What is a red rose engine
Discussion
But crank, rods and pistons do not more power make.
The capacity remains unchanged I understand so the only other feature those things can alter is the compression ratio, so is that it?
Or shall I start offering a new service where you send me your car, I keep it for 3 days, write "450 bhp" with a marker pen and you give me £5000.
Any takers?
The capacity remains unchanged I understand so the only other feature those things can alter is the compression ratio, so is that it?
Or shall I start offering a new service where you send me your car, I keep it for 3 days, write "450 bhp" with a marker pen and you give me £5000.
Any takers?
quote:
But crank, rods and pistons do not more power make.
The capacity remains unchanged I understand so the only other feature those things can alter is the compression ratio, so is that it?
Or shall I start offering a new service where you send me your car, I keep it for 3 days, write "450 bhp" with a marker pen and you give me £5000.
Any takers?
I think the different crank was just stronger (steel). I thought the significant mod was different cams & ecu mapping.
Just out of interest does has anyone put their car on a rolling road and also weighed it? It'd be interesting to see what the actual figures are, as we all know TVR figure are a bit 'enthusiastic' when it comes to power and weight. Not that it matters dilly swat in the real world, we all know their not slow..
quote:
I think the different crank was just stronger (steel). I thought the significant mod was different cams & ecu mapping.
Now that would make sense, so is this the true extent of the mods.
Revised tougher crank, rods and pistons to increase CR
Revised profile cams
Re programmed ECU
Sounds about right, anyone know?
Just to stir it up a bit, I would say TVR's bhp estimates on the RR engine could be a bit conservative. They've since put the claimed up from 380 to 390.
358 was on a day where readings were supposed to be 15-20 bhp down due to atmospheric conditions - no idea whether this was true, but a 4.2 Cerbie was 20 bhp down from a previous visits results.
Other factor bringing the result down was that tappets needed adjusting (idling at 5/600 rather than 900). The performance gain is described as "significant", but hasn't been quantified as far as I know. However, it seems to be rated as a bigger difference than the 20++ bhp standard/RR gap.
On that basis, not difficult to imagine something starting with a 4 next time out - I hope to make it back to Cheltenham post-6k service to find out.
Of course one swallow doesn't make a summer - could be that average figures for the standard '360' version is in the 310-340 range which the standard Cerbies notched, but it would be interesting to get a few more tested.
Last thing I heard, the 4.2 'R' version in the development car was putting out around 500 rather than the publicised 450 - anyone know about this?
358 was on a day where readings were supposed to be 15-20 bhp down due to atmospheric conditions - no idea whether this was true, but a 4.2 Cerbie was 20 bhp down from a previous visits results.
Other factor bringing the result down was that tappets needed adjusting (idling at 5/600 rather than 900). The performance gain is described as "significant", but hasn't been quantified as far as I know. However, it seems to be rated as a bigger difference than the 20++ bhp standard/RR gap.
On that basis, not difficult to imagine something starting with a 4 next time out - I hope to make it back to Cheltenham post-6k service to find out.
Of course one swallow doesn't make a summer - could be that average figures for the standard '360' version is in the 310-340 range which the standard Cerbies notched, but it would be interesting to get a few more tested.
Last thing I heard, the 4.2 'R' version in the development car was putting out around 500 rather than the publicised 450 - anyone know about this?
Gassing Station | Tuscan | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff