffith and that when the Chimaera gained the 500 engine and the price was more or less the same than the sales of both cars was about the same.
What I can glean from the above and talking to ex-factory workers the Chimaera would never had run the AJP in the same way it was never fitted with the Speed 6 and had the procuction of the AJP contined beyond the Cerbera it would have found it's way either into the Tuscan or indeed another car that never emerged.
Edited by V8 GRF on Tuesday 13th December 12:36
The ironic thing was that the Cerbera was originally 'just' a Chim hard top and as such had the RV8 pencillled in. Subsequent design changes led to the car we know but the chassis was never altered to allow the AJP to be fitted with the wide sump so AM had to alter the design of the engine to suit the chassis; AM was very annoyed that TVR would not alter the Cerbera chassis to fit his engine.
the TVR Story said:
...one of the the reasons that the Chimaera outsold the Griffith was that Griffith production ceased after one year to allow the much cheaper to produce and hence sell Chimaera to enter production ...
Can somone enlighten me as to who on earth the Chimaera was much cheeaper to produce..? Its still a similar fiberglass tub on the same chassis with a similar interior and finish process.M@H said:
Can somone enlighten me as to who on earth the Chimaera was much cheeaper to produce..? Its still a similar fiberglass tub on the same chassis with a similar interior and finish process.
yeah that doesnt really stack up, other than maybe the 5ltr engine being a bit more pricey than the 4lr... if anything I'd have thought the Chim more expensive due to the more complicated and slightly bigger body over the simple griff 
Graham said:
M@H said:
Can somone enlighten me as to who on earth the Chimaera was much cheeaper to produce..? Its still a similar fiberglass tub on the same chassis with a similar interior and finish process.
yeah that doesnt really stack up, other than maybe the 5ltr engine being a bit more pricey than the 4lr... if anything I'd have thought the Chim more expensive due to the more complicated and slightly bigger body over the simple griff M@H said:
Griff probably used less fiberglass so there's a saving ?
Quoted kerbweights are the same, FWIW my '93 Chim was bang on 1,050 kg even with a subwoofer & amp in the boot (1043.5 without skinny spare but with toolkit)... There's 4-5" length between the two but somehow the Griff is quoted as being wider... Comparing like for like, the only differences I can see that incur cost are engine (from std 3.9 with a cam and a bit of gasflowing to extensively ported heads, bespoke crank, ported manifolds and trumpet base in 5.0 etc), trim and optional extras (posh paint, A/C, PAS,...).
Edited by 900T-R on Tuesday 13th December 16:08
I've been told on several occasions that the Chimaera was cheaper to produce.
For example a TVR publicity/marketing book dated Spring 1996 I have explains that the single door opener on the centre of the tunnel was 'a simple piece of production engineering as one knob is simpler and cheaper to produce that two'
Perhaps the experience they gained from building the Griffith, simpler processes as outlined above, allied with the less high spec and engines added up.
I've just dug out some Autocars from 1993 and 1996 and the prices are as below:
June 1993
Chimaera 4.0 £26,250
Chimaera 4.3 £28,950
Griffith 500 £32,996
December 1996
Chimaera 4.0 £29,450
Chimaera 4.0 HC £30,450
Chimaera 500 £34,595
Griffith 500 £34,595
For example a TVR publicity/marketing book dated Spring 1996 I have explains that the single door opener on the centre of the tunnel was 'a simple piece of production engineering as one knob is simpler and cheaper to produce that two'
Perhaps the experience they gained from building the Griffith, simpler processes as outlined above, allied with the less high spec and engines added up.
I've just dug out some Autocars from 1993 and 1996 and the prices are as below:
June 1993
Chimaera 4.0 £26,250
Chimaera 4.3 £28,950
Griffith 500 £32,996
December 1996
Chimaera 4.0 £29,450
Chimaera 4.0 HC £30,450
Chimaera 500 £34,595
Griffith 500 £34,595
Edited by V8 GRF on Tuesday 13th December 16:53
V8 GRF said:
I've been told on several occasions that the Chimaera was cheaper to produce.
For example a TVR publicity/marketing book dated Spring 1996 I have explains that the single door opener on the centre of the tunnel was 'a simple piece of production engineering as one knob is simpler and cheaper to produce that two'
Perhaps the experience they gained from building the Griffith, simpler processes as outlined above, allied with the less high spec and engines added up.
I've just dug out some Autocars from 1993 and 1996 and the prices are as below:
June 1993
Chimaera 4.0 £26,250
Chimaera 4.3 £28,950
Griffith 500 £32,996
December 1996
Chimaera 4.0 £29,450
Chimaera 4.0 HC £30,450
Chimaera 500 £34,595
Griffith 500 £34,595
lol, at the door opener line, I Didnt know TVR actually had a marketing department...For example a TVR publicity/marketing book dated Spring 1996 I have explains that the single door opener on the centre of the tunnel was 'a simple piece of production engineering as one knob is simpler and cheaper to produce that two'
Perhaps the experience they gained from building the Griffith, simpler processes as outlined above, allied with the less high spec and engines added up.
I've just dug out some Autocars from 1993 and 1996 and the prices are as below:
June 1993
Chimaera 4.0 £26,250
Chimaera 4.3 £28,950
Griffith 500 £32,996
December 1996
Chimaera 4.0 £29,450
Chimaera 4.0 HC £30,450
Chimaera 500 £34,595
Griffith 500 £34,595
Edited by V8 GRF on Tuesday 13th December 16:53
the price list would seem to suggest it was purely engine spec and a few other add ons to the 5ltr that made the difference in cost. and that if they'd made a 4ltr griff at the same time as the chim it would have cost the same to make it.
^^^^
The TVR February 1994 Price List bears this out, it shows the Standard price without options as:
Cerbera (4.0 litre) £29,150.00
(5.0 litre) £33,995.00
Chimaera (4.0 litre) £26,720.00
(5.0 litre) £31,600.00
Griffith 500 £32,995.00
Interestingly, you could order as an option for a Chimaera 5.0 litre a Griffith 500 Engine Option if you had another £1395.00 to spare (the same price as a standard Griffith 500).
The TVR February 1994 Price List bears this out, it shows the Standard price without options as:
Cerbera (4.0 litre) £29,150.00
(5.0 litre) £33,995.00
Chimaera (4.0 litre) £26,720.00
(5.0 litre) £31,600.00
Griffith 500 £32,995.00
Interestingly, you could order as an option for a Chimaera 5.0 litre a Griffith 500 Engine Option if you had another £1395.00 to spare (the same price as a standard Griffith 500).
Graham said:
lol, at the door opener line, I Didnt know TVR actually had a marketing department...
the price list would seem to suggest it was purely engine spec and a few other add ons to the 5ltr that made the difference in cost. and that if they'd made a 4ltr griff at the same time as the chim it would have cost the same to make it.
I don't think they produced many of more of those brochures. the price list would seem to suggest it was purely engine spec and a few other add ons to the 5ltr that made the difference in cost. and that if they'd made a 4ltr griff at the same time as the chim it would have cost the same to make it.
Doing a bit more digging I have a price list dated March 1992 and the Griffth had list prices of
4.0 £24,802
4.3 £27,206
Which suggests that the price separation was mostly down to the engine on the 500 but I'd suggest a premium was being charged for the '500' badge on both models especially as they reached parity.
That does seem to undermine the statement about the Chimaera being cheaper to build but that was repeating comments made by people who should know.
However we shouldn't make the mistake in assuming that a lower build price is reflected in the sale price, maybe it did cost less to build but the sale price doesn't reflect that.... just bigger margins.
Edited by V8 GRF on Tuesday 13th December 17:28
M@H said:
even more - so a Chim 500 is a different engine to a Griff 500 !?
BTW the same price list shows an HC Engine option for the Chimeara 4.0 at a £1000.
Opps, it's just occurred to me, do I need to start a new thread now?
Gassing Station | Chimaera | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff