TVR changes hands

[Gilles]

I consider to be quite objective as we hardly have any French sportcar manufacturer since the closing of Venturi.

Corvette is an all-american car, following the tradition of muscle cars,... You're a man because you've got a big block under your bonnet.

TVr is an all-british car, following the tradition of home and hand-maded sports cars.... You're a man because you make the choice to drive an exotic car, not 100% reliable but that's a part of the british sport car tradition too.

To be honest, I'ld really like to own a Vette, but only the '53 roadster.

Younger ones, from a continental european point of view, would be considered as hairdressers' cars.

So I'ld really appreciate a TVR !!

[Steve Pyro]

To add some alternative reasoning to this debate, I see from the new C6 details that you can have a heads up display with a lateral g meter.  This implies that the car may well be capable of pulling impressive lateral g.

However, previous incarnations (C4 back) were not dissimilar to a box barge when cornering.  Straight line speed, no problem, especially in the guise of the 427 cubic inch six pack big block.  But stopping it and cornering it were an acquired art.

To put the satin pump on the other foot, the TVR started life as a low production 'Kit' car, with a variety of borrowed Ford engines and other parts.  Take a look at the mk1 Cortina rear lights on the early cars.

From small beginnings, and small engines, the Ford 289 was shoe horned in, and then we enter the V6 era.

Thankfully, TVR then went on to develop the humble 3.5 Rover V8, ultimately opening it up to 5 litres.  Attention to detail included tuning the exhaust for just that 'right' noise.  And we all know ho much we like a noisy V8.

However, TVRs have attracted a reputation for being somewhat unreliable and to be driven mostly by city wide boys and hairdressers.  On the other hand, the Vette has a certain exclusivity and is only available with the steering wheel in the passengers lap.

It's true, you pays you money etc and all those other bullshit cliches, but I know what I'd rather have..............

[Matt Harper]

I'm pleased that this has created some debate.
It's interesting to note that Andy Zarse pitches heavy critiscism of the Corvette, but does not balance his argument with his views on the TVR's winning attributes in this comparison.
There is a lot of subjective and personal bias in his argument - it's just a wee bit thin on fact.
I concede that the interior of the car is disappointing on the eye, though highly functional, ergonomically sound and comprehensively equipped. The standard equipment on the C5 would add around GBP15,000 to a similar spec BMW or Benzo.
The exterior finish of the car is absolutely superb - flawless, in fact. I cannot imagine why you suggest anything otherwise. Panel fit, shut-lines, paint and clearcoat finishes are excellent.
The vette doesn't handle like a 360 Modena, true - but it handles better than a TVR Griffith, Chimera, Tuscan or Cerbera in the opinions of critics much more capable and credible than me.
We've debated the "WRX would leave you standing on a wet country road" before. What, may I ask, has that got to do with this comparison?
There are some very sound engineering reasons why GM utilised an OHV engine in the C5. Not least of which is that it made the car affordable (unlike the late 80's ZR1 for instance). It also allowed for an aerodynamic profile (through a low bonnet-line) that removed the lift characteristics associated with several TVR models and gave it the lowest cd figures of any current road car, even though to some it looks "hideous and tasteless" - again, subjective, not objective. The bone stock LS1 delivers 350bhp and the C5R is powered by a push rod engine - what's the big issue here?
Steve Brown is probably right - the Corvette is not popular in Europe for a number of reasons - LHD, cost of purchase and service/parts and out-dated, pre-conceived ideas about what Europeans think the car is like.    

[Steve Pyro]

It's interesting to read in the motoring press of peoples preconceived ideas regarding sportscars and the badges they carry on their front ends.

I mean, mention the name Lotus and it conjures up distant images of F1 cars and occasionally unreliable road cars.
Mention Vauxhall and you think of the family saloon with little Billy screaming in the back and mum driving along with her mobile phone jambed in her ear.

However, compare the Lotus Elise and the Vauxhall VX220.  Two very similar 2 seater sports / track day cars.  The Vauxhall has been sneered at, the Lotus drooled over, but I would suggest the Vauxhall is the better of the two cars.

TVR's and Corvettes are a similar analogy.  Both are capable sports car with large capacity engines.  Each has it's own querks and appeal.
 
I can't really understand the European fixation that a sportscar has to have a multivalve, multi cam engine (generally in the back) that screams up to 10,000 rpm and is invariably red.  I suppose it stems from the difference between typical European and North American motorsports and the tracks they race on.

I welcome and applaud the many and varied attempts at producing new sportscars.  Some are successfull, some are shite and some win races.  
When the next generation of steam cars come out, I'll be the first to have a nose in the boiler.

If the market of free thinkers and innovators was not allowed to exist, we would all be driving around in something like this.

[Fax]

Matt,
Gotta admit, when you took your Vette to Le Mans a few years ago and entire families were emptying their houses to come and look at it and half the Houx campsite was drooling over it, I certainly didn't get the impression that the Euro's thought it was a hideous piece of American junk.
John

[Andy Zarse]

Good points Steve, the VX220 Turbo runs rings round the Elise at a fraction of the cost.

The point I was making about the Vette is really a general criticism about GM. A company of such massive worldwide resources really should be coming up with some elegant engineering solutions to todays motoring problems. And what do they give us? A new type of fu cking biro holder in the Vectra! Not really cutting edge is it?

I know they're trying to develope fuel cell cars etc, but what's the point, the American public will never accept them.

As a general criticism of the motoring public, and particularly the American motoring public, once the oil finally runs out, I do wonder what our grand childrens' grand children will think of the current generation who run the kids around in giant fuel guzzling trucks for no apparent reason. Tw ats probably.

So where does this leave us in terms of sportscars? Gas guzzling monsters like the Vette are relics of the past and should be left behind. Colin Chapman saw the future years ago. Light weight, ultra modern materials, clever solutions, maximising power from fuel efficiency and this is where it's gonna be at. Yes I love the big old uns, Cobras and some classic Vettes definitely included. But they are for things like owners club meets at Gaydon and Classic Le Mans.

Future products, well take a look at Noble. What Lee Noble has acheived over the last few years is remarkable, a true sucessor to Chapman I'd say. And not a pushrod in sight!

[Andy Zarse]

Hi Fax. You sure it was drool and not vomit? Perhaps they were just curious as they'd never seen one before...

Matt, good to hear from you bud, and I always enjoy our "debates" on these vexed questions. But I can't agree on the "thinness" of the facts in this discussion. I'd say there was plenty of facts flying around, you've just chosen to ignore them!

Now I'm no big fan of TVRs cars. Their build quality makes US cars seem a paragon of integrity. But have you driven any of the new Trevs? They're far better than the 12 year old Chims you mention. Not quite in 911 or F360 territory but miles better than they were. I understand much of the aero problems you elude to are related to the relatively light weight of the vehicles. Again the new ones are much better in this respect. Re the handling, IMO, they talk to you, you just need to understand what they're telling you. This is quite unlike the Vette I guess with it's electronic this and it's anti that.

I don't think it's fair to call Trev's kit cars. 1. You can't buy them in kit form and 2. name me any other kitcar manufacturer who makes his own car, including the engine, wiring loom, body, chassis, suspension and instruments all in house? Even the beautifully hand crafted aluminium switch gear and knobs are made at the factory.

All I'm saying is that TVR have had the balls to have a go and do things a bit differently from the cynical monoliths like GM. Developing the AJP must have been a massive call. Yes the early ones were flawed, but I think they've got them pretty well sussed these days. You have to remember too they produce plenty horses for the displacement. Light weight, powerful and they sound great thanks to the flat plane crank, Christ, it woes me to think this could come to an end.

You can buy the Vette C5 in the Uk from specialist Vauxhall dealers, but it seems they sold about three last year, even though Car magazine called it a performance bargain, as it's reasonable well priced against the competion, i.e. TVR etc. After a thorough test, they reckonned it was kinda ok, but really not that outstanding, so what was the point of it? Oh, and would you be seen dead in one? was their final comment.

Why can't GM have a go at doing a really hot coop? Actually they did and a total fu ck up it was too: I only need say Holden Monaro.

PS In the context of our debate, the WRX comparision is a bit of a red herring agreed. But it would still make a Vette look ridiculous on a wet and twisty road.

[Dave H]

Not surprisingly, I think we find ourselves in a debate that is far more driven by branding than mere facts alone - which is the entire basis of the automobile market.  Therefore, not only do we tenaciously defend our own respective marks to the hilt, but we denigrate others' rides to excess.  (i.e. Ford vs. Chevy, Porsche vs. Ferrari etc.)

Personally, I have driven new TVR and new Corvette.  Both make a fair bit of noise (the TVR was louder), the ride quality of the TVR was Amish and the length of hood of the Vette made me wonder if it was going to actually go in any other direction but straight (which it subsequently did with confidence).  Having said that, it's the same story in a Viper too.  I too don't see a build quality issue with the Vette these days, and it's my impression that the C6 moves the ball further forward.  For those who perceive C5 or C6 to be a car that blasts at excessive speeds in straight lines only, this certainly isn't the case.   Having said that, I've never been in a TVR in anything other than a straight line, so don't know what the handling is like.  Would like to hear others' impressions.

Personally, I'm more about motors that make my willy seem bigger.

[Matt Harper]

I don't think I've ever read such a bunch of (z)arse.
First you say Corvette build quality is crap (which is absolutely not true) and then you say TVR's are lousily built, (which is)
Although owned by GM, the people at Bowling Green KY operate as a distinct entity in their own right. Pride in the product is a very big deal at the plant. Many owners collect their cars at the factory and are the first people to fire up their car, while it's still on the line. They are built with care and it shows.
I have driven a 2002 Tuscan GT. I liked it's wallop, transmission and superb brakes. The controls were sprayed all over the dash, seemingly at random, seat adjustment was poor compared to my car and it oversteered, squatted and tram-lined like a bastard. Road/tyre noise was excessive and the quality of the finish only just acceptable for such an expensive car. I'm not a fan of the body styling - but I respect the fact that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It's a different, slightly eccentric car that is difficult to drive fast safely (my limitations, I mean).
By contrast the C5 has more torque, more horsepower (in the case of my car), more equipment, composure and refinement, less irritating noise and weird accoutriments (what is it with those goofy TVR tailpipes - they look like they came off my old Suzuki X7)
The vette is faster, turns in quicker and maintains it's grip longer(thanks to electronic suspension, I'll concede) and stops (just about) as well. But it doesn't rattle, all the panels fit perfectly and has some really nice stuff like dual zone a/c, head-up display, acr, tyre pressure monitoring and a smart exhaust system that adjusts to differing throttle values - and fly-by wire controls.
I didn't call the TVR a kit-car. I used to be a supplier to TVR and understand their manufacturing processes and ethics quite well.
The C5 Corvette was never a big seller in Europe (UK in particular). I bought mine from Bauer Millet in Manchester who are the only official GM dealer in Britain now (I think). The car was very expensive, LHD and somewhat over-the-top for most peoples taste. I bought it for it's performance value for money. At the same time, my employer took delivery of a Ferrari 360 F1 and got quite depressed when he couldn't outrun me.
The Subaru issue is not relevant. I have a close friend in professional sportscar racer Andrew Kirkaldy, who laps Donnington nearly 3secs a lap faster in an Evo 8 than in a 360 F1 - but I think I'd still probably opt for the Ferrari, given the choice.
One last thought - I suspect that you haven't driven a C5 - because I'm sure you would not be so dismissive of it, if you had had a blast in one.  

[Andy Zarse]

Oi Nightrider, spoken with all the level headed logic one would come to expect from a single make afficianado.

I'm neutral on this mate, I've never owned either car and don't expect I ever will.  TVRs as I've said all along have some glaring errors. But to suggest that they all total crap and the owners are all w**k*rs is simply stupid and such stereotypical rubbish as to be hardly worth acknowledging.  I suppose all vettes have a spitoon in the centre console, a rifle rack in the trunk and a confed flag on the fender? My slightly dismissive attitude to the Vette was really prompted by your initial comments and thus I guess to some extent we're flamin' each other here dude!

Incidentally, the pushrod, it seems to me, is not being used by GM as an uncompromised engineering solution, as you assert, because thgat would be ridiculous.  But it's a huge compromise forced on some probably pretty talented designers by the 'orrible bean counters at GM HQ. If they were starting absolutely from scratch on a new budget no object, no compromise, cutting edge engine, don't tell me they'd factor in pushrods?

I'm gonna go away and check a few facts out and get back to you. If I can be bothered.

PS Suzuki X7? Now you're talking! What a top piece of tackle that was in it's day.

[SteveB]

Posted by: A Zarse
PS Suzuki X7? Now you're talking! What a top piece of tackle that was in it's day.


Ah ,, memories - 1978 , the 1st bike i ever owned

[Fax]

Wow this got a bit feisty.  No doubt out it, some of the most horrendous devices to ever go rolling down the tarmac have come out of Detroit but the Vette isn't one of them.  I don't think GM has ever viewed the Corvette as a cost-no-object supercar.  It doesn't have a status tag attached to it, they're quite common.  Chevy always built it as a solid, American built sportscar that the Average Joe could reasonably afford.  The dude that lives down the street from me has a C-5 as his everyday ride and a 1969 Stingray tucked away in his garage as a weekend toy.  I can assure you that no one who lives on my street is on any kind of Forbes list.
John

[Matt Harper]

I guess to some extent we're flamin' each other here dude!

Uh, do you think?
I've grown weary of this thread - I'm sure it's run it's course. For the record, the 'official' word on selection of the OHV small-block for the C5 was this.
Research from Corvette owners told GM that torque was prerequisite and the lazy LT1 that powered the C4 had massive stump-pulling ability. The LS1 for the C5 retained the LT's torque curve and also delivered more power and better fuel economy. A low hood-line, giving improved forward visability and lower c of d over the C4 was also deemed necessary. This could not be achieved with the physically more massive DOHC LT5 engine (already in the GM inventory). Another option was the 32v Northstar engine used by Cadillac, but it was deemed too soft.
In reality, the fact that the C5 ever made it into production at all, given the corporate turmoil that existed in GM in the early 90's, is a miracle.
Different strokes for different folks - but the Vette is no weekend cream-puff, a catagory I stll believe the Blackpool Bomber falls squarely into.

[Matt Harper]

Oi Nightrider

This made me laugh!
I must confess to once owning a black '88 IROC Z Camaro.
It had to go when, whilst driving through Bradford city centre, I overheard a kid say, "Look mummy, it's Nightrider!"

[hgb]

This is one of the funniest threads for ages.        Passion rules...