Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. ÂOF course the price difference would reflect those things - they're part of the manufacturing costs (at least that percentage of the R&D that can't be made tax-dedictible). Fact of the matter is no such engine exists; itÂs merely an estimate, and youÂre probably giving GM far too much credit for accurately predicting how a theoretical product would meet budget targets; in real life, itÂs usually quite the opposite with companies as large as GM. ÂIt had very little to do with the price. It was so much more expensive because only a small number were made and they had to try to recoup the costs over that smaller number of units. What? There wasnÂt enough demand for a DOHC Corvette? Hmmm interesting! ÂTake a look at Ferrari as an extreme example of this. The difference of course is: Ferrari is still around charging their usual prices. The ZR-1 is long dead, and no successor with a DOHC engine has since emerged. ÂYou didn't post the followup response I see... That followup response does nothing to refute the fact that the Speed 6 engine is unreliable, I see ÂI've been reading/posting on PH for many years now and have come across countless threads from TVR owners (yes, even cars with AJP6 engines) who use them happily as daily-drivers and haven't been let down by them. You must have another account under another name then? IÂve been reading for years too. Some use them as daily drivers and havenÂt had any problems. IÂve never said anything to the contrary. That does nothing to erase the massive number of rebuilds experienced by quite a few who use them as daily drivers or otherwise; itÂs disproportionate to other manufacturers, surely even you can concede this. ÂSpeaking of which, you'll notice that the discussion I've been having with the Mosler fans hasn't been about the AJP6 but the AJP8 - so why are you back ragging on the 6? Erm who was it who brought up the "Classic & Sports Car" magazine and the reliability of TVR engines? Uh wasnÂt me. WasnÂt anyone else involved in this thread. Oh wait. It was *you*. Is this my cue to start posting horror stories about the AJP8 as well? ThereÂs plenty of that to go around. Â1. Yeah, a letter to the editor expressing an unquantified opinion is really compelling... next! And notice how the editor only reinforces the opinion gee, could it be because some Autocar editors read the same forums inhabited by TVR owners? Or maybe itÂs the first-hand (thatÂs right, 1st-hand) experience of this magazine having their own experiences with TVR ÂnigglesÂ? Â2. The costs of maintaining a Tuscan are higher than an NSX but not that much. And you base this on what? Your first-hand ownership of both cars? Yeah, right! The NSX ownerÂs eyes will water when he sees the vastly inferior build quality of the TVR ÂBTW, of course Detroits muscle-cars are cheaper to maintain, they're using technology from the 1940s. So what? WTF does that have to do with anything? I noticed you failed to answer my question about Lotus. (What a surprise.) Â3. So a Tamora's engine Âlet go during a track session. Name another manufacturer who has never lost an engine during a torture test. Torture test? That was only a few exploratory laps around a circuit before the Tamora blew up. Name me another car in that test (there were 16, including those from marques usually associated with questionable reliability: Ferrari, Lamborghini, 1st-year MINI, etc) which had an engine that let go. CanÂt name any? I personally have dozens of tests throughout the years of cars from Porsches to Ferraris to BMWÂs to Vipers to Corvettes to etc, none of which have had their engines let go. Or their throttle cables snapped, leaving them stranded in some other country. And many of these tests are conducted in the high heats of American summers. There may be a few glitches with FerrariÂs F1 paddle shift system, or a Porsche or Murcielago gearbox linkage breaking. But none with an engine exploding. IÂll bet all of these marques put together, tested by dozens of magazines throughout the world, outnumber those tests of TVR by quite a handy margin. ÂAnd you know this how? And who has inspected the machines that generate those Âcustomer dynosÂ? How do you know that they're accurate and TVR's isn't? I already told you: go look it up on PH. HereÂs just but one example example (if you had the brains to figure this stuff out for yourself): ÂTVR figures are for bench dyno, (with no ancillaries)The Griff 500 on a bench dyno should make about 285 bhp this would equate to about 265 at the flywheel, 210 @ wheels on a rolling road. as TVR more recently claimed 320 they are only 12% out, the earlier cars (340bhp) make slightly more (275 on a rolling road) Torque figures are around 300 and its these that count ! I have taken these figures from many dyno sessions. Tim Lamont. http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?p=2&f=9&t=9923&h=0 How many figures have you taken from dyno sessions, Jon Gwynne? Give me a number. Really. This isn't a rhetorical question; tell me how many dyno sessions you've attended where TVR's were being tested. HereÂs another: ÂThe 4.5 doesn't produce 420 bhp, and no ammount of factory spin can persuade me otherwise, they don't show 420 on the dyno 'cos the engine isn't producing it, simple Have numerous dyno printouts to back this up, best 4.5 cerbie I've ever seen in std trim made 361bhp, best 4.2 made 359 bhp ... same dyno, same software, same correction, same operator all the time. I know if I'd bought a supposed 420 bhp car brand new and found it only had 320 bhp I'd be fuming. --joospeed http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=55708&f=6&h=0 Now. Are you going to tell me you know more about Cerbera power characteristics than joospeed? Go ahead. Call him a liar. HavenÂt you noticed that in all of the talk about Cerbera dyno graphs on PH, none have said that other cars on the same dynos put out less than what the factory claim? Or notice how those Cerbera owners who own other cars never mention the dyno results of those other cars? Hmmm I couldnÂt give two shits about shot glasses. This is car dyno graphs weÂre talking about. And assuming a case goes to court, all TVR have to do is put up some AJP8/S6 specimen to a rig like below, and if it says 420 hp (as it likely will) what case have the consumers got? ThatÂs right. NONE. Speaking of the pic below, can you honestly tell me that's the Speed 6's stock airbox? Where the hell is it going? (No doubt to some fresh cold air source.) According to that exhaust header, the Speed 6 exhaust gets routed through the DRIVER'S DOOR (if not right through his chest). See, that's a BENCH dyno. Difference of course being that LS6 tests on treadmill-type dynos measuring RWHP support the factory claim of 405 bhp. ÂAsk anyone who's driven one. No. I want you to show me some PROOF that the M5Âs engine has better throttle response and reliability. YouÂre going off on 2nd-hand information w/o even referencing your sources. Show me your sources. Otherwise, keep your unsubstantiated BS out of this. And letÂs resolve some issues youÂve failed to address: A 3.5-liter Lamborghini engine was "capable" of 11K rpm operation? Which ROAD GOING Lamborghini is this? Now WHERE's this discussion you're alluding to where TVR customers are considering Chevy V8 implants, only to find out that they "won't fit"? (For the 3rd time): WhatÂs the price difference between the LS6 and the S62? (If you donÂt have a damn clue, just say so.)
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. --- Fact of the matter is no such engine exists; itÂs merely an estimate, and youÂre probably giving GM far too much credit for accurately predicting how a theoretical product would meet budget targets; in real life, itÂs usually quite the opposite with companies as large as GM. --- Yeah, especially for a company like GM with so little experience designing and building things like car engines. --- What? There wasnÂt enough demand for a DOHC Corvette? Hmmm interesting! --- If the price difference had been more realistic, who knows what the demand would have been? --- itÂs [the number of ALP6 failures is] disproportionate to other manufacturers, surely even you can concede this. --- There are two problems with that statement. First of all, no one outside TVR actually knows what percentage of the engines have failed and there's a good chance that even the bigwigs at TVR couldn't accurately say how many of the failures were due failures in components or the failure on the part of the owners to use/maintain the engines properly. However, I do agree with the general premise that hand-built cars (e.g. TVR, Aston Martin, Ferrari specials, etc.) are generally less reliable than mass-produced cars built by robots (e.g. Toyota, BMW). But, I'll say again: Getting a lemon is a possibility with *every* car. Granted your odds are higher for getting a dodgy car from TVR but that doesn't change the fact that the cars they build are generally reliable. TVR's robust sales and corresponding fiscal health is proof that they're doing something right. --- I said: ÂSpeaking of which, you'll notice that the discussion I've been having with the Mosler fans hasn't been about the AJP6 but the AJP8 - so why are you back ragging on the 6? Erm who was it who brought up the "Classic & Sports Car" magazine and the reliability of TVR engines? --- Right, but the CSC article was about the AJP8-powered Cerbera as was this discussion. So, I ask again, why are you here pissing on the AJP6? --- Â1. Yeah, a letter to the editor expressing an unquantified opinion is really compelling... next! And notice how the editor only reinforces the opinion --- By making an equally unquantified and slightly glib response... Yeah, that's compelling proof all right... --- Â2. The costs of maintaining a Tuscan are higher than an NSX but not that much. And you base this on what? Your first-hand ownership of both cars? Yeah, right! --- No, I base them on my knowledge of what an owner would have to pony up at the service intervals. And from the tendency of the NSX to go through rear tires like a rock star goes through groupies. --- The NSX ownerÂs eyes will water when he sees the vastly inferior build quality of the TVR --- While I've never owned an NSX, I did own an S2000 for a while, and its build-quality was good but far from perfect. But I think we've been over this too. And I love how you keep harping on the fact that I haven't owned a TVR (yet) when you keep posting all this rubbish while never even having been within stone-throwing distance of one. The best you can do is a vague claim that you saw one in the distance once. I, on the other hand, have have not only drive cars owned by acquaintances, but rented a Tuscan for a week as a summer-time treat and put almost 500 miles on it. Your gleeful recirculation of rumor, innuendo and second/third-hand claims regarding cars you've never even been close enough to touch, much less drive, is absurd. --- I said: ÂBTW, of course Detroits muscle-cars are cheaper to maintain, they're using technology from the 1940s. You replied: So what? WTF does that have to do with anything? I noticed you failed to answer my question about Lotus --- What does it have to do with anything? Surely even someone like you will admit that something as crude and unsophisticated as a Corvette or Viper would be correspondingly cheap to maintain. What question about Lotus? --- Torture test? That was only a few exploratory laps around a circuit before the Tamora blew up. Name me another car in that test (there were 16, including those from marques usually associated with questionable reliability: Ferrari, Lamborghini, 1st-year MINI, etc) which had an engine that let go. CanÂt name any? --- What a stupid question (and one you keep asking). Are you seriously trying to say that TVR is the only company in the world who builds engines that fail prematurely (or throttle cables? No, I didn't think so. --- How many figures have you taken from dyno sessions, Jon Gwynne? Give me a number. Really. This isn't a rhetorical question; tell me how many dyno sessions you've attended where TVR's were being tested. --- Exactly as many as you. --- Are you going to tell me you know more about Cerbera power characteristics than joospeed? --- Julian knows quite a bit about TVR engines, in fact, he's working with Austec to develop some replacement ECU chips for the AJP8 as he has expressed the opinion that overfueling is a significant reason for power drops. Maybe this is just him trying to drum up a little business. --- I couldnÂt give two shits about shot glasses. This is car dyno graphs weÂre talking about. And assuming a case goes to court, all TVR have to do is put up some AJP8/S6 specimen to a rig like below, and if it says 420 hp (as it likely will) what case have the consumers got? ThatÂs right. NONE. --- But the principle of shot glasses and car engines is the same according to the trading-standards people. Regarding your statements about court procedure... well, let's just say you know as much about the British legal system as you do about TVRs... bugger all. --- Speaking of the pic below, can you honestly tell me that's the Speed 6's stock airbox? Where the hell is it going? (No doubt to some fresh cold air source.) According to that exhaust header, the Speed 6 exhaust gets routed through the DRIVER'S DOOR (if not right through his chest). See, that's a BENCH dyno. Difference of course being that LS6 tests on treadmill-type dynos measuring RWHP support the factory claim of 405 bhp. --- Interesting picture. Is that a picture from TVR's dyno room? To answer your question. Where is the engine getting air? Hmmm... maybe from outside. The exhaust header right up to the dual, high-flow cats is bog-standard. The actual pipes on a Tuscan are nearly as straight as the ones you see in the picture although they do run at slightly different angles to allow the exhaust to pass under the passenger compartment than through it. Naturally, the bench dyno has its own ductwork to sent the exhaust outside. --- I want you to show me some PROOF that the M5Âs engine has better throttle response and reliability. YouÂre going off on 2nd-hand information w/o even referencing your sources. Show me your sources. --- Next you'll be asking me to prove that the earth is the third planet from the sun. --- A 3.5-liter Lamborghini engine was "capable" of 11K rpm operation? Which ROAD GOING Lamborghini is this? --- Lamborghini has only ever designed a single V-12 engine - that unit continues to this day (although in larger displacement form) in the Murcielago. The original 3.5 liter incarnation was available in the 350GT model introduced in 1964.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. --- "You make it sounds as if the budget is coming out of someone's pocket and that there isn't any profit coming in from the sames of cars to refill the company coffers." That is 100% correct. Warren Mosler pays for the operation of Mosler Automitive out of his pocket, ever since the company was founded in 1985. --- But is there no profit coming in from car sales to offset the cost of the components used to build them, pay the salaries of the employees and then leave a little left over to go back into Warren's pocket? --- Allow me to clear this up...the engine in the Mosler MT900S is identical to the Corvette LS6, except for the oil pan. The engine is not backwards, only the upper intake is reversed --- The engine isn't in backwards? So the drive shaft is still coming out of the back of the engine (with respect to the car) and all the belts, pullies and etc. are on the side of the engine nearest the driver? Doesn't that make certain maintanence procedures difficult? --- The car will not be sold for use on US streets, until it passes an optional side impact test, and gets a couple more "checks in the box". So far all the crash testing has been done on 1 car. I'll bet you can't find another car in production right now, that has done that. --- How many Enzos were used in crash testing? Also, I know they're not in production right now, but when the Jaguar XJ220 was tested, IIRC, they only used the one vehicle and the doors still opened and closed after the high-speed front-impact crash. It sounds like you either work for Mosler or have inside info... how many cars have been sold?
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. "But is there no profit coming in from car sales to offset the cost of the components used to build them, pay the salaries of the employees and then leave a little left over to go back into Warren's pocket?" The company hasn't made money, ever. --- "The engine isn't in backwards? So the drive shaft is still coming out of the back of the engine (with respect to the car) and all the belts, pullies and etc. are on the side of the engine nearest the driver? Doesn't that make certain maintanence procedures difficult?" You are correct on the orientation of the belts, pullies, etc. From the top, access to them is harder than on most cars, but once its up on a lift (or jack stands), they are pretty easy to get to. --- "How many Enzos were used in crash testing? Also, I know they're not in production right now, but when the Jaguar XJ220 was tested, IIRC, they only used the one vehicle and the doors still opened and closed after the high-speed front-impact crash." Most companies won't tell you that information, but from what the testing lab has told me the average is 5-6 cars, some get buy with 3. --- "It sounds like you either work for Mosler or have inside info... how many cars have been sold?" Work for. Take a look at: http://www.moslerauto.com/where/where_content_pop.html It needs a bit of updating though, #002 has been sold, and is running Dutch Supercar this year. #004 is the actually the white/blue Rollcentre Racing car (converted to right hand drive), running in British GT. #013 thru 019 are in transit to Europe, to be finished, and sold, and 18 more will be sent. So, actual sold cars, 5 MT900R's. #005 maybe sold, or could just be leased...not my department, so I don't know for sure, so I'm not counting it.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. Thanks for the info. Nice to hear from someone who actually knows things rather than other people here who just like talking out of their ass. It sounds like the car company is a hobby for Warren Mosler. Best of luck to you guys. Are there plans for the company to ever be profitable or will it remain a hobby? Not that there is anything wrong with that. I'd love to have a hobby like that myself. I'm asking because I figure if the company could start making money, they could develop more cars and perhaps their own engines a'la TVR. Though it sounds like from the website that you guys are going to focus on building track cars. It would be cool if there was an American equivalent to TVR. There was Intermeccanica in the 60s and early 70s and Shelby has often been on the verge of doing something along those lines.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. I believe the hope is for the MT900 to be the car to bring the company a profit. Warren doesn't like the company to be refered to as a "hobby", but thats what alot of people think. If you can find a copy of the "Warren's World" article, that Car and Driver did a few years ago, its very interesting. It goes into the history of the company, some of the side projects, etc. If you can't, I have the text, which I could post.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. --- I believe the hope is for the MT900 to be the car to bring the company a profit. Warren doesn't like the company to be refered to as a "hobby", but thats what alot of people think. --- Well, (as I'm sure I'm not the first to observe) the best way for him to shut up the people who refer to it as a hobby is for the company to start turning a profit. He could learn something from TVR's history, I think... Here's my idea of a plan for Mosler's success: The first thing the company needs is a low-cost car ($30k-$40k price range) that is both beautiful physically but also a strong performer. The Mosler equivalent of the TVR Griffith. Hire some kid out of design school who loves cars (unless you already have an in-house stylist) and task him to design a car that not only combines everything that he and Warren think makes a car beautiful, and even more importantly, timeless but also doesn't use any obvious parts from other cars - like when Lotus brought in rear light lenses from Toyota for the Esprit but turned them upside down in order to disguise their origins. In fact, if it was me, I'd use the Peter Wheeler approach and sculpt the prototype life size out of blocks of foam rather than drawing it on paper or using a computer design program. Seeing a car design in real-life 3D is the only way you'll truly get an appreciation of how it looks. The M900 has many wonderful attributes I am sure, but five-star beauty isn't one of them. It isn't an ugly car but there are some awkward angles and lines on it, plus the obviously Corvette-derived rear end looks out of place. Like the Ford Taurus rear end that was grafted onto the otherwise interesting Jaguar S-type. It is OK to shop out of other companies parts-bins, the trick is to make it look as though everything belongs together and to disguise origins when possible. All it takes is one car at a show that captures the hearts and minds (and, more importantly, the deposit checks) of the sports-car enthusiast public. Remember, TVR do a significant business at the yearly British auto show; since the introduction of the Griffith they have sold literally thousands of cars simply by showing up with another stunner and having an order book handy along with someplace safe to hold the deposit checks. The way this can work is that it is actually more economical to produce hand-built sports cars in small volume than it is to mass-produce them. The investment required to develop assembly lines, invest in injection-molding equipment to produce tacky plastic dashboards as well as the huge corporate overhead actually puts big companies at a disadvantage. Also, Detroit is less likely to see Mosler as a threat if they firmly establish themselves as a company content to produce only a few (or even several) hundred cars/year. Once Mosler establish themselves as a small-volume manufacturer, they can use the profits to put a machine shop in place so they can design and build their own engines - thus making more profit on each car. Plus, the profits and infrastructure that are created by the road-car side of the business can be used to help the race-car business along... Again that's what TVR does and it is hardly an original approach.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. One advantage TVR has, is the easier UK and European reqts., to get a car certified for the road. Being built in the UK, and in low volume, is a great benefit, that small US manufacturers don't have. In the US, if you want to sell a turnkey streetcar, you have to play by the same rules as the major manufacturers, regardless of the number of cars you build. The cost to crash certify a car in the US, is probably close to $1-1.5million, not including the cars, plus EPA certification, could run you another mil. or so. As for the MT's styling, Rod Trenne came from the C5 design team, so thats where alot of the influence came from. A small manufacturer almost has to use parts bin pieces, for DoT certified items, just to avoid the added cost of certifying them, ie lights, etc. In the US, its a tough game for the little guy to play. The reason Warren started Consulier (which became Mosler Auto), was to build his idea of the perfect sportscar. Thats why Mosler builds what we do, the original Consulier GTP, the Intruder, Raptor, Twinstar, and now the MT900. The Consulier, Intruder, and Raptor were all done the old skool way, by building a full scale model first. The MT900 was done the new skool way, all in the CAD world, and the data sent to the CNC machine. We (Rod Trenne and myself) have proved the concept to Warren, that its more accurate, and saves time in the long run doing things this way. Now, its not perfect, I will admit that things do look differnt in the real world, vs. the virtual world, but as time goes on, I'm learning to "see" things more realistically (if that makes sense). It's an interesting job, to say the least <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. --- One advantage TVR has, is the easier UK and European reqts., to get a car certified for the road. Being built in the UK, and in low volume, is a great benefit, that small US manufacturers don't have. In the US, if you want to sell a turnkey streetcar, you have to play by the same rules as the major manufacturers, regardless of the number of cars you build. The cost to crash certify a car in the US, is probably close to $1-1.5million, not including the cars, plus EPA certification, could run you another mil. or so. --- Right, but what about the idea of selling the car, on paper at least, as a kit which can then be "professionally assembled". Kit car manufacturers don't have to follow the same certification rules as a seller of turn-key vehicles, right? If you sell someone a kit and then (through a separate company if necessary) have it assembled for them, the end result is the same for the customer - they pay their money and drive away in a car. But the regulatory requirements are different, isn't that right? There are all sorts of creative ways to do things that otherwise might seem impossible. e.g. There was a famous strip-club in Hollywood, Ca. (I forget the name, this was told to me by a buddy who has wide experience of such establishments, I've never been there myself) who found a unique solution to the problem of the laws which forbade full nudity in an establishment that served alchol. The owner got two adjoining business units with different addresses and tore down the common wall, replacing it with plexiglass. He then had the naked girls at one address and the bar with the liquor license at the other address. Viola, no laws broken and a bunch of happy customers. There are almost always ways to do what you want AND follow the rules at the same time. It is just down to being creative. --- A small manufacturer almost has to use parts bin pieces, for DoT certified items, just to avoid the added cost of certifying them, ie lights, etc. --- Of course, but like I said, there's no rule that says you can't disguise their origin a little - like what Lotus did with the Toyota rear lights it used for the later Esprit cars. There are a lot of interesting rear light designs out there on cars that are available in in the US - perhaps from an unusual source. --- In the US, its a tough game for the little guy to play. --- Much to the shame of a country that professes to be a beacon of capitalism and individual liberty. Where are the small-government conservatives when you need them? Oh yeah, they're too busy trying to figure out how to get government small enough to fit into people's bedrooms and into women's uteruses... Oops, didn't mean this to turn political. Sorry. ;-> --- Now, its not perfect, I will admit that things do look differnt in the real world, vs. the virtual world, but as time goes on, I'm learning to "see" things more realistically --- You mean being able to look at a 2d image on the screen and see how it will look once translated to the real world? Yeah, makes perfect sense. I know what you mean about it being a more efficient procedure. Whatever works, right? --- It's an interesting job, to say the least --- I can well imagine. Well, if you guys ever need someone who can "wear different hats" (business development, PR, IT/software development, test driver, etc...) let me know. I've got an interesting resume. ;->
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. "Yeah, especially for a company like GM with so little experience designing and building things like car engines." I'll bet they have a good track record of overshooting budgets, wouldn't you say? "If the price difference had been more realistic, who knows what the demand would have been?" And if monkeys flew outta your ass... Fact of the matter is, the price WAS what it was. Nobody clamored for a DOHC C5 Corvette which followed. "There are two problems with that statement. First of all, no one outside TVR actually knows what percentage of the engines have failed and there's a good chance that even the bigwigs at TVR couldn't accurately say how many of the failures were due failures in components or the failure on the part of the owners to use/maintain the engines properly." Considering TVR won't let dealers rebuild the engines (only the Blackpool factory and their TVR Power subsidiary are allowed), I'd say they have a pretty good idea of what percentage it is. Among the mass of informed TVR owners (that would not be you), the percentage is pretty high, and obviously not in line with typical manufacturer standards. Your theory about owner abuse has been debunked already. "TVR's robust sales and corresponding fiscal health is proof that they're doing something right." It doesn't mean they're doing *reliability* right. By your "reasoning", Ferraris and Lamborghinis have always been reliable. "Right, but the CSC article was about the AJP8-powered Cerbera as was this discussion. So, I ask again, why are you here pissing on the AJP6?" Because YOU brought it up. For what? As PROOF that the AJP8-powered Cerbera puts out what it claims? The CSC article says nothing of the sort, so it is totally irrelevant to this discussion. If you're going to use that article as some kind of basis to argue from, you're going to have a tough time explaining why they glossed over (or ignored outright) the FACT that the S6 engine is anything BUT reliable. Or are you merely re-stating that the Cerbera was the best-ever TVR? Many Tuscan owers (yes, even those with the affected engines) would tell you otherwise. Ditto for those who own Tamoras, T350C's, Chimaeras, Griffiths, etc. "By making an equally unquantified and slightly glib response... Yeah, that's compelling proof all right..." Tell me, John Gwynne, how many TVR's have you driven? More than Autocar has? Yes or no? "No, I base them on my knowledge of what an owner would have to pony up at the service intervals. And from the tendency of the NSX to go through rear tires like a rock star goes through groupies." So, give me the service intervals and costs. And a source to go with it. At least tires don't cost as much as engines. And they hardly ever go BANG without warning... "While I've never owned an NSX, I did own an S2000 for a while, and its build-quality was good but far from perfect. But I think we've been over this too." You're comparing the build quality of the S2000 against an NSX? LMFAO! Honda/Acura pays FAR more attention to build quality in the NSX than the S2000, which on the grand scale of things, probably isn't that much better than an Accord. It sure isn't that much better, if at all, in terms of materials used. The NSX is on a whole other level. "And I love how you keep harping on the fact that I haven't owned a TVR (yet) when you keep posting all this rubbish while never even having been within stone-throwing distance of one...Your gleeful recirculation of rumor, innuendo and second/third-hand claims regarding cars you've never even been close enough to touch, much less drive, is absurd." I don't have to own a TVR to know that they're considerably less reliable than other marques. Nor do I need to rely on third-hand claims. The accounts given by TVR *owners themselves* is sufficient, and considering neither of us has any first-hand experience with TVR ownership and reliability, it's their 1st-hand experiences that have any weight. If you don't like the message, don't shoot the messenger. "I, on the other hand, have have not only drive cars owned by acquaintances, but rented a Tuscan for a week as a summer-time treat and put almost 500 miles on it." And that's proof of what? Reliability? Then it stands to reason that Autocar's tests of the Tamora (which they tested for well under 500 miles, and which subsequently grenaded an engine) and Tuscan (to Paris, where the throttle cables snapped) are also proof to TVR's unreliability. To speak nothing of the voluminous accounts by TVR owners themselves. "What does it have to do with anything? Surely even someone like you will admit that something as crude and unsophisticated as a Corvette or Viper would be correspondingly cheap to maintain." I'm saying, what does the fact that the "technology dates back to the '40s" have to do with anything? DOHC technology is older than THAT. "What question about Lotus?" You said: "The first multivalve engine (and 16-valve, 4-pot) was designed by Lotus..." I said: "Really? How long has Lotus been around? Longer than Bugatti or Benz (they had multivalve engines in the 1910's-1920's)?" Which Lotus are you referring to? "What a stupid question (and one you keep asking). Are you seriously trying to say that TVR is the only company in the world who builds engines that fail prematurely (or throttle cables? No, I didn't think so." Now, that would be a stupid assumption. I'm saying: TVR's engines and throttle cables fail MORE prematurely than the other marques mentioned in this thread. We already KNOW for a FACT that there was a bad design in the original throttle cable. If you have a problem with that, then you can go ahead and post the proof of it. The fact that they're hardly ever tested (compared to other marques) and when they do, they often have problems (some considerably more serious than others) should tell you something about their reliability. Certainly NOT that the reliability is on a par with other manufacturers. "Exactly as many as you." Then we (that's BOTH of us) must forfeit any of our notions or opinions and rely on the INFORMED EXPERIENCES of those who HAVE done dyno tests. Here's another in case you missed it: http://www.pistonheads.com/features/dyno.htm (249 hp out of a Cerbera V8?) "Maybe this is just him trying to drum up a little business." Or maybe it's just him telling the truth. (Shock, horror!) "But the principle of shot glasses and car engines is the same according to the trading-standards people." But is it tested the same way? Have Trading Standard got their own dyno? Are they going to allow TVR to modify it so that it duplicates precisely the setup they have in their own factory? Are they going to allow a TVR engine technician to set up the dyno, in accordance with the specifications of the dyno at the factory? Or are they going to simply use TVR's dyno? Measuring a shot glass is pretty much straightforward, now isn't it? "Where is the engine getting air? Hmmm... maybe from outside." Or a chilled airbox... "The exhaust header right up to the dual, high-flow cats is bog-standard. The actual pipes on a Tuscan are nearly as straight as the ones you see in the picture although they do run at slightly different angles to allow the exhaust to pass under the passenger compartment than through it." Slightly different? LOL. The angles required to go under the passenger compartment aren't even remotely similar. Now, tell me HOW MANY TVR owners have gone through the trouble of pulling out their engines and having them tested in this way, with an official from Trading Standards present. How many? Point of fact remains: the LS6 puts out 405 SAE net (and quite often more) when put on a standard treadmill dyno. Breathing through the standard intake (no special external cold-air source), standard catalytic converters, mufflers, etc. If dyno tests are anything like what TVR owners have found with their cars, GM would be facing a serious lawsuit and/or recall on the order of what Ford faced with its old SVT Cobra. "Next you'll be asking me to prove that the earth is the third planet from the sun." That kind of information is easily substantiated. Yours? It's just BS/opinion, at this point. "Lamborghini has only ever designed a single V-12 engine - that unit continues to this day (although in larger displacement form) in the Murcielago. The original 3.5 liter incarnation was available in the 350GT model introduced in 1964." And did it REV to 11000 rpm in street trim? Still no clue on the price difference between an LS6 and an S62, I see.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. --- Fact of the matter is, the price WAS what it was. Nobody clamored for a DOHC C5 Corvette which followed. --- Yes, the price was what it was... disproportionately high. And how do you know no one clamored for a DOHC C5? --- Considering TVR won't let dealers rebuild the engines (only the Blackpool factory and their TVR Power subsidiary are allowed), I'd say they have a pretty good idea of what percentage it is. --- Yes, but since they're not telling anyone else, they're the only ones who know. --- Among the mass of informed TVR owners (that would not be you), the percentage is pretty high, and obviously not in line with typical manufacturer standards. Your theory about owner abuse has been debunked already. --- Like I said before, no one outside TVR knows what the percentages are. You can talk out of your ass all you like but you still won't be right. And, no, my theory about owner abuse/neglect *hasn't* been debunked. All manufacturers have these problems, it would be madness to assume that there aren't a percentage of TVRs failures attributable to owners either doing things they shouldn't or not doing things they should. --- "TVR's robust sales and corresponding fiscal health is proof that they're doing something right." It doesn't mean they're doing *reliability* right. --- TVR are making cars sufficiently reliable to sell all they can make - and the reliability and build-quality improve with every model they release. Do they have room to improve matters further? Absolutely. Are they as bad as people like you gleefully pretend? Of course not and all your banal vitriol won't change this. --- "Right, but the CSC article was about the AJP8-powered Cerbera as was this discussion. So, I ask again, why are you here pissing on the AJP6?" Because YOU brought it up. --- No, actually, you were the one who brought up the 6. --- If you're going to use that article as some kind of basis to argue from, you're going to have a tough time explaining why they glossed over (or ignored outright) the FACT that the S6 engine is anything BUT reliable. --- You should try actually reading the article in question. If you had, you'd know that they were specifically talking about the 4.2 liter AJP8. --- Tell me, John Gwynne, how many TVR's have you driven? More than Autocar has? Yes or no? --- Yes, actually I *have* driven more TVR's than Autocar. You see, Autocar is a magazine and magazines don't know how to drive. Of course, you don't even know how to spell my name even though it is written right in front of you so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to learn that you think magazines can drive. --- You're comparing the build quality of the S2000 against an NSX? LMFAO! Honda/Acura pays FAR more attention to build quality in the NSX than the S2000, which on the grand scale of things, probably isn't that much better than an Accord. It sure isn't that much better, if at all, in terms of materials used. The NSX is on a whole other level. --- Would you mind quantifying this statement? Aren't both cars interiors made out of a combination of leather, plastic, metal and glass? According to the Honda dealer who sold me the car, both models are built on the same part of the factory by the same people as Honda has separate "low-volume" lines for the S2000 and NSX. In fact, in Britain, they don't bother with the dumb "Acura" brand. Both cars are badged simply as Hondas. --- Nor do I need to rely on third-hand claims. The accounts given by TVR *owners themselves* is sufficient --- Oh, so disconnected second-hand claims then... Still nonsense. You don't actually know any of these people and have no contact with them or the cars. You simply read what they write and selectively parrot back the things they say that strike you as unflattering. I, on the other hand, while I haven't bought a TVR yet, will do so when the right car comes along and in the meantime, I know several people personally who own them or have owned them and who have no complaints whatsoever about reliability. In addition, I used to know a guy who operated an independent service center for them and sold a few on the side. --- Then it stands to reason that Autocar's tests of the Tamora (which they tested for well under 500 miles, and which subsequently grenaded an engine) --- Excuse me? "Grenaded" an engine? What actually happened to the engine in question, blown head gasket, wasn't it? Not exactly an unheard-of event among the track-day set wouldn't you say? You make it sound like the block itself fragmented and wounded bystanders with the shrapnel. --- and Tuscan (to Paris, where the throttle cables snapped) are also proof to TVR's unreliability --- You're talking about a single incident with a throttle cable documented in a magazine. Granted there have been other incidents with the early design of the Tuscan's throttle cable but not only has this issue been addressed by TVR, you once again seem to erroneously assume that they are the only car manufacturer in history to ever have had problems with a throttle-cable design. --- To speak nothing of the voluminous accounts by TVR owners themselves. --- Try not to use big words you don't understand. --- I'm saying, what does the fact that the "technology dates back to the '40s" have to do with anything? DOHC technology is older than THAT. --- Not in production roadcars is isn't. --- You said: "The first multivalve engine (and 16-valve, 4-pot) was designed by Lotus..." I said: "Really? How long has Lotus been around? Longer than Bugatti or Benz (they had multivalve engines in the 1910's-1920's)?" Which Lotus are you referring to? --- Bugatti has never in its life (and several owners) ever made anything but small-volume, hand-built specials. I'm unfamiliar with the multivalve engines made by Mercedes but I don't know of any roadcars they made before the late 1980s with multivalve engines. A lot of the early Bugatti and Mercedes cars with high-performance engines were made exlusively for the racetrack. The earliest 16-valve four-pot engine available in a production road car I'm aware of was the Lotus 907 as fitted to the Jensen Healey roadster that first went on sale in 1972. Care to mention any earlier ones? --- TVR's engines and throttle cables fail MORE prematurely than the other marques mentioned in this thread --- But you don't really know that, you're just assuming it based on your selective interpretation of selective statements made by people you don't even know about a car manufacturer you don't know anything about other than what you're read on sites like this. Not exactly what one would call an "educated guess", is it? --- We already KNOW for a FACT that there was a bad design in the original throttle cable. --- We don't know if it was a bad design or not. What we do know is that TVR modified the design. It may have been a good one on paper but turned out to be non-optimal in real-world applications. Again, they wouldn't be the first car company to have to rethink a design decision. How many cars have GM recalled? --- The fact that they're hardly ever tested (compared to other marques) and when they do, they often have problems (some considerably more serious than others) should tell you something about their reliability. --- Could you explain what you mean when you say TVRs are "hardly ever tested"? --- "Maybe this is just him trying to drum up a little business." Or maybe it's just him telling the truth. --- But you don't know either way, so why bring it up? --- Then we (that's BOTH of us) must forfeit any of our notions or opinions and rely on the INFORMED EXPERIENCES of those who HAVE done dyno tests --- You want me to find and post some dyno printouts of Corvettes and Vipers that make less than claimed "on the tin"? --- But is it tested the same way? Have Trading Standard got their own dyno? Are they going to allow TVR to modify it so that it duplicates precisely the setup they have in their own factory? Are they going to allow a TVR engine technician to set up the dyno, in accordance with the specifications of the dyno at the factory? Or are they going to simply use TVR's dyno? --- You don't think that dynomometers can be independently certified as to their accuracy (like, for example, scales in supermarkets or gasoline pumps at filling stations or any of the other pieces of equipment whose accuracy affects us as consumers)? You are a breathtakingly ill-informed individual. --- "Where is the engine getting air? Hmmm... maybe from outside." Or a chilled airbox... --- Dude, this is Blackpool, England we're talking about. I hardly think they have to go out of their way to chill air. Are you seriously as ignorant of British climate as you are of British cars? --- Point of fact remains: the LS6 puts out 405 SAE net (and quite often more) when put on a standard treadmill dyno. --- Says who? --- If dyno tests are anything like what TVR owners have found with their cars, GM would be facing a serious lawsuit and/or recall on the order of what Ford faced with its old SVT Cobra. --- And the British public running a very close second in terms of litigiousness, would be in a position to do the same if TVRs actually were incapable of producing the power claimed by the manufacturer. All someone would have to do is buy a car, put it on a rolling road and say: "Look, TVR, the power doesn't match your claims, now fix my car so it does and if you can't I'll have your scalp in court". --- "Lamborghini has only ever designed a single V-12 engine - that unit continues to this day (although in larger displacement form) in the Murcielago. The original 3.5 liter incarnation was available in the 350GT model introduced in 1964." And did it REV to 11000 rpm in street trim? --- Unlikely, since the carbs they fitted to the customer's cars wouldn't have allowed it. The engine itself, however, was capable of 11,000rpm and more - since it was (and is) a thinly-disguised F1 unit that some argue they borrowed heavily from a Honda design. That's one of the reasons that the engine sounds so great and why people put up with the appalling road-manners of cars like the Miura, Countach and Diablo just to hear that V-12 roar behind them. Now, tell me that if you modified the fueling system on an LS6 so that it was capable of reaching 11,000 revs that the engine wouldn't explosively self-destruct long before it reached that speed. --- Still no clue on the price difference between an LS6 and an S62, I see. --- Still no clue why you persist in emphasizing irrelevancies. Are you seriously going to pretend that because a BMW DOHC engine is sold for more money than a GM pushrod engine that *all* DOHC engines must necessarily be more expensive than pushrod engines. Not even you are that dense.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. "Right, but what about the idea of selling the car, on paper at least, as a kit which can then be "professionally assembled". Kit car manufacturers don't have to follow the same certification rules as a seller of turn-key vehicles, right? If you sell someone a kit and then (through a separate company if necessary) have it assembled for them, the end result is the same for the customer - they pay their money and drive away in a car. But the regulatory requirements are different, isn't that right? There are all sorts of creative ways to do things that otherwise might seem impossible." Selling as a "kit" does reduce the government criteria alot, but you'll never sell cars like you would as a fully certified turnkey car. In the US at least, kit cars have a stigma, and are looked down upon. I don't think Mosler will ever sell a car as a kit, in that sense. Ultima does exactly as you say, they build the car, and another company sells the service of putting the engine in it, so you get a completed car. But, it's still registered as a kit car, and will always have that stigma, making it "less" of a car, even though it will out perform many turnkey production cars.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. --- Selling as a "kit" does reduce the government criteria alot, but you'll never sell cars like you would as a fully certified turnkey car. In the US at least, kit cars have a stigma, and are looked down upon. I don't think Mosler will ever sell a car as a kit, in that sense. Ultima does exactly as you say, they build the car, and another company sells the service of putting the engine in it, so you get a completed car. But, it's still registered as a kit car, and will always have that stigma, making it "less" of a car, even though it will out perform many turnkey production cars. --- I've often heard of the "stigma" attached to kit cars. Still, I think you might agree that this is more to do with many kit cars being crap than it is with the idea of a kit per-se. Lots of kit makers have been reasonably successful commercially - look at the various companies who make replicas of famous cars (e.g. Cobras, GT40s, etc...). The Lotus Elan - one of the great, iconic sports cars of all time was a kit car - Lotus sold it as a kit for tax reasons or some such bureaucratic dodge. I just don't see how that would be different from Mosler offering some or all cars through a distributor who offers professional build services to get around the full DOT/EPA certification required by car manufacturers. Many kit makers focus on one area or another and fail to bring the package off as a whole. This doesn't reflect badly on the kit as a concept but on their particular implementation of it. Mosler evidently has the ability to build a proper car for the track. Imagine what they could do if they turned their attention to building an affordable version of their track cars - a proper two-seater sports car that would start in the $40k range and go up from there. If someone produced a brilliant car that looked as good as it drove, the last thing in the world anyone is going to worry about it is that their DMV registration document says "kit" - they're going to be having too much fun driving it, being seen in it and answering questions about it like "How fast is it? How much did it cost and where can I buy one? Etc... Seriously, if you drove a car which made you weak in the knees with your lust to own it, would you really care if you had to register it as a kit in order to drive it on the street? I wouldn't and I doubt many people would.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. It's possible, and would most likely be more proffitable to sell the car or cars as a kit, but it won't happen. Almost everyone at the shop, takes the term "kit car" as an insult, and I doubt very much that that will ever change.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. Here's another interesting example: Take Noble. They have decided to offer their M12 as a kit (which is then built by trained techs)solely in the North American market to get past the certification requirements. Yet, no one is looking down on them for doing this and offering the car as a professionally-assembled kit is increasing their sales volume rather than decreasing it. Maybe the trick to doing away with the stigma attached to kit cars is for some really good ones to be built.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. For Noble, and Ultima, using the "kit car" loophole, is a way to get the cars into the country. When the customer looks at it like that, they don't see a kit car per say, but as a European car that they can't buy thru normal channels, since both the Noble and Ultima GTR are sold as turnkey cars in europe. Technically,the 25 streetcars being built for the UK, are being sent in "kit" form, and assembled/manufactured in Europe by Beckland. With Beckland as the manufacturer in Europe, its easier to get the cars approved for sale. But, they will be sold as turnkey cars in Europe, not as kits.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. "Yes, the price was what it was... disproportionately high. And how do you know no one clamored for a DOHC C5?" The fact that the marketplace speaks its mind tells us volumes. Despite the promises offered by DOHC, there hasn't been a DOHC Corvette for about a decade now. "Like I said before, no one outside TVR knows what the percentages are. You can talk out of your ass all you like but you still won't be right." Seems the stuff coming outta my ass has more substance behind it (no pun intended) then the rubbish you're spouting. What? TVR's reliability record is spotless...c'mon now. "And, no, my theory about owner abuse/neglect *hasn't* been debunked. All manufacturers have these problems, it would be madness to assume that there aren't a percentage of TVRs failures attributable to owners either doing things they shouldn't or not doing things they should." If it's all down to owner abuse/neglect, why did TVR admit to using substandard parts (finger followers)? "No, actually, you were the one who brought up the 6." Actually, if you hadn't brought up the Cerbera article, the 6 never would have come up. We were talking about the reliability of engines (and it was brought up in that PH thread by TVR owners, not me). The Cerbera V8 isn't all that much better than the 6. "You should try actually reading the article in question. If you had, you'd know that they were specifically talking about the 4.2 liter AJP8." You should try to actually not assume things. I have read the article. And can fully confirm what those PH'ers were saying (reliability issues of both 6 and 8 cylinder engines were glossed over, and you bought it hook, line, and sinker). "Yes, actually I *have* driven more TVR's than Autocar." You've driven the Tamora? T350C? Cerbera 4.2 AND 4.5? "You see, Autocar is a magazine and magazines don't know how to drive." And yet when they mention the tramlining of the Viper, you're more than willing to accept it. Pretty selective of you. "Of course, you don't even know how to spell my name even though it is written right in front of you so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to learn that you think magazines can drive." My bad. I'm such a terrible person. And you must be God for pointing this out. Thanks. "Would you mind quantifying this statement? Aren't both cars interiors made out of a combination of leather, plastic, metal and glass?" That's like assuming that since a 316ti Compact has a combination of leather, plastic, metal and glass, then it must therefore be built to the same exacting standards as a Z8. Of course, the Compact's $120K+ price tag reflects this... "According to the Honda dealer who sold me the car, both models are built on the same part of the factory by the same people as Honda has separate 'low-volume' lines for the S2000 and NSX. In fact, in Britain, they don't bother with the dumb 'Acura' brand. Both cars are badged simply as Hondas." Has it ever occurred to you why an NSX costs about 3 times as much as an S2000? "You simply read what they write and selectively parrot back the things they say that strike you as unflattering." Funny, you can't even parrot back anything showing that TVR's are dead nuts reliable. "I know several people personally who own them or have owned them and who have no complaints whatsoever about reliability. In addition, I used to know a guy who operated an independent service center for them and sold a few on the side." It's not about who you claim to know. It's what you can show, as a general trend among TVR owners. "What actually happened to the engine in question, blown head gasket, wasn't it? Not exactly an unheard-of event among the track-day set wouldn't you say?" And where did you hear that it was simply a head gasket? Wouldn't you think TVR could get head gaskets right? "You're talking about a single incident with a throttle cable documented in a magazine. Granted there have been other incidents with the early design of the Tuscan's throttle cable but not only has this issue been addressed by TVR, you once again seem to erroneously assume that they are the only car manufacturer in history to ever have had problems with a throttle-cable design." You're a moron if you think I'm saying TVR are the only manufacturer with a problem with throttle-cable design. I'm saying there's a general trend here about reliability (which is what mpg was inquiring about). Of course, you're a bit thick to understand this. Because, apparently, TVR are no different from other mass market manufacturers. "Try not to use big words you don't understand." It's not my fault you still don't get it. "Not in production roadcars is isn't." Sure it is. "A lot of the early Bugatti and Mercedes cars with high-performance engines were made exlusively for the racetrack." You didn't say anything about road cars vs race cars, guy. Are you saying that since the technology was prevalent in race cars, then it doesn't count as automotive technology? Don't be ludicrous. Back in the day, there wasn't much to separate road cars from race cars anyway, with many of the Milli Miglia and Le Mans type cars being nothing more than highly sport-oriented road cars and touring cars slightly modified for racing. Here are road cars with DOHC in the '30s: http://www.supercars.net/SDBQ?y=1930&m=Duesenberg&o=J%20Murphy%20Convertible%20Sedan http://www.supercars.net/SDBQ?y=1938&m=Alfa%20Romeo&o=8C%202900B%20Lungo%20Touring%20Coupe Anyway, Peugeot and Hispano Suiza and Swiss engineer Marc Birkigt all had developed DOHC engines since around 1912. Mercedes had a 4-valve Grand Prix car in 1914 even. So what if it's a race car. It's still technology that predates your timetable for pushrods. The earliest 16-valve four-pot engine available in a production road car I'm aware of was the Lotus 907 as fitted to the Jensen Healey roadster that first went on sale in 1972. Care to mention any earlier ones? I've already mentioned 2 production road cars with 4-pot engines that predate this Lotus by several decades. "But you don't really know that, you're just assuming it based on your selective interpretation of selective statements made by people you don't even know about a car manufacturer you don't know anything about other than what you're read on sites like this." Then why don't you go find the threads where TVR owners say their cars are bulletproof, and we'll compare that with the number of owners who have had serious and/or repetitive problems. How's that for a deal? "We don't know if it was a bad design or not. What we do know is that TVR modified the design." They modified the design because it was perfect from the beginning? Errm...yeah! That makes sense, LOL. Let's see...let's look at the history: Before modification - snapped throttle cables. After modification - fewer instances of snapped throttle cables (and from what I've seen, none snapped with the modification retrofitted). You figure it out. "How many cars have GM recalled?" Uh, how many did GM *sell*? 8 million last year? Now, how many were actually recalled for failed engines? How many were recalled *after* failures of other components (not just recalls on items that *may* have failed, if left unchecked)? "Could you explain what you mean when you say TVRs are 'hardly ever tested'?" How many TVR's are tested compared to Porsche, Ferrari, Honda, BMW, etc? Now, try to imagine the number of road tests (compared to these other marques) OUTSIDE of the UK. Now, that's a good lad. "But you don't know either way, so why bring it up?" If you don't know either way, why assume he's lying to drum up business? "You want me to find and post some dyno printouts of Corvettes and Vipers that make less than claimed 'on the tin'?" Sure. And I'll show you plenty more where they make *more* than what's on the tin. The ones that are low aren't nearly as low, as a percentage of what they should be making, compared to the Cerberas. "You don't think that dynomometers can be independently certified as to their accuracy (like, for example, scales in supermarkets or gasoline pumps at filling stations or any of the other pieces of equipment whose accuracy affects us as consumers)?" Can you provide some proof that TVR's dyno is calibrated EXACTLY to the same standard as Trading Standards'? All TVR have to show is some semblance of a "full faith" effort in dyno testing their engines; it'll be much tougher to prove a malicious intent to misrepresent their product. "Dude, this is Blackpool, England we're talking about. I hardly think they have to go out of their way to chill air. Are you seriously as ignorant of British climate as you are of British cars?" The numbers still don't match up with rolling road dynos. Not by a long shot. That's what matters. "Says who?" Says those who have dynoed them. For example, take a look below. "And the British public running a very close second in terms of litigiousness, would be in a position to do the same if TVRs actually were incapable of producing the power claimed by the manufacturer." Wait, weren't you the one earlier who said the British put up with more than perhaps they should?: "I have to say, as an American, that there is a nasty tendency in British customer service circles to try to 'fatigue the disgruntled customer into acceptance of the unacceptable'. It happens in the US too, I'm not turning sanctimonious on you. It just seems slightly more common over here (especially in places where it shouldn't be) and the British public seem slightly more willing to put up with it which only makes the problem worse. John Gwynne http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=46157&f=5&h=0 It doesn't sound to me like the British are out for blood the way Mustang owners were when their Cobras didn't put out the claimed horses. "All someone would have to do is buy a car, put it on a rolling road and say: 'Look, TVR, the power doesn't match your claims, now fix my car so it does and if you can't I'll have your scalp in court'." "'fatigue the disgruntled customer into acceptance of the unacceptable'..." --Johannes Gwyneth "Unlikely, since the carbs they fitted to the customer's cars wouldn't have allowed it. The engine itself, however, was capable of 11,000rpm and more..." Dude, that could be said of practically ANY engine with the right bore/stroke ratio. Fact of the matter is (as you've just confirmed) there was NO Lambo engine that did in fact rev to 11,000 rpm, so your point is rather ridiculous. "Now, tell me that if you modified the fueling system on an LS6 so that it was capable of reaching 11,000 revs that the engine wouldn't explosively self-destruct long before it reached that speed." A McLaren F1 or CLK-GTR wouldn't be able to safely rev to that limit, even with a modified fueling system. Again, your penchant for lame/irrelevant tangents is extraordinary. "Still no clue why you persist in emphasizing irrelevancies. Are you seriously going to pretend that because a BMW DOHC engine is sold for more money than a GM pushrod engine that *all* DOHC engines must necessarily be more expensive than pushrod engines. Not even you are that dense." Of course not. Why would you even think that, if not for another bout of brain fade? We're comparing the DOHC M5 engine vs the LS6, remember? I didn't say anything about *all* DOHC engines, so who's bringing up irrelevancies now, eh? I know it's impossible for you, but please, try to stay on topic. Topic? I'll repeat for you: BMW S62 vs GM LS6. Still waiting for the "proof" that the S62 has better throttle response...
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. Here's Motor Trend dyno testing the old '01 Z06, nominally rated at 385 hp. 342.3 RWHP / .85 (typical RWD drivetrain loss for Z06's) = 403 crank hp. Here's a customer Z06 putting down exactly what it says on the tin (assuming a very unlikely low 10% powertrain loss) *and* running the quarter mile in the same times as the magazines get with press cars; coincidence?: http://www.turbocelica.com/Autos/Friends/TerryB/default.htm In case you're wondering where one of the previous dyno charts comes from, here you go: http://www.ls6.net/ (428 net bhp) Another stock '01 LS6 dyno: http://www.vetteguru.com/rat/dyno/ Stock '02 LS6 dyno: http://www.thevettedoctors.com/htdocs/dyno.shtml (416 net bhp) LS6 with mild tuning: http://www.dynospotracing.com/z06_stock.htm (436 net bhp) Stock '04 Z06 with only 741 miles on it: http://www.vetteweb.com/tech/0407vet_flywheel_14_z.jpg (420 net bhp) Just for kicks, M5 S62: http://www.dynospotracing.com/m5.htm (That's 395 bhp.)
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. --- The fact that the marketplace speaks its mind tells us volumes. Despite the promises offered by DOHC, there hasn't been a DOHC Corvette for about a decade now. --- The marketplace hasn't spoken yet because Chevy hasn't offered a proper DOHC Corvette yet. By "proper" I mean one with an engine that lives up to the promise of a DOHC design in terms of power and operational characteristics and is offered as an option for the several hundred additional dollars it costs to design/build a DOHC engine. Until Chevy do that, we won't really know what the Marketplace has to say. --- TVR's reliability record is spotless...c'mon now. --- I never said that. I just said it isn't as bad as you - someone who has never been close enough to a TVR to touch one - claim. --- If it's all down to owner abuse/neglect, why did TVR admit to using substandard parts (finger followers)? --- I never said that either. I said some of the problems were due to abuse/neglect. Some of them were down to the small batch of bad finger-followers that were made for TVR by a subcontractor. Here's a thread that will educate you a little. http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=97554&f=5&h=0 Pay particular attention to the part where he talks about the Speed Six engines with 60k-80k miles and no rebuilds. Not bad for engines that have been in service a maximum of five years. --- Actually, if you hadn't brought up the Cerbera article, the 6 never would have come up... The Cerbera V8 isn't all that much better than the 6. --- In other words, you wouldn't have raised the point because you like talking rubbish about the Speed Six. And what makes you say the V8 isn't "all that much better" than the I-6? Without the finger-follower problems, looks like the only people having AJP8s rebuilt are the people who have abused them. --- I have read the article. And can fully confirm what those PH'ers were saying (reliability issues of both 6 and 8 cylinder engines were glossed over --- What do you mean "glossed over"? The reputation for unreliability and fragility is addressed three times (four if you could the front-page subtitle of the article). Maybe by "glossing over" you mean they didn't write what you wanted to read. They did better, they wrote the truth. --- You've driven the Tamora? T350C? Cerbera 4.2 AND 4.5? --- I've driven a Tuscan (several of them), Griffith, Tamora and Chimera. --- And yet when they mention the tramlining of the Viper, you're more than willing to accept it. --- Are you saying that the Viper doesn't tramline to a shocking degree? --- Has it ever occurred to you why an NSX costs about 3 times as much as an S2000? --- Hmmm, could it be the extensive use of titanium in the engine? Actually, I've heard more than one person tell me that Honda actually loses money on each NSX sold. Like many car companies, the base the price of the car not so much on what it costs to make but what they think they can get for it. --- It's not about who you claim to know. It's what you can show, as a general trend among TVR owners. --- See the thread I pointed out above. --- Wouldn't you think TVR could get head gaskets right? --- They have. The Lotus Elise, which is generally considered to be a very reliable car, has a worse reputation for blown head-gaskets than TVR does. --- I'm saying there's a general trend here about reliability (which is what mpg was inquiring about). Of course, you're a bit thick to understand this. Because, apparently, TVR are no different from other mass market manufacturers. --- You're the last person in a position to comment on TVR's reliability because you haven't come within stone-throwing distance of even one. You don't own one, you don't know anyone who owns one, you've never driven one and you don't even live in a country where they can be registered and driven on public roads without elaborate attempts to evade the officious bureacrats who run the country. And you've got a lot of nerve calling me "thick" if you think I' m trying to claim that "TVR are no different from other mass market (sic) manufacturers". --- I've already mentioned 2 production road cars [Duesenberg and Alfa 8C]with 4-pot engines that predate this Lotus by several decades. --- You actually think that Duesenberg made "production roadcars"? You're evidently confusing them with someone else. They hand-crafted a handful of cars for royalty (both the showbiz kind and the old-fashioned literal kind). They were in the same market niche as Bugatti in Europe. And while Alfa Romeo went on to build production cars, the pre-war incarnation of the company was the Italian counterpart to the American Duesenbergs, English Bentleys and French Bugattis - they built a small number of high-tech cars for the fantastically wealthy. Almost $9,457 for a car may seem like a bargain today bit it was a king's ransom in 1938 - almost ten times the price of a mid-range car. In modern terms it was equivalent to spending a quarter of a million dollars on a car. --- All TVR have to show is some semblance of a "full faith" effort in dyno testing their engines; it'll be much tougher to prove a malicious intent to misrepresent their product. --- Why would someone whose TVR wasn't up to the manufacturer's spec have to prove malicious intent? This isn't criminal law. You know even less about law than you do about cars - and that's saying something. All a customer has to do is take their car to an independent tester and show their car doesn't make what TVR claim. That's the only thing they have to prove. TVR then have the option to repair the vehicle (assuming the power drop is due to a malfunction) or replace it (assuming the case is a defect in manufacture). It is basic warranty law. Surely you know TVRs do come with warranties. But considering all the other things you don't know about them, this may have escaped you as well. --- The numbers still don't match up with rolling road dynos. Not by a long shot. That's what matters. --- Some of them don't, some of them do. Rolling roads aren't the gold-standard of measuring an engine's output anyway. There is always going to be a certain margin of error. Even the dynos that can reliably show that an individual car is down on power don't give any clue as to why that is the case. It something trivial like the car needs a tune-up or has a clogged air-filter? We don't know. --- Wait, weren't you the one earlier who said the British put up with more than perhaps they should?: --- I was speaking generally. Maybe it is true of TVR customers specifically, maybe it isn't. You see, you can quote even me out of context. BTW, you got my name wrong again. ;-> --- Fact of the matter is (as you've just confirmed) there was NO Lambo engine that did in fact rev to 11,000 rpm --- Fact of the matter was that those cars powered by the early, small-displacement Lambo V-12 had no red-line on the tach. --- A McLaren F1 or CLK-GTR wouldn't be able to safely rev to that limit, even with a modified fueling system. Again, your penchant for lame/irrelevant tangents is extraordinary. --- Look in the mirror dude, I wasn't talking about McLarens I was talking about Chevy and Lamborghini engines. The latter can rev much higher than the former. Surely even you will admit that. --- We're comparing the DOHC M5 engine vs the LS6, remember? --- No, you are. And I'm not going to be diverted by your "penchant for lame/irrelevant tangents"
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. "Well after one year and 6000miles (ie nicely run in) I decided it was time to go for a power run at Noble Motorsport today. I'm very pleased to say that the Cerb made 437.6BHP!! This is with standard exhaust and airboxes." -"washy" http://www.pistonheads.com/members/showCar.asp?carId=8144
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. "The marketplace hasn't spoken yet because Chevy hasn't offered a proper DOHC Corvette yet. By 'proper' I mean one with an engine that lives up to the promise of a DOHC design in terms of power and operational characteristics and is offered as an option for the several hundred additional dollars it costs to design/build a DOHC engine. Until Chevy do that, we won't really know what the Marketplace has to say." You really haven't got a clue about supply and demand, do you? Why wasn't the LT5 a proper DOHC engine? It was co-developed with Lotus, after all, wasn't it? You'd think that in their infinite inegnuity, they'd be doing things better and cheaper. Obviously not. "Pay particular attention to the part where he talks about the Speed Six engines with 60k-80k miles and no rebuilds. Not bad for engines that have been in service a maximum of five years." There may be, what, a handful at best with that kind of mileage. Just as there are plenty of defective BMW V8 engines that have seen double that without need for rebuild doesn't mean there isn't a problem with the engine. Pay particular attention to the FACT that dozens of Speed 6 engines have needed rebuilds prior to 10K miles (and some with numerous rebuilds to get them to even twice that). "In other words, you wouldn't have raised the point because you like talking rubbish about the Speed Six." It's a half-rubbish article that you accepted wholeheartedly. Just pointing it out. Had you made no mention of it, it never would have come up now would it? "And what makes you say the V8 isn't 'all that much better' than the I-6? Without the finger-follower problems, looks like the only people having AJP8s rebuilt are the people who have abused them." Again, you're assuming everything is down to customer abuse. How are you so sure? You can't possibly be. I seriously doubt PH regulars are the type to regularly abuse their cars anyway. You pay 40K+ for a car and then abuse it? Maybe *you* might. V8 horror stories: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=3350&f=6&h=0 "I can't beleive this, this is the 3rd time the engines been shagged and only 2000 miles since a complete rebuild. Its an engine out and back to Blackpool job again." http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=55148&f=13&h=0 "I`ve just got my Cerbera back after it spent 17 weeks of the road getting the engine overhauled ( 15,000 miles ), this was the second major mechanical failure within 12 months so in total it has been off the road for about 6 months. The factory don`t want to know and the dealers are just as bad. Why did TVR put the AJP8 / Speed Six engine into the market place without proper development and have not put their hands up and admit they have a problem." http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?p=2&f=13&t=2261&h=0 http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=24755&f=13&h=0 "Racetech confirmed that the car is in great condition... Apart from needing an engine rebuild by TVR! Cost me £9,000 to run it for 9mths!!" http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=7471&f=6&h=0 Snapped crank: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?p=2&f=13&t=60230&h=0 Cerbie with knackered engine on ebay: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=98191&f=6&h=0 http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?p=2&f=6&t=92877&h=0 "My cerb 4.2 97 is currently off the road waiting for replacement camshafts and followers... Maybe I should consider upgrading to a six cylinder model.." DEAD SILENCE. http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=13&h=0&t=68460 And on and on... "The reputation for unreliability and fragility is addressed three times (four if you could the front-page subtitle of the article). Maybe by 'glossing over' you mean they didn't write what you wanted to read. They did better, they wrote the truth." Not really. Addressing an issue != telling the full magnitude of the problems. Which you'll easily find. "I've driven a Tuscan (several of them), Griffith, Tamora and Chimera." What, that's it? And you don't think Autocar have driven those models? Nice to see you admit you haven't driven as many TVR's as Autocar... "Are you saying that the Viper doesn't tramline to a shocking degree?" Based on what? ONE single Autocar test? Stick to the point: You're willing to slag Autocar for merely reporting their findings when it negatively portrays TVR, yet you're willing to accept it wholeheartedly when it comes to certain other cars you don't like. Have you ever driven an SRT-10? No. Have you ever driven a Z06? No. And yet you're so ready and willing to condemn them. You're guilty of exactly the same thing you accuse me of. LOL. "Hmmm, could it be the extensive use of titanium in the engine?" Sorry, chap. The NSX doesn't have ~$60K's worth of titanium anywhere in it, let alone the engine. It might be because its body is made of aluminum, whereas the S2000's isn't. Its suspension pieces are made of alloy (if I remember correctly, the S2000's is still steel). And while the S2000 does have leather in it, it's not nearly used to the same extent as in the NSX: the NSX's dash and center console are swathed in leather; its door panels have much more leather as well. To say that they're both made with plastic, glass, and leather is true, but misleading. The NSX has var more leather. As a result of all of this, it's a far more labor intensive car. The attention to detail with this model simply isn't present on the S2000. "See the thread I pointed out above." Right. And have you wondered why there aren't similar "sticky" threads in the Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, etc threads at Pistonheads? "The Lotus Elise, which is generally considered to be a very reliable car, has a worse reputation for blown head-gaskets than TVR does." Are there similar stories of outright engine failures? "You actually think that Duesenberg made "production roadcars"? ... In modern terms it was equivalent to spending a quarter of a million dollars on a car." Can you somehow prove to me that DOHC technology (whether it's in limited production, still STREET LEGAL cars) does NOT predate the timetable you suggested for pushrods? No? Thank you. "Some of them don't, some of them do. Rolling roads aren't the gold-standard of measuring an engine's output anyway. There is always going to be a certain margin of error. Even the dynos that can reliably show that an individual car is down on power don't give any clue as to why that is the case. It something trivial like the car needs a tune-up or has a clogged air-filter? We don't know." Then why haven't BMW/Porsche/Mustang/Corvette/etc owners who have dyno'ed their cars complained about lack of output? There's an article in the last month's Total BMW (that's a UK mag) where a bunch of M5 owners got together to dyno their cars at John Noble Motorsports' rolling road. Their cars made what was on the tin. "You see, you can quote even me out of context." Out of context? I posted the link to the ENTIRE thread, should anyone care to examine the exact nature of the "context". "BTW, you got my name wrong again. ;->" Oops. Sorry, Jonn. "Fact of the matter was that those cars powered by the early, small-displacement Lambo V-12 had no red-line on the tach." And how long do you think those would last on the street? There was and is no street production Lambo V12 that revs to 11000 rpm, and there's a good reason why not even Honda's little S2000 engine revs that high. "Look in the mirror dude, I wasn't talking about McLarens I was talking about Chevy and Lamborghini engines. The latter can rev much higher than the former. Surely even you will admit that." Isn't the McLaren V12 something of a benchmark among high hp, high torque large displacement engines? It's fair game for discussion. As are the Chevy and Lambo engines. And even this engine, built with even less regard to cost, will not rev safely to 11000 rpm. Meaning your 11K Lambo unit example is shit, guy. If you're going to slag Chevy's V8 for not being able to rev to 11K rpm, you're going to have to slag EVERY engine that isn't able to rev to 11K rpm. BTW, could you post a link to this 11K rpm Lambo engine? Thanks. "No, you are. And I'm not going to be diverted by your 'penchant for lame/irrelevant tangents'". Was it NOT you who mentioned the M5's refinement and alleged throttle response (still yet to be proven, I might add!) in comparison to the Z06?
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. Cancelled out by this one: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=37500&f=6&h=0 (81 horses down) Yay. So that makes it the FIRST Cerbera to put out what it says on the tin. After fettling from the factory. And how long has the Red Rose option been around? This doesn't do much to address the other Red Roses that make less than the 440 hp claim: dannylt's made 400 joospeed references one that made 428 And what of the numerous other non-modified Cerberas that make 70+ horsepower LESS than they're supposed to? Remember that TVR rolling road session, where none of them made the factory claimed numbers? It's funny how some bone stock Z06's from the factory are making as much hp as these modified Cerberas...
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. --- Cancelled out by this one: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=37500&f=6&h=0 (81 horses down) --- What do you mean "cancelled out"? Your contention was that the design was inherently incapable of producing the output claimed by the factory. Now that I've shown you different you start whining about how just because someone else's car is down on power (and who knows why that might be the case because the dyno won't say) that means this other test doesn't count? Hmmm, does that mean if I post a dyno chart that says a Corvette can't make the promised output that your claims are "cancelled out" by mine? What nonsense you write. --- Yay. So that makes it the FIRST Cerbera to put out what it says on the tin. --- What makes you say it is the first? --- After fettling from the factory --- No, actually, according to the owner it is a bog-standard Cerbera "Red Rose". Do you mean because it is a "Red Rose"? Yeah, that is an option that TVR usually offer on their cars which is akin to the "Vantage" option offered by Aston-Martin. The changes are unique to each model but in the case of the Cerbera, it primarily means two fuelling maps in the ECU - the standard one and a new one optimized for premium-unleaded fuel, plus a switch on the console that allows the driver to select the one they want. On premium fuel with the appropriate map, the engine is good for an extra 20bhp. At least you used the word "fettling" correctly this time. --- This doesn't do much to address the other Red Roses that make less than the 440 hp claim: dannylt's made 400 joospeed references one that made 428 --- Of course, you assume that the cars in question weren't down on power for a specific reason. The V8s have a tendency to overfuel if they are out of adjustment. Some V8 owners like the spitting and popping on overrun but don't stop to think that the extra fuel they're blowing out the exhaust is actually costing them a bit of power. BTW, 428bhp is only 2.6% down from factory spec. Assuming that was the best that car could do (and you don't have any reason to assume that, do you?) it still isn't bad. If someone started ragging on a Z06 for only making 395bhp, I'd tell them to get a grip. But, if someone owned a Z06 that only made 360bhp or 350bhp or, God forbid, 330bhp, I'd advise them to take it back to the dealer for warranty service. Wouldn't you? Or are you going to say that no Z06 has ever made that little? --- It's funny how some bone stock Z06's from the factory are making as much hp as these modified Cerberas... --- What's really funny is to think how much power an AJP8 that displaced 5.7 liters would produce. By my calculation, 557bhp. Compare that to Chevy's best efforts at 405bhp.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. --- Why wasn't the LT5 a proper DOHC engine? It was co-developed with Lotus, after all, wasn't it? --- Yes, it was a proper DOHC engine. However, the Corvette that used it wasn't offered at a price that accurately reflected the additional cost of the engine. Instead of charging off the contracting fees they paid to Lotus as R&D expenses, they tried to recoup them in the price of the car over a small production run which pushed the cost of the car well beyond that which one could reasonably expect. So while the engine was "proper", the car itself wasn't. One could reasonably argue that Chevy didn't really want to build a DHC Corvette and so they made certain that the option wouldn't be popular. --- There may be, what, a handful at best with that kind of mileage. --- Neither you nor I know. However it is safe to assume that only a minority of TVRs get the kind of "daily-driver" use that would encourage such longevity. If you bought a Corvette as a third or fourth car and kept in the garage except for the occasional weekend blast and when you did take it out, you thrashed the nuts off it, what do you want to bet that the car would need more service than the one down the street whose owner only has the one car and who uses it for the full range of driving from quiet commuting to full-on hooliganism? It is like stereo speakers - if you play your stereo at 10 all the time, you're going to burn out your speakers fairly quickly. If you use them normally (which includes the occasional blast) then they will last much, much longer. --- Pay particular attention to the FACT that dozens of Speed 6 engines have needed rebuilds prior to 10K miles (and some with numerous rebuilds to get them to even twice that). --- Yeah, defective finger-followers will do that. --- V8 horror stories: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=3350&f=6&h=0 --- A blown fuse is a "horror story"? --- "I can't beleive this, this is the 3rd time the engines been shagged and only 2000 miles since a complete rebuild. Its an engine out and back to Blackpool job again." http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=55148&f=13&h=0 --- I notice you left out the bit that says it was a blown head-gasket. --- "I`ve just got my Cerbera back after it spent 17 weeks of the road getting the engine overhauled ( 15,000 miles ), this was the second major mechanical failure within 12 months so in total it has been off the road for about 6 months. The factory don`t want to know and the dealers are just as bad. Why did TVR put the AJP8 / Speed Six engine into the market place without proper development and have not put their hands up and admit they have a problem." http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?p=2&f=13&t=2261&h=0 http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=24755&f=13&h=0 --- The first like is a well-known TVR-hater - he had a bad experience with his car and a legitimate beef - the dealership evidently pissed him off and now he's evidently bought a new Mini. One could argue that maybe he wasn't ready for a TVR. The second link refers to a Speed Six engine with the finger-follower problem, not a V8. --- Snapped crank: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?p=2&f=13&t=60230&h=0 --- If you believe the insurance company, the engine was run with low oil which caused the crankshaft bearings to seize which would certainly explain a snapped crankshaft. If you believe the customer, he checked the oil prior to setting out on the drive. Of course, they both could be right - if an oil leak occurred during the drive which went unnoticed by the driver it would explain both claims. In any case, this doesn't really count as a black mark against the engine, since no enging could reasonably be expected not fail catastrophically if it was run hard without oil. --- Cerbie with knackered engine on ebay: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=98191&f=6&h=0 --- Yeah, and no indication of WHY the engine failed. Incidentally, on a related thread, the question of replacing the AJP8 with an LS6 was raised... Only to be shot down because it wouldn't fit. --- "My cerb 4.2 97 is currently off the road waiting for replacement camshafts and followers... Maybe I should consider upgrading to a six cylinder model.." DEAD SILENCE. http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=13&h=0&t=68460 --- The "dead silence" bit was your own addition I see. Hmmm, if the sixes were really as bad as you think, people would surely be flocking to warn him against such a move. --- "The reputation for unreliability and fragility is addressed three times (four if you could the front-page subtitle of the article). Maybe by 'glossing over' you mean they didn't write what you wanted to read. They did better, they wrote the truth." Not really. Addressing an issue != telling the full magnitude of the problems. Which you'll easily find. --- Yes, you can easily find out the truth - by talking to people who service the cars - which the article's author did. Why do you suppose that every in-depth article (at least every one I've read) about buying modern TVRs talks about the reputation for unreliability not being as bad as people seem to think? --- "The Lotus Elise, which is generally considered to be a very reliable car, has a worse reputation for blown head-gaskets than TVR does." Are there similar stories of outright engine failures? --- Since you seem to consider blown head-gaskets as outright engine failures, I guess so. --- Can you somehow prove to me that DOHC technology (whether it's in limited production, still STREET LEGAL cars) does NOT predate the timetable you suggested for pushrods? No? Thank you. --- We weren't talking about mere DOHC engines, we were talking about multi-valve engines. Like I said before, the first production road-car with more than 2 valves/cylinder was the Jensen Healey roadster released in 1972 with the Lotus 907 engine. Can you name a production road-car built prior to that with more than 2 valves/cylinder. --- There was and is no street production Lambo V12 that revs to 11000 rpm --- When Bizzarrini was contracted to design the engine he was paid based on meeting a bhp target. He designed the engine to exceed the target so he could be sure of getting paid. He designed the engine to be good to beyond 11,000rpm because he knew that high-revs were the best way to get big bhp figures from a car engine. That's why he used an F1 design as the basis for his engine. It is true with the carbs Lamborghini ended up using for their road cars, the engine wouldn't get enough fuel to make 11,000 revs but that doesn't change the fact that the engine itself was mechanically capable of reaching and sustaining that speed. Nothing GM has ever built for the Corvette could handle anything close to that speed without eating itself. --- and there's a good reason why not even Honda's little S2000 engine revs that high. --- Yeah, Honda's experience with F1 and motorcycle engines. Too bad Honda didn't engineer a little more torque into that engine, it could have been great. --- BTW, could you post a link to this 11K rpm Lambo engine? Thanks. --- http://www.lambocars.com/history.htm "...Ferruccio Lamborghini started looking for the top men in the business and was able to recruit Giotto Bizzarrini after he'd left Ferrari, to design and build a V-12 for Lamborghini. The [3464 cc] engine was finished soon [May 1963] and was able to pump out about 400 Bhp at 11,000 rpm" The very same engine design continues to this day in the Murcielago - albiet with more displacement (6192cc), two extra valves/cylinder, variable valve-timing and EFI. It is a great engine.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. Jon Gwynne If Chevrolet tried to recoup the cost of the Lotus R&D by adding it to the cost of the ZR-1, then that's the only accurate way of measuring whether the demand for the LT5 was strong enough to offset the cost. I participate in grasroots motorsports in the USA, such as track days and autoxing. These guys really thrash their cars, but they don't have enough money for alot of repairs. You see very few exotics in this type of competitition in the USA. The cars are mainly Japanese, German, and American. I haven't met anyone who blew an engine or anything like that. Many of these cars do double duty as daily drivers, and only require routine maintenance. My MR2 has 160k miles and is a veteran of dozens of thrashings, yet it's still going strong. Apparently Mosler wanted this type of engine for the MT900, yet it's still very light and powerful. It's not as light as an Elise engine, and not as powerful as an Enzo engine, but it has an excellent combination of low weight and power. We're still not sure that any street engine is lighter AND more powerful, because none of us has determined whether or not TVR weighs their engines fully dressed. Even if it is lighter, with nearly equal power and equal reliability, it's almost certainly taller and more thirsty.