For all things Rover V8, the TVR Griffith and Chimaera and TVR T-Cars
The unreliability of the Speed 6 engine as fitted to the TVR T-cars and the Cerbera is what is most often quoted as the cause of the company’s demise but this is a very superficial view of TVR and the Speed 6 engine. Firstly, the death of TVR was grossly overrated. See History.
What is unarguable is that the Speed 6 had a dreadful reputation for reliability and one that was, at least initially, well deserved. This was exacerbated by the fact that once an engine did go bang then the turnaround time could run into months. From speaking to those who suffered these tribulations, it would appear that the fact that they lost the car for so long was the main reason they were turned off TVR rather than just the faults.
The T-cars moved TVR up into a different league from that which it occupied with the Chimaera and Griffith. Even the Cerbera, which was the fastest production four-seater in the world for some time, was only a step in that direction. After all, it was originally intended to be nothing more than an extended Chimaera and to be fitted with the venerable Rover V8. In the new rarefied air of high performance sports cars, virtually supercars, the T-cars struggled despite their cachet.
From what I can gather there is little difference in reliability between TVR and Ferrari, and what there is tends to favour the British manufacturer. But that is not the point. TVRs were now up there trying to face down Porsches and
cars having to be pushed of low loaders when being delivered was too much. Owners of German sports cars were not then unused to failures but what they expected, and largely got, was good service and fast turnaround. Boxsters suffered teething problems, and they took some time to sort, but if you had a problem it seems that you could take your car into a dealer and pick it up, repaired, the same week. I know of one chap who lost his Speed 6 for seven months.
One ex-employee of TVR said that when they Factory made five or six cars a week in the days of Wedges and S-types, there was time for quality control and fault elimination. But then it went up to four or five a day in the salad days of the Griffith and especially the Chimaera, and with little increase in staffing, something had to give. And then came new cars and, most especially, engine production and a lot more had to give.
But just how bad were Speed 6 TVRs in the early days? It is a difficult question to answer.
Stories of many owners having four engines go on them within 12 months seem to be just that, stories. After much research I’ve got the name of one person who had at least three engine failures within four years. He has refused to answer my emails, probably for reasons which we can all guess. I accept that three in four years is pretty awful but it is not quite the epidemic that has been suggested. On the other hand I was introduced to a chap who, through a number of Speed 6 TVRs, has managed to accrue over 70,000 miles without an engine problem. Interestingly enough, he too refused to go on record but because he was ‘fed up with being called a liar.’
If you talk with those in the factory around the late 90s they will tell you of a yard full with cars where the engine had blown and them remaining there for weeks, and on occasion months, at a time. But even that is not quite what it appears.
TVR had other problems, ones which had beset it for years. Cash flow was not a strong suit and the way Peter Wheeler (PW) overcame these limitations was not to pay bills on time. This gave rise in the minds of many suppliers that he did not intend to pay at all. Their only recourse was to delay further deliveries pending payment for the items already supplied. I remember on chap pointing out to me in the early 2000s that TVR had quite a number of CCJs outstanding. When this was put to someone in TVR they said that the figure was below the norm.
But PW was nothing if not ingenious. To get cash he needed to put cars out to the dealers but if, for instance, the company supplying the petrol tanks had refused to deliver any until they had some cash themselves then it would appear to be an impasse. But, of course, there were a number of TVRs in the yard with perfectly reasonable petrol tanks just lolling about doing nothing. Tempting or what?
The suggestion is that many T-cars were kept back from repatriation to their rightful because of the lack of certain parts which, coincidently, were also in short supply on the production line. Hand to mouth wasn’t in it.
So the delay in the return of some cars was not necessarily down to problem rebuilding the engines but that doesn’t explain why the engines blew in the first place.
The J in AJP is for John Ravenscroft. In all my interviews and dealings with workers at the Factory I have never heard anyone refer to him except in a respectful whisper. He is held in enough awe to make popes jealous. Yet he is surprisingly approachable and quite humble. But what is certain is that the survival of TVR through to its sale by PW was down to him to a great extent. In the words of one worker: “We’d find a problem, like the valves, and he’d go at it all the time until he’d found a way to solve the problem. He is a genius.”
It would appear that the rumour that PW went for the cheapest option on parts is all too true. Mr Ravenscroft said to me: “It was a matter of pence sometimes. . . . I could see his point of view [about the need to cut costs] but I couldn’t get him to see mine. He just seemed to [shut his mind].” It would appear that the oft repeated anecdote about the poor batch of China-sourced finger followers that was not discarded is true.
But then this was not the only source of problems. Valves could, for a couple of reasons, give up the ghost because of poor quality but Mr Ravenscroft was able to sort a solution quite easily. And there were other faults, nothing major in themselves, but enough to keep the TVR genius busy.
Any new engine will give its manufacturer a few surprises. Most should be identified on a pre-production programme but these are expensive and contrary to TVR’s established, and well proven, business plan of allowing the first few owners to partake in this procedure. But PW went for two new
Above and below, Simon Burrow’s stunning T350T
engines at virtually the same time and, with their few resources, the wonder is that the engine was as reliable as it was.
Mr Ravenscroft told me: “The 3.6 was never as much of a problem as the 4.0. In fact you would have to be very unlucky to have a failure in the smaller engine. And the major faults and quality control for the bigger engine was sorted by early 2003 but by then it was too late I suppose.”
The damage had by then been well and truly done. Experts in all sorts of fields would appear to gravitate towards internet forums, the only confusing aspect being is that so many of them disagreed. But once something became an accepted ‘fact’ it was all but impossible for the reasonable to be heard. It became an unassailable fact that the Speed 6 was a dreadful engine. And once the reputation was lost then it is virtually impossible to get back.
So what is wrong with finger followers? In a word, nothing, but with the proviso that everything else is spot on. And therein lies the problem.
There has been something of a cottage industry in producing reasons why the Speed 6 had failures. Most of these do not seem to find any sympathy in those in the know. A vested interest doesn’t necessarily mean someone is telling lies, but perhaps one should consider emphasis.
The industry derided PW when he announced his intent to build his own engines, and three as well. The lead-in time was a bit optimistic but then that had been the way TVR had always done business. That he managed to produce two wonderful engines, with various power outputs and various sizes, should have generated praise and not a little awe. It is unfortunate that the British seem to revere only failures and seem to relish the idea of having a part in someone’s downfall.
What is certain is that the Speed 6 is a wonderful engine to drive behind. In the T-cars it is allied to an excellent chassis, one that responds to those willing to put a bit of effort into driving. It has been superbly matched to the clutch, gearbox and diff. And on top of that, the steering is the best I’ve ever experienced.
It is a shame that instead of TVR being able to improve the Speed 6 as time went by, they were forced to dedicate so much energy, manpower and money just to get it to last long enough to be able to make its way onto the low-loader under its own steam.
It is not a question of what might have been because the Tuscan II, Convertible and Sagaris saw the light of day. And there’s few who have driven them who would criticise them for their dynamics. Indeed, Phil Keene, the racing sports car driver, once called the Sagaris: ‘Too good for the road.’
A step too far?
The much improved Tuscan II
The Speed 6
The only thing to wonder about is that despite producing such wonderful cars, TVR under new management still couldn’t keep going.
The Smolenski years
In the years from 2004 to 2010 Nickolai Smolenski owned TVR. He produced no new cars. The Tuscan II and Convertible, and the Sagaris were Wheeler cars and a suitable tribute to the man who led the company through it’s most spectacular times. But we shouldn’t blame Smolenski. PW was a tough act to follow.
Moratorium
From the inspired choice of the Rover V8 to replace the somewhat younger Cologne V6, it seemed as if Peter Wheeler had an unerring sense for what the public wanted. The Wedge-shaped Tasmin was struggling for sales. Whilst most of its initial chassis problems had by the time of the take-over been solved, it had not grabbed the attention of the public. But the addition of the RV8 together with some clever marketing brought it centre stage. And then came the S-type.
It seemed, on the face of it, nothing special but with the cachet of the Wedge beasts the pretty roadster, cleverly designed to look almost petit, proved to be
The first production Sagaris at Racing Green
just the thing to start to turn the company around. Then there was the Tuscan Challenge, surely the most avidly followed one-make racing series ever. It was a profitable side line for the company for years.
And then the Griffith. Those of us lucky enough to see it at the 91 motor show were stunned by its looks. Then the Chimaera, TVR’s most popular car. But the Cerbera was something else.