Discussion
here you go
the manky one at the end was how it was from 90 to 06 ,now changed to single turbo .
the rear arches , i took off the shocks ,lowered the car down as low as it would go ,and laid the glass over the tyres ,then trimmed back ,nobody was more suprised than i when they turned out ok !!
thanks
robert
the manky one at the end was how it was from 90 to 06 ,now changed to single turbo .
the rear arches , i took off the shocks ,lowered the car down as low as it would go ,and laid the glass over the tyres ,then trimmed back ,nobody was more suprised than i when they turned out ok !!
thanks
robert
yes jasper ,that was me ,!!!
that was a funny situation ,all these immac m,s in a row ,and my low black gnarly item at the end getting a bit more attention than it desrves ,thats a long time ago ... that was when i was running the 2 gearboxes and worked out from the gearing it was doing 165 mph on the way (of course i must have worked it out wrong and it was actually doing 72 mph officer)
it was very amusing when a plate on the bonnet id fixed on with velcro shot off dead vertically from just in front of the screen ,and i and my witness/freind looked at each other like the blues brothers after just missing that cyclist .hhehehe
that was a funny situation ,all these immac m,s in a row ,and my low black gnarly item at the end getting a bit more attention than it desrves ,thats a long time ago ... that was when i was running the 2 gearboxes and worked out from the gearing it was doing 165 mph on the way (of course i must have worked it out wrong and it was actually doing 72 mph officer)
it was very amusing when a plate on the bonnet id fixed on with velcro shot off dead vertically from just in front of the screen ,and i and my witness/freind looked at each other like the blues brothers after just missing that cyclist .hhehehe
the battery takes the place of the spare wheel ,is a bit lighter ,and is not so far forwards .the car handles well .or at least my passengers always say so lol.it i feel ,is a little tail endy ,which is down to the rear wheels set at zero camber for max footprint in a straight line .
its best time was in 1993 at santa pod ,it ran 12.85s in 77 degree heat and 988 mb barometric pr ,so not really favourable cond .my best poss was 12.56s .this was on treaded tyres and over 2 second 60 ft ,full rd trim weight 2500lbs . i dont really keep up to date thse days with m type tvr quarter mile performance ,so i dont know if that is seen as fast ,perhaps someone could say thats more in touch ?
powerwize ,it had on 9psi boost ,286 lb ft torque ,and 250 bhp at 4800 which was the rolling rd limit at the time ,this was with no air going through the intercooler , i normally ran it at 12 psi .
its best time was in 1993 at santa pod ,it ran 12.85s in 77 degree heat and 988 mb barometric pr ,so not really favourable cond .my best poss was 12.56s .this was on treaded tyres and over 2 second 60 ft ,full rd trim weight 2500lbs . i dont really keep up to date thse days with m type tvr quarter mile performance ,so i dont know if that is seen as fast ,perhaps someone could say thats more in touch ?
powerwize ,it had on 9psi boost ,286 lb ft torque ,and 250 bhp at 4800 which was the rolling rd limit at the time ,this was with no air going through the intercooler , i normally ran it at 12 psi .
Edited by ivanhoew on Wednesday 16th May 20:57
its allways been on the rd ,much more fun that way ,its been a bit neglected in the last few years then i had a fit of design work on it last year ,now its being neglected again till i get the mini at the point where i can leave it alone lol. heres a link with a bit more detail .
www.turbominis.co.uk/forums/index.php?p=vt&tid=121873
www.turbominis.co.uk/forums/index.php?p=vt&tid=121873
ivanhoew said:
its best time was in 1993 at santa pod ,it ran 12.85s in 77 degree heat and 988 mb barometric pr ,so not really favourable cond .my best poss was 12.56s .this was on treaded tyres and over 2 second 60 ft ,full rd trim weight 2500lbs . i dont really keep up to date thse days with m type tvr quarter mile performance ,so i dont know if that is seen as fast ,perhaps someone could say thats more in touch ?
anybody let me know if this is slow now ?lol Edited by ivanhoew on Wednesday 16th May 20:57
how does it compare with the modern tvr's . is there a table of times on the site ?
thanks robert.
for why mr B?? that was with driver,
it ran 108 and 13.1 earlier in the day ,this was in 1993 that was on 9 psi boost .
i then went to 12 psi ,and ran a 12.85 i think it was , but , during that run , i was beside a big block ford engine,in a pickup on slicks ,and he had open headers ,so i couldnt hear my engine ,i thought , ill just turn the water injection down a touch ,and closed the valve one notch ,the car immediately siezed up ,at about 2/3rds track ,so it only ran 100 mph terminal .it could sieze and not lock the rear wheels becoause it was using a c4 automatic ,with a clutch .so it just went to free wheel .the end result was 2 bent con rods ...eg..
amazingly , i hoicked out the rods and pistons ,cleaned the pistons up and put in 2 more rodes and all it cost was a head gasket ! .
i think i worked out that if i had run the same top end as the 9 psi runs id have run a 12.56s
and if it had been a proper 12 psi top end run i think it worked out to 12.32 s . hypothetical of course .
it ran 108 and 13.1 earlier in the day ,this was in 1993 that was on 9 psi boost .
i then went to 12 psi ,and ran a 12.85 i think it was , but , during that run , i was beside a big block ford engine,in a pickup on slicks ,and he had open headers ,so i couldnt hear my engine ,i thought , ill just turn the water injection down a touch ,and closed the valve one notch ,the car immediately siezed up ,at about 2/3rds track ,so it only ran 100 mph terminal .it could sieze and not lock the rear wheels becoause it was using a c4 automatic ,with a clutch .so it just went to free wheel .the end result was 2 bent con rods ...eg..
amazingly , i hoicked out the rods and pistons ,cleaned the pistons up and put in 2 more rodes and all it cost was a head gasket ! .
i think i worked out that if i had run the same top end as the 9 psi runs id have run a 12.56s
and if it had been a proper 12 psi top end run i think it worked out to 12.32 s . hypothetical of course .
Slow M said:
ivanhoew said:
...10 by 15 rear 5 stud...
OK, that makes me want to know...what hubs,
what stub axles,
what bearing carriers,
are the hub carriers modified,
are the bottom wishbones triangulated?
THX,
B.
hubs ...............tvr
stub axles... .....jaguar (modified)
bearing carriers... tvr (modifed)
hub carriers....... stock
front wishbones are triangulated ,rears not .
regards
robert .
TVR_owner said:
ivanhoew said:
erich ,they are 7 by 15 front 4 stud , and 10 by 15 rear 5 stud .
tvr, at a 103 terminal , id think around a 13.6.. but if you had buckets of wheel spin ,it would be a fair bit quicker .normaly a sub 13 would go with a 110
to 115 terminal speed . is yours a v8 ? what bhp has it?
Lots of wheelspin Robert with 64ft IRO 2.6 secs. Car has a V6 but can happily rur 15lb boost, hence my suggestion of a sub 13 sec run.tvr, at a 103 terminal , id think around a 13.6.. but if you had buckets of wheel spin ,it would be a fair bit quicker .normaly a sub 13 would go with a 110
to 115 terminal speed . is yours a v8 ? what bhp has it?
I have a rough idea of BHP but can't substantiate so I won't try...
Edited by TVR_owner on Saturday 8th January 19:33
to run 103mph in a ton car must be about 260 to 270 bhp ?
Gassing Station | TVR Classics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff