much between 4.2 and 4.5
Discussion
I'd say a good tunable 4.2 is about 380bhp, a good tunable 4.5 is about 420bhp. Whether you'd notice the difference I couldn't say but it'll be the difference between 'oohhh that's fast' and 'ooohhh thats fast'.
People who've owned both say the 4.2 is easier to drive. I'd certainly say my 4.2 is easy to drive, very tractable.
At the end of the say I'd find either engined one, possibly with the mods you want, in the best condition you can afford/find.
People who've owned both say the 4.2 is easier to drive. I'd certainly say my 4.2 is easy to drive, very tractable.
At the end of the say I'd find either engined one, possibly with the mods you want, in the best condition you can afford/find.
Byker28i said:
I'd say a good tunable 4.2 is about 380bhp, a good tunable 4.5 is about 420bhp. Whether you'd notice the difference I couldn't say but it'll be the difference between 'oohhh that's fast' and 'ooohhh thats fast'.
People who've owned both say the 4.2 is easier to drive. I'd certainly say my 4.2 is easy to drive, very tractable.
At the end of the say I'd find either engined one, possibly with the mods you want, in the best condition you can afford/find.
People who've owned both say the 4.2 is easier to drive. I'd certainly say my 4.2 is easy to drive, very tractable.
At the end of the say I'd find either engined one, possibly with the mods you want, in the best condition you can afford/find.
From what I've read and seen I'd agree, don't get hung up on 4.2 vs 4.5 as a differentiator... 
Ive got a 4.5 and driven loads of 4.2s. A standard 4.2 is less lumpy a drive compared with a standard 4.5 but with a bit of fine tuning that is sorted.No difference between standard car powers but you will notice a difference between tuned cars.Approx 40bhp difference is roughly 10% more power. Doubt that you would notice that too much until you got to a track.If I was buying a cerb again I wouldnt be bothered between the two just buy on condition. If your not going to a track in it dont rule out the six as that drives better on the road.
Is there any truth in the 4.2s having more aggressive cams? I'm sure I've read a few posts saying that because of this theres pretty much nothing in it between the 4.2 and 4.5 upto 120mph as by the time the 4.5 comes 'on cam' the 4.2 has an advantage until higher up in the rev range? And iirc, the infamous Top Gear supercar test was done with a 4.2?
I find my 4.2 a bit of an animal around town, but I kinda like it
You don't really want your snarling super car to be too civilised, you want it to remind you your driving a monster
I find my 4.2 a bit of an animal around town, but I kinda like it
You don't really want your snarling super car to be too civilised, you want it to remind you your driving a monster There were a variety of cams fitted to both. Also worth noting that the later 4.2's were badge engineered. They are 4.5 litres with different intakes and different price tag. I bought a 99 4.2 engine, stamped as a 4200 and original and it was a 4.5, apparently having spoken to a few people "in the know" there are very few late 4.2s which are 4.2 if any. I think TVR just stopped going to the expense of having 2 different sets on cranks, pistons and liners and put the same in em all. Worth noting that they still registered them as 4.2 though, naughty!
I seem to recall the 4.5 was no quicker than the 4.2 in Autocar's original road tests. I have a book containing the roadtests somewhere - will post the figures later.
There has always been some debate as to the state of tune of the 4.2 road test car. I'm sure the 4.2 was described as having savage acceleration - they just expected a bit more from the 4.5.
There has always been some debate as to the state of tune of the 4.2 road test car. I'm sure the 4.2 was described as having savage acceleration - they just expected a bit more from the 4.5.
Std 4.2 v std 4.5 then I agree there isn't a great deal between them except for the way they deliver their power.
For whatever reason the 4.2's were always pretty well mapped from the factory, whereas the vast majority of 4.5's weren't.
The biggest issue with the map on the 4.5 is low down the rev range, where you will see on dyno graphs the "famous" camel humps, this is due to poor mapping with the longer std induction pipes and is why that unmapped 4.5's can often be described as being lumpy low down the rev range or when driving around town at slow speeds.
Just by remapping and smoothing out these humps you will see immediate power and torque gains which then takes the 4.5 above that on average of the 4.2. With a full remap you see anywhere from 380-400bhp and with induction more. The driveability of the 4.5 is then vastly improved beyond that of a 4.2 which can feel more aggresive lower down.
My personal preference will always be for a 4.5, but as has been said a well sorted 4.2 is still a great choice.
Jules.
For whatever reason the 4.2's were always pretty well mapped from the factory, whereas the vast majority of 4.5's weren't.
The biggest issue with the map on the 4.5 is low down the rev range, where you will see on dyno graphs the "famous" camel humps, this is due to poor mapping with the longer std induction pipes and is why that unmapped 4.5's can often be described as being lumpy low down the rev range or when driving around town at slow speeds.
Just by remapping and smoothing out these humps you will see immediate power and torque gains which then takes the 4.5 above that on average of the 4.2. With a full remap you see anywhere from 380-400bhp and with induction more. The driveability of the 4.5 is then vastly improved beyond that of a 4.2 which can feel more aggresive lower down.
My personal preference will always be for a 4.5, but as has been said a well sorted 4.2 is still a great choice.
Jules.
Edited by Cyclone1 on Monday 7th February 12:27
For what it's worth (and just to give a different slant on things), mine was a fairly pokey 4.2 with around 395 ponies but the 4.5 I've now got in there feels MUCH quicker. Not as quick revving as the 4.2 which is a shame as I really liked that aspect. It's hard to describe, maybe it's the extra bit of torque, maybe it produces a good bit more power - 
Hmm dare I ask this question?????
If as a road car there is little to choose between these two units, is there a differance in reliability.
Secondly is it right that early chassis are better as they have thicker steel?
I know you buy on condition above all and you have to expect some issues with it, but I suppose what I am getting at is, is there a combination of chassis, engine that will lesser the chances of ruining my dream car, once I buy one, due to it spending more time in my local garage than my own, and I sell it vowing never to have one again?
If as a road car there is little to choose between these two units, is there a differance in reliability.
Secondly is it right that early chassis are better as they have thicker steel?
I know you buy on condition above all and you have to expect some issues with it, but I suppose what I am getting at is, is there a combination of chassis, engine that will lesser the chances of ruining my dream car, once I buy one, due to it spending more time in my local garage than my own, and I sell it vowing never to have one again?
Don't know about thicker steel, but you often hear that the 96-early 97 cars have better outsourced powder coating (in silver) than the later mid 97 - 99 cars which were done in house (white). I believe that by 2000 ish they had worked out how to do it properly (starting with not leaving the chassis outside to rust before powder coating them)...
Of course the earlier cars have had more time to be abused and get ropey though.
I can only speak from experience and say that my early 96 car is still very sound with 58k on it. I have just finished stripping the outriggers back and repainting them again and they're in great shape.
Just make sure you buy a good one and look after it!
Of course the earlier cars have had more time to be abused and get ropey though.
I can only speak from experience and say that my early 96 car is still very sound with 58k on it. I have just finished stripping the outriggers back and repainting them again and they're in great shape.
Just make sure you buy a good one and look after it!
When autocar first tested the 4.2 they rr'd it to almost 350bhp and managed 0-60 in 4.0 and 0-100 in 9.0.
A year later, with the new 4.5 they managed "only" 4.5s for the dash to 60 and 0-100 in 9.6.
TVR was very surprised with these results because previous tests showed it was quite a bit faster (but sadly that first cerb 4.5 came to an unfortunate end). They fettled a bit with it but it still managed no better than 0-60 in 4.3 sec and 0-100 in 9.2.
Also.. the one autocar tested still had the flawed all carbon induction that was later junked in favor of the purple pipes and it still needed running in with less than 1000miles on the clock. On top of that the factory original 4.5 mapping was far from perfect and is easily improved upon.
A year later, with the new 4.5 they managed "only" 4.5s for the dash to 60 and 0-100 in 9.6.
TVR was very surprised with these results because previous tests showed it was quite a bit faster (but sadly that first cerb 4.5 came to an unfortunate end). They fettled a bit with it but it still managed no better than 0-60 in 4.3 sec and 0-100 in 9.2.
Also.. the one autocar tested still had the flawed all carbon induction that was later junked in favor of the purple pipes and it still needed running in with less than 1000miles on the clock. On top of that the factory original 4.5 mapping was far from perfect and is easily improved upon.
Gassing Station | Cerbera | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff