TVR Chimaera specs

A chimaera 400 handed my ass to me in a straight line race and i was in a 370z, im tellin u they must be sub 5 to 100kph easy man, too loud for me tho lol

@Georg: the example has too many differences. What is the torque of both cars at high revs (relative to their own max rev number), whats the gearing, etc. The diesel will lose power above 4000 rpm the petrol engine will keep increasing hp/torque high in the rev range... and then there is the gearing.. does the diesel have a long 5th and or 6th gear and endgearing?

@chimchiminy
The displacement is 3948 ccm which is 3.9 liters. The datasheet requires the displacement not the name of the engine.

I stand corrected. If it is indeed a 3.9 then myself and a whole host of mags are incorrect. Try the tvrpower website, they are the people who built the engines in the fist place. I always thought the 3.9 was quoted as the range rover, mg rv8, westfield seight and marcos engines that didnt recieve half the modifications tvrpower gave it.

Chimchiminy
The engine is a 3.9, as it is 3948 cc. They just call it a 4.0 because it is easier, like people call the DB9 a 6 liter when it is a 5.9

3950 seems to be rounded from 3948, the official and only TVR page mentions 3948 and being the displacement with more numbers I can't see who anyone would report 3948 out of 3950, it doesn't make sense, it's more than likely that's the other around.

3950cc not 3948cc georg
Check proper tvr pages just incase some make that mistake

Yeah georg i know theres a lot of bull out there, if uv got acess to mags check autocar from 12may 1999, chimaera test against s2000 and boxter. Il try to scan some tests when im in work.

chimi do not neat picking

3948 cc rounded correctly is 3.9 not 4.0 thats basic math system

the weight of the Golf GT TSI and TDI is nealry identical TSI 2741lbs vs TDI 2790lbs both cars a drag limited not rev limited..
The engine block of the petrol engine is of course lighter but the turbo and supercharger system makes it as heavy as the 2l TDI engine

There was never a 3.9, it was a 4.0 with 3 outputs - 240hp, 250hp (factory tinkered for a few hundred pounds) and 275hp in the 4.0HC. The 235hp and 260torques are quoted in CAR magazine (and a couple others) but are not correct. No it really is that light! Iv had my 4.3 on a weigh bridge and it was 1028kg. I know tvr has told porkies in the past but they were mostly telling the truth :)
The petrol and diesel golfs have different rev limits and weights, so top ends cant really be compared. im sure vw made sure the diesel didnt have a higher top speed than the petrol, that would be a big no no!

if you have car magazine tests scann them and post them... and we will change the numbers ... but as long as we don´t see "hard" facts we use the numbers we have from real test... even if fan or owner think they are incorrect!

claiming I was at Santa Pod and saw different numbers is no source to back up claims on!

torque has no effect on topspeed

example
2006 Golf GT offered as diesel and petrol with same hp but huge different in torque

Golf GT Tdi 170hp/259ft.lbs
Golf GT FSI 170hp/178ft.lbs

topspeed identical 220km/h
acceleration 0-100mph slightly different of 0.2s

two ways to reach the same goal.. high torque ... higher revs

Haha believe me georg iv got all the magazines :)
Some say (about the 4L) 0-60 in even 5.4 but some also say 4.6. From drag racing other standard cars (not on public roads!) Its clear to see the 0-60 is under 5.
This is my third chim now, i wouldnt give them up so the wife made me get the 4.0. My first was a 4.3 and second a 4.5 but she feared for my life. I finally convinced her that the 4.0 was MUCH slower, but in reality its barely noticable (dont tell her that)
I own tvr books from the 90s to 2002 and those arent the numbers they claim, not sure whats gone wrong there, although il agree that if u get a bad 4.0 chim the engine produces more like 210 bhp!
Glad ur a big tvr fan, over the years iv had 3 chimaeras and cerebra so you could say im a big fan too!
Seriously tho, its best to test them in the real world against cars of a similar performance to determine how quick they are (drag strip). Mags often test barely run-in engines or in wet conditions.
So glad the wife doesnt know about this site.... :)

So the 0-100mph we have here isn't for 3.9L and it isn't even as powerful, 235hp instead of 240hp and 260lbft instead of 270lbft mmm.
The sub 1100kg weights might be due to TVR claiming dryweights, I've got no proof of that but it wouldn't surprise me if they did.

you don´t like german test numbers some brtish?

Evo Magazine
TVR Chimera 450 (285hp)
0-60mph in 5.2s
160mph

oh and btw I have found the page of new TVR were they have listed all old models in there heritage section with 0-60, 0-100mph and topspeed

according to TVR homepage
topspeed

Chimera 3948cc 235hp 148mph = 238km/h
Chimera 4495cc 285hp 160mph = 257km/h
Chimera 4988cc 320hp 167mph = 269km/h

http://www.tvrmotors.eu/

your turn...if TVR does not know what their cars can do...
BTW I am a big TVR fan bit keep it realistic!

I do agree, but if 2 identical cars one with 200hp and 200ftlbs and one with 200hp and 100ftlbs entered (at identical top speeds) a 20 mile stretch of autobahn with no traffic, the higher torqued car would reach the end of the road sooner, with factors such as inclines, winds etc.
Yes the frontal area is small, the car is as low as a ferrari 360 and a tiny bit narrower, it looks smooth if you know what i mean :)
Boss hog i hope u wern't racing on a public road! :) and yes they are faster than many people think they are, just because the standard 4.0 has 'only' 240bhp. Howerer the torque is huge and the weight very low.

@Apathy: the ammount of torque at the speed you traveling at determines in combination with the gearing and resistance (wind/rolling) if the car can accelerate further or not. (lack of) torque also often "forces" carmanufacturers to shorten gearing in an attempt to make a car feel quick (enough) and achieve decent accleration (or they add gears like a lof of them do nowadays).

Torque accelerates you to your top speed, but a lack of it will not prevent you from achieving said top speed unless there is a significant deficiency. Same goes with weight. An engine put into a car that makes 1000hp and only has 400lbft of torque will hit the same top speed as a 1000hp engine with 800lb ft of torque in the same car. The car with less torque will just take longer to get there.

This car better have a seriously low frontal area to hit the supposed speed with a .32 drag coefficient.

Chim chimminy is right about the torque, i learned that at uni!
Go chimera! Such a cool car, fast as fook! Beat me and my mate in his 2003 M3 by freakin loads in a drag! Mwah gota luv the m3 tho

Well yes it does, it holds your speed. Without it you would loose on inclines, in head winds, it is key in maintaining your top speed and to a very very small degree increases ur top speed as ur car pushes through the air which tries to hold it back the faster you go.
The cd on the chimaera is around .32
I remember reading about it a few years back, i may not be exact but i am more than certain it was the early .3s
Although I wasnt comparing the aerodynamic properties of the tvr to the slk.
You wouldnt think by looking at it but a 1993 hyundai lantra has a cd of .29
You cant really guess the cd of a car by looks or whether it has a convertable roof.

Sorry, torque has absolutely nothing to do with top speed.

Can you tell me the drag coefficient and frontal area of this car? That's the only way to tell if it is remotely close to the SLK's aero qualities. Judging from the front end and the soft top, I would guess in the high .3 range...

Im talking about the standard 3.2 not the supercharged ones. So for example a 215bhp crossfire can reach 150 mph and a 240 bhp chimaera with similar cd cant do 161? Ok well we'l have to agree to dissagree on that.
Take for example the 5.0 chimaera and the 4.2 cerbera. Top speed on the chim is 167, top speed on the cerbera is 185 yet the hp and torque are almost identical and the cerb is basically a stretched chim so the cd is about the same. The cerb is faster because of gearing. Its all about the gearing, at 167 the chim is at 6250rpm red line with nowhere else to go. These cars are geared more for acceleration. The convertible roof has nothing to do with it, its a well fitted, hard, carbon fibre panel that doesnt blow in the wind.
Beg borrow or steal a bog standard chimaera for a day, put some timing gear on it, take it to a track or airfield and you'l see what im on about. Iv had a couple of friends that couldnt see past their 350zs and tuned subaru imps until we all went to santa pod... and then they all wanted my keys.

240hp are not enough to reach 161mph specialy if you have the huge handicap of a convertible top that destroys the aerodynamic...

The performance of the other TVR models proof you wrong they all need more power (320+hp)for similar perfromance specially topspeed you claim for a 240hp car...

I have over 20years Autobahn experiense I know what power and aerodynamic is needed to get over the 250km/h mark (155mph)

The SLK32 AMG has MORE power 260kW/333ftlbs as the Crossfire STR6 243kW/311ft.lbs, the SLK32 AMG is limited to 155mph and the Crossfire is limited to 158mph..
0-125mph the more powerfull and lighter(150lbs lighter) SLK32 is 2s quicker than the SRT6...

Iv been around these cars for years and know them back to front, ive also done some drags at santa pod, they are just as quick as tvr claim. That magazine must have featured a model that wasnt run in yet and in the wet because those times are indeed crap for a chimaera.
Top speed is a mixture of hp, torque and cd, its not all about hp. An example is the merc slk 3.2 and chrysler crossfire, same engine/gearbox, the slk actually has 3hp less but is 5mph slower top end.
3950cc is 4.0, its not 3948 go gimmicks there. And the car that weighed 1120 had a driver, the most these cars weighed were 1060kg with the t5 box, power steering and air con. The first models weighed 1020kg.

The only Chimera able to get over 160mph is the 5.0 no other version is even close to... most Chimera failed big time to reach factory claims..
sportauto tested Chimera in 1997 reached only 233km/h (145mph) and slow as f*ck 27s 0-125mph but was much more heavy as claimed with 1120kg (2470lbs) 0-100km/h was disapointing 6.1s

161mph with 240hp? lolwut
inb4r "it weights a tonne", weight has nothing to do with top speed.
Also, last time I checked 3,948cc round up to 3.9L not 4.0L, this site doesn't go by marketing gimmicks.

The 148.8mph top speed posted here is rubbish, dont trust a website that states a 4.0 litre engine as a 3.9.
Top speed of the 240bhp chimaera is 161mph. The 5.0 does 169 and the 4.0hc, 4.3 and 4.5 are all inbetween.
Oh and the torque is 270lbsft not 277lbsft.
The 0-100kph (62mph) may be a bit off too as the 240bhp 4.0 does the 0-60mph sprint in 4.7seconds.
Amazing cars these.