Lightweight vs Standard 4.5 vs Red Rose

[stepr1]

Guys and Girls,

Can someone get me some idea if the Lightweight is worth the extra? ie is the actual car setup better than RR or Standard 4.5?

Does anyone also know how the build quality of the later Cerbera's stack up against an early Mk1 Tuscan (I had one for 18 months, spent a fortune and then it caught fire!!!)?

Thanks,
Rich.

[Wilder]

Not sure about the RR or the lightweight (apart form its 40K weight save). The 4.2 after 99 were actually 4.5 engines with the induction system from the 4.2 -so thats worth also considering. After 2002 they also had the uprated dampers. Mines a 2003 & its peachy.

[methodwares]

Wilder said:

Not sure about the RR or the lightweight (apart form its 40K weight save). The 4.2 after 99 were actually 4.5 engines with the induction system from the 4.2 -so thats worth also considering. After 2002 they also had the uprated dampers. Mines a 2003 & its peachy.

ok, i'm getting confused.... i've heard the 4.2 after 99 or so had the 4.5 bottom end, whatever that consists of as the cranks have the same stroke, maybe the rods are better. whatever it is, they are suppose to be the better engine that came out of the factory.

but are they actually a 4.5? do they actually use 4.5 pistons?

[Wilder]

Yes, they ran out of 4.2 blocks apparantly -so your post 99 4.2 came with a 4.5 block (bottom end of the engine) and the 4.2 induction system on top of that. should. Dunno how you can run out of engine blocks, but there you go.

[Wilder]

The upshot of this marriage is apparantly a very nice crisp throttle response from the 4.2 induction system, coupled with the grunt from the 4.5 bottom end. The boys at TVR factory reckon they were the pick of the bunch for drivability apparantly. (Heath & Paul from TVR factory & Dave from Automedon told me about this) -I bow to their knowledge as these guys do know their stuff.

[paulk]

Surely it’s the crank that makes the difference not the block? Otherwise they would be all 4.5s. The induction may restrict the BHP output on the 4.2 but swapping it for a 4.5 setup does not replace the missing 300cc. I don’t know of any 4.2 that gets anywhere near the BHP figures of a tuned 4.5 if it was that simple I am sure a lot of people with late 4.2s would swap the induction for the performance gains.

[methodwares]

i thought it was the bore that was different, not the stroke

[Julian64]

Wilder said:

The upshot of this marriage is apparantly a very nice crisp throttle response from the 4.2 induction system, coupled with the grunt from the 4.5 bottom end. The boys at TVR factory reckon they were the pick of the bunch for drivability apparantly. (Heath & Paul from TVR factory & Dave from Automedon told me about this) -I bow to their knowledge as these guys do know their stuff.

IMHO, I think it highly unlikely that they mated a 4.5 block to a 4.2 induction and called it a 4.2.

For one thing the 4.5 is a far cheaper effort to produce, so to make it into a 4.2 would actually have cost them more, and secondly, putting the cheaper purple pipes on would have made it a 4.5 which they could have sold for substantially more.

I know smolenski didn't have much of a head for business, but I doubt he told the crew to spend more and earn less.

[Wilder]

All I know is what I was told by the folks who made the cars in the first place, & that was that they married up parts after 99 _.I may have got some details wrong (not being the most technically minded of people), but I was told in effect they are the best of both worlds in 4.2s after that date.

[Wilder]

BTW Im sure theres one of the factory boys on the forum who can explain it far better than my poor effort here.

[HarryW]

Wilder said:

BTW Im sure theres one of the factory boys on the forum who can explain it far better than my poor effort here.

Interesting, waiting the replies