Owners hand book question...When did the car's get heavier ?

[RUSSELLM]

Ive a 96 4.2 owners hand book, that claims the car is 1100KG.

The 2001 owners hand book, which gives the specs for all three engine models, gives them all as 1150Kg.

I'd be interested to see when the car/quoted figures got heavier ?

I've just wrote that & thought "what a looser"

[Ffirg 005]

There is an underlying assumption in your question.... what does the handbook say about bhp output?

[Ab Shocks]

From what I understand, the weight went up when they started producing the LW.

[Nickccc]

Mine is 1240 kg it is a 2001 light weight, though I think this is with 75 kg in the drivers seat, (I'm pretty trim)
so 1150 sounds about right.

[Far Eastender]

Russell, Does your '96 car have air con? I would guess that if you add that, plus some larger brakes it may come close to the weight difference.

[RUSSELLM]

Yes FE, the 96 has air con

I'm more interested as to when they changed the quoted figures in the book.

Also got me wondering......The quoted power figures for the 4.2 are near enough spot on. Why did they feel the need to be so far out on the 4.5 figures

[900T-R]

RUSSELLM said:

Also got me wondering......The quoted power figures for the 4.2 are near enough spot on. Why did they feel the need to be so far out on the 4.5 figures

That's what I've been pondering, too. My hypothesis is that TVR thought saying "well, we have a new bigger one which has pretty much the same peak output but is a bit more driveable" wouldn't do from a marketing POV so they resorted to telling porkies instead.

[southendpier]

RUSSELLM said:

Yes FE, the 96 has air con

I'm more interested as to when they changed the quoted figures in the book.

Also got me wondering......The quoted power figures for the 4.2 are near enough spot on. Why did they feel the need to be so far out on the 4.5 figures

common car selling PR bullshit. 400-420bhp is a lot of horses, even now. Buying cars like this is a numbers and bragging riights for the majority of new buyers ie most would never track or drag them to test.

was it Top Gear that dyno'd the 500bhp shelby mustang if you remeber and IIRC that was even more out than a cerb.

Here's a question, anyone with a standard newish 4.5 ever put it on a dyno?

[itsallyellow]

Not sure thats the case really. We know that a good 4.5 can make 400-420bhp easily. I'm more concerned that they mapped them badly to help reliability on the 4.5??

Mike

[RUSSELLM]

southendpier said:

common car selling PR bullshit. 400-420bhp is a lot of horses, even now. Buying cars like this is a numbers and bragging riights for the majority of new buyers ie most would never track or drag them to test.

was it Top Gear that dyno'd the 500bhp shelby mustang if you remeber and IIRC that was even more out than a cerb.

Here's a question, anyone with a standard newish 4.5 ever put it on a dyno?

I totally agree about manufacturers exaggerating figures....However, why did they feel the need to tell the truth about the 4.2 ?

I'd have said with a engine some 7% bigger, they could have gone for 7% more on the quoted power figures (375bhp ish)

Is there any chance, that they managed to get 420, sent a few out, and subsequently found something amiss ?

This looks like a case for the X files

[thegreengoblet]

Ab Shocks said:

From what I understand, the weight went up when they started producing the LW.

When I bought my Lightweight new in late 99, it can with a pre-lightweight handbook. So I don't the specs.

[BCA]

itsallyellow said:

Not sure thats the case really. We know that a good 4.5 can make 400-420bhp easily. I'm more concerned that they mapped them badly to help reliability on the 4.5??

Mike

Im not convinced of that, didnt Joo say the mapping is pretty close for a 5.0litre... I think TVR may have had a re-think at some point...