Discussion
Hello Wedgers -
Just thought I should start a new thread following on from comments about my car on the '390 SE Kevlar racers' thread.
It seems my car continues to cause controversy, though I believe most of us accept it as an SEAC with a different body for some reason.
Just to confirm the points for some of you:-
It is listed in TVRCC records as
'TVR 420 SEAC, metallic black, modified windscreen aperture'. These are records taken from the factory files. I have been advised of this (along with the delivery information below) on three separate occassions.
The car is now yellow.
The car was supplied to The TVR Centre in August 1986 and supplied to it's first owner in September 1986. This was Oppenheimer Fund Management (now a part of CIBC - Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce) - so I presume it was a company car for a stockbroker or fund manager.
Details:-
Chassis number SA9DH35P3GB019494
Engine Number NCK 010
Body Code P422-0917
Whole Veh. Type Appr No. 05302T
Reg. No. D659 YLP
V5 description TVR 2 axle rigid body sports
Weight 1180 - 1200 kg
The V5 shows the car to have been new at first registration.
When I bought it the car had been rebuilt, and then repainted yellow, retrimmed, re-upholstered, recarpeted etc..
The car has different bodywork to that which is generally accepted as SEAC bodywork. The body would appear to be that of a 420 SE. In certain light there appears to be a 'rippley' effect, but I haven't done the check for kevlar inside the boot as I don't want to tear out the new boot lining.
I have been told that the car seems to have other differences.
That the car has different bodywork may be due to:-
a) The state of the body was so bad at time of purchase that it was changed and this body was put on it.
b) The purchaser specified this body.
c) The car has been crashed and had the body replaced - and this happend to be with a 390/420 SE body.
I do not know the definitive answer. There was a comment some moths ago that one member had seen a black SEAC body at The TVR Centre in late 1986 and bought part of it.
I have been told by a previous purchaser that the car was used by the factory for a while and modified by the factory. Somewhere in the back of my mind there is the thought that the factory fitted the larger engine. Also there have been suggestions that the car has actually been crashed; initially thought possibly to be whilst in the factory's hands, and an 'argument with a bus-stop' followed sometime later. The truth about the crashes is not known, but I am not unhappy at the thought that the car may have been crashed and had the body replaced. So be it.
The car has had the current bodywork, I believe since at least as early as 1990; if it has been changed at all.
The search for information via setting up the '390 SE Kevlar racers' thread followed on from rev-erend (Alan) finding an article about 390 SE Kevlar racers in a November issue of Fast Lane magazine. He suggested that my car might be one of the two cars written about, or derived from or related to them in some way. The article stated that the race cars were going to be produced in road car form and likely to be called 420 SEL (L = light). The Kevlar race cars had 390 bodywork and would therefore be the precursor to the SEAC, or maybe even the actual initial SEAC before the new styling. I suggested that the factory chose not to use the 420 SEL moniker because of the clash with Mercedes Benz. We know that the road-going SEAC was restyled to the body we all know and appreciate.
However, following a number of authoritative posts from people clearly 'in the know', it would seem that these cars were not Kevlar at all but just thin glassfibre. It seems that this may have been another case of 'pulling the wool over the eyes' (e.g. power outputs, performance figures etc.) on the part of the factory.
I am awaiting further information to see if that gives us any further clues. I may also make an effort to contact previous owners again where I have had no success in the past.
If any of you have any other information I would be pleased to hear from you. Perhaps you know someone who has worked at CIBC for many years. or know someone that had a metallic black/black TVR Wedge between 1986 and 1990.
As I have said - most people accept this car as an SEAC that has, for some reason, different bodywork. There have been a number of critics of the car, but sadly there appear to be a few that simply want to discedit it in some way for reasons related to their own ego. I have been most patient with all the comments over the last year, and I am sure I will continue to be so. However, I feel that spiteful remarks, and comments seemingly just for personal gain are unnecessary.
I welcome all your constructive comments, and any information or thoughts you may have. Maybe when we have all the information we can create a feature on this 'mystery' car and have it placed on the tvrwedgepages - with Mike Bressington's approval of course!
Thank you for your time.
firefox
Just thought I should start a new thread following on from comments about my car on the '390 SE Kevlar racers' thread.
It seems my car continues to cause controversy, though I believe most of us accept it as an SEAC with a different body for some reason.
Just to confirm the points for some of you:-
It is listed in TVRCC records as
'TVR 420 SEAC, metallic black, modified windscreen aperture'. These are records taken from the factory files. I have been advised of this (along with the delivery information below) on three separate occassions.
The car is now yellow.
The car was supplied to The TVR Centre in August 1986 and supplied to it's first owner in September 1986. This was Oppenheimer Fund Management (now a part of CIBC - Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce) - so I presume it was a company car for a stockbroker or fund manager.
Details:-
Chassis number SA9DH35P3GB019494
Engine Number NCK 010
Body Code P422-0917
Whole Veh. Type Appr No. 05302T
Reg. No. D659 YLP
V5 description TVR 2 axle rigid body sports
Weight 1180 - 1200 kg
The V5 shows the car to have been new at first registration.
When I bought it the car had been rebuilt, and then repainted yellow, retrimmed, re-upholstered, recarpeted etc..
The car has different bodywork to that which is generally accepted as SEAC bodywork. The body would appear to be that of a 420 SE. In certain light there appears to be a 'rippley' effect, but I haven't done the check for kevlar inside the boot as I don't want to tear out the new boot lining.
I have been told that the car seems to have other differences.
That the car has different bodywork may be due to:-
a) The state of the body was so bad at time of purchase that it was changed and this body was put on it.
b) The purchaser specified this body.
c) The car has been crashed and had the body replaced - and this happend to be with a 390/420 SE body.
I do not know the definitive answer. There was a comment some moths ago that one member had seen a black SEAC body at The TVR Centre in late 1986 and bought part of it.
I have been told by a previous purchaser that the car was used by the factory for a while and modified by the factory. Somewhere in the back of my mind there is the thought that the factory fitted the larger engine. Also there have been suggestions that the car has actually been crashed; initially thought possibly to be whilst in the factory's hands, and an 'argument with a bus-stop' followed sometime later. The truth about the crashes is not known, but I am not unhappy at the thought that the car may have been crashed and had the body replaced. So be it.
The car has had the current bodywork, I believe since at least as early as 1990; if it has been changed at all.
The search for information via setting up the '390 SE Kevlar racers' thread followed on from rev-erend (Alan) finding an article about 390 SE Kevlar racers in a November issue of Fast Lane magazine. He suggested that my car might be one of the two cars written about, or derived from or related to them in some way. The article stated that the race cars were going to be produced in road car form and likely to be called 420 SEL (L = light). The Kevlar race cars had 390 bodywork and would therefore be the precursor to the SEAC, or maybe even the actual initial SEAC before the new styling. I suggested that the factory chose not to use the 420 SEL moniker because of the clash with Mercedes Benz. We know that the road-going SEAC was restyled to the body we all know and appreciate.
However, following a number of authoritative posts from people clearly 'in the know', it would seem that these cars were not Kevlar at all but just thin glassfibre. It seems that this may have been another case of 'pulling the wool over the eyes' (e.g. power outputs, performance figures etc.) on the part of the factory.
I am awaiting further information to see if that gives us any further clues. I may also make an effort to contact previous owners again where I have had no success in the past.
If any of you have any other information I would be pleased to hear from you. Perhaps you know someone who has worked at CIBC for many years. or know someone that had a metallic black/black TVR Wedge between 1986 and 1990.
As I have said - most people accept this car as an SEAC that has, for some reason, different bodywork. There have been a number of critics of the car, but sadly there appear to be a few that simply want to discedit it in some way for reasons related to their own ego. I have been most patient with all the comments over the last year, and I am sure I will continue to be so. However, I feel that spiteful remarks, and comments seemingly just for personal gain are unnecessary.
I welcome all your constructive comments, and any information or thoughts you may have. Maybe when we have all the information we can create a feature on this 'mystery' car and have it placed on the tvrwedgepages - with Mike Bressington's approval of course!
Thank you for your time.
firefox
redwedge5 said:
Talking about SEACs. In the 42 issue of Supercars there are photos of quite a few SEACs. Are these all still in circulation?
Metallic blue 420SEAC? F956 ***
Metallic silver 420SEAC E320 ***
White 420SEAC C98 ***
Red 450SEAC ?no, but big carb engine though.
The blue 450 is Duncans(nacnud)
Firefox, I can't help you in your search but do have some observations:-
You seem to be pursuing
two questions - is it a SEAC(or can I justify it?) and what is the cars history?
Also it does not appear to have a modified windscreen aperture.
This is the only real claim to it being a SEAC AFAIK. Do you know how much was paid for it new? IIRC 350 19K? 390 25K? SEAC 30+K? This info would probably end that debate.
IMHO I wouldn't hold out any hope there, I for one would be amazed if it was a Kevlar body. Normal fibreglass bodies distort over time.
Don't run with this one. Wedges were in full production at the time. People concerned about the finish of Kevlar bodies had fibreglass SEAC shape bodies. Also it does not explain the windscreen anomoly amongst others.
This doesn't make sense to me either because it does not explain the windscreen anomoly nor why he paid say 31K for a SEAC instead of 28K say for a 420SE with SEAC engine.
This would explain the windscreen and a second owner may not have been able to afford a SEAC body or may have come to a mutual benefit agreement with the ins co.
The trouble with the SEAC debate is that four things make up a SEAC IMHO:- different shape body, Kevlar body, SEAC engine, SEAC chassis and your car only has one of those. Traditionally the chassis determines the model but TVR don't help here because not all SEACs had what I would call SEAC chassis - see Tas's comments on the earlier thread. This means that we're into new ground and you make your own rules up.
The windscreen business is what I would follow up. Think about this carefully: the factory did something but what? What could they do? It does not appear to be there now (does it?) so who removed it and why. Why was it done in the first place? I think that if you could clear this up then you would have all of the other answers.
An article would be great if you uncorer anything more. Good luck.
You seem to be pursuing
two questions - is it a SEAC(or can I justify it?) and what is the cars history?
firefox1712 said:
It seems my car continues to cause controversy, though I believe most of us accept it as an SEAC with a different body for some reason.
Just to confirm the points for some of you:-
It is listed in TVRCC records as
'TVR 420 SEAC, metallic black, modified windscreen aperture'. These are records taken from the factory files. I have been advised of this (along with the delivery information below) on three separate occassions.
The car is now yellow.
Also it does not appear to have a modified windscreen aperture.
firefox1712 said:
Details:-
Engine Number NCK 010
This is the only real claim to it being a SEAC AFAIK. Do you know how much was paid for it new? IIRC 350 19K? 390 25K? SEAC 30+K? This info would probably end that debate.
firefox1712 said:
In certain light there appears to be a 'rippley' effect, but I haven't done the check for kevlar inside the boot as I don't want to tear out the new boot lining.
IMHO I wouldn't hold out any hope there, I for one would be amazed if it was a Kevlar body. Normal fibreglass bodies distort over time.
firefox1712 said:
That the car has different bodywork may be due to:-
a) The state of the body was so bad at time of purchase that it was changed and this body was put on it.
Don't run with this one. Wedges were in full production at the time. People concerned about the finish of Kevlar bodies had fibreglass SEAC shape bodies. Also it does not explain the windscreen anomoly amongst others.
firefox1712 said:
b) The purchaser specified this body.
This doesn't make sense to me either because it does not explain the windscreen anomoly nor why he paid say 31K for a SEAC instead of 28K say for a 420SE with SEAC engine.
firefox1712 said:
c) The car has been crashed and had the body replaced - and this happend to be with a 390/420 SE body.
This would explain the windscreen and a second owner may not have been able to afford a SEAC body or may have come to a mutual benefit agreement with the ins co.
firefox1712 said:
As I have said - most people accept this car as an SEAC that has, for some reason, different bodywork.
Maybe when we have all the information we can create a feature on this 'mystery' car and have it placed on the tvrwedgepages - with Mike Bressington's approval of course!
The trouble with the SEAC debate is that four things make up a SEAC IMHO:- different shape body, Kevlar body, SEAC engine, SEAC chassis and your car only has one of those. Traditionally the chassis determines the model but TVR don't help here because not all SEACs had what I would call SEAC chassis - see Tas's comments on the earlier thread. This means that we're into new ground and you make your own rules up.
The windscreen business is what I would follow up. Think about this carefully: the factory did something but what? What could they do? It does not appear to be there now (does it?) so who removed it and why. Why was it done in the first place? I think that if you could clear this up then you would have all of the other answers.
An article would be great if you uncorer anything more. Good luck.
Thanks for the comments so far.
The car was sold to me as a 420 SEAC.
If you recall, I entered into discussions with the vendors agents regarding the identity of the car pending possible legal action against him and/or criminal prosecution for deception.
I would not agree that I am trying to prove that it is an SEAC. But there seem to be some people who are trying desperately to prove that it is not an SEAC! I would draw your attention to the description of the car as issued by the factory when it was 'new' and delivered to The TVR Centre and ultimately to its first owner. If it was delivered initially with 'normal' SEAC bodywork then this has clearly been changed - reasons yet to be determined.
The reasons for the different bodywork as put forward in my initial post are those that were put to me early on in the discussions about the car.
In relation to the November 1985 article in Fast Lane, on the 390 SE 'Kevlar' racers, it is stated that the factory intend to produce a production version to be called SEL. It does not state that the car will be restyled. Whilst it was suggested to me that my car might be one of the racers, I have hypothesised that the car could be an interim car - an SEL before the restyling took place but in time for the name SEAC to be given to it. Please note - hypothesised.
This particular thought had not occurred to me prior to coming across that article.
There is clearly a need for further information on the car.
Please also note my remarks towards the bottom of my original post.
Thank you.
firefox
>> Edited by firefox1712 on Monday 27th September 04:39
>> Edited by firefox1712 on Monday 27th September 04:45
The car was sold to me as a 420 SEAC.
If you recall, I entered into discussions with the vendors agents regarding the identity of the car pending possible legal action against him and/or criminal prosecution for deception.
I would not agree that I am trying to prove that it is an SEAC. But there seem to be some people who are trying desperately to prove that it is not an SEAC! I would draw your attention to the description of the car as issued by the factory when it was 'new' and delivered to The TVR Centre and ultimately to its first owner. If it was delivered initially with 'normal' SEAC bodywork then this has clearly been changed - reasons yet to be determined.
The reasons for the different bodywork as put forward in my initial post are those that were put to me early on in the discussions about the car.
In relation to the November 1985 article in Fast Lane, on the 390 SE 'Kevlar' racers, it is stated that the factory intend to produce a production version to be called SEL. It does not state that the car will be restyled. Whilst it was suggested to me that my car might be one of the racers, I have hypothesised that the car could be an interim car - an SEL before the restyling took place but in time for the name SEAC to be given to it. Please note - hypothesised.
This particular thought had not occurred to me prior to coming across that article.
There is clearly a need for further information on the car.
Please also note my remarks towards the bottom of my original post.
Thank you.
firefox
>> Edited by firefox1712 on Monday 27th September 04:39
>> Edited by firefox1712 on Monday 27th September 04:45
firefox1712 said:
In relation to the November 1985 article in Fast Lane, on the 390 SE 'Kevlar' racers, it is stated that the factory intend to produce a production version to be called SEL. It does not state that the car will be restyled. Whilst it was suggested to me that my car might be one of the racers, I have hypothesised that the car could be an interim car - an SEL before the restyling took place but in time for the name SEAC to be given to it. Please note - hypothesised.
This particular thought had not occurred to me prior to coming across that article.
Gee, you're up late. Good idea but I wouldn't run with that one - it doesn't explain the windscreen and 19494 is a July 1986 chassis number IIRC. You have flushed out a lot of interesting info but I don't think that you have the reason for your car's anomolies yet. I think that it must be a one-off that has not yet been identified. If you send off to Swansea you will have a list of the original owners, or does that just give the bank's name? Don't the TVR Centre remember anything more or have the name of the original purchaser?
Are you going to Oulton?
J
Thanks Jonathan -
Have covered most of the points you mention already and aim to contact past owners at som time, when I get round to it.
As shown by a recent post on another thread, the factory did do odd things from time to time regarding when it sent cars out. In that post, I think a 1984 car turns out to be a 1979 car - or something like that!
Whilst there is a letter on file from TVR stating that the car is a 4.2 litre, there are also other letters from both TVR Engineering and The TVR Centre professing no knowledge of the car!
This would fit well with the story that the car was used by the factory for some time, and therefore not technically 'new' at the time of first registration. It also fits in well with the article on the 390 SE 'Kevlar' racers, where it is stated that the road cars will be 420 SEL and not 390 SEL because the bigger 4.2 engine will be fitted. Similarly the clear story that it had a special engine fitted by the factory. Also according to a recent mechanic (race engineer for Mika Hakkinen at McLaren F1) the car has (until I softened off the shocks a little) a full race set-up with fully adjustable suspension, though the front wishbones appear to be a proprietary item - Ford Cortina, I believe.
As there are tales of it being crashed, the body could have been changed as previously mentioned - but in the ownership of TVR or after it was sold? Could be either.
firefox
>> Edited by firefox1712 on Monday 27th September 09:15
Have covered most of the points you mention already and aim to contact past owners at som time, when I get round to it.
As shown by a recent post on another thread, the factory did do odd things from time to time regarding when it sent cars out. In that post, I think a 1984 car turns out to be a 1979 car - or something like that!
Whilst there is a letter on file from TVR stating that the car is a 4.2 litre, there are also other letters from both TVR Engineering and The TVR Centre professing no knowledge of the car!
This would fit well with the story that the car was used by the factory for some time, and therefore not technically 'new' at the time of first registration. It also fits in well with the article on the 390 SE 'Kevlar' racers, where it is stated that the road cars will be 420 SEL and not 390 SEL because the bigger 4.2 engine will be fitted. Similarly the clear story that it had a special engine fitted by the factory. Also according to a recent mechanic (race engineer for Mika Hakkinen at McLaren F1) the car has (until I softened off the shocks a little) a full race set-up with fully adjustable suspension, though the front wishbones appear to be a proprietary item - Ford Cortina, I believe.
As there are tales of it being crashed, the body could have been changed as previously mentioned - but in the ownership of TVR or after it was sold? Could be either.
firefox
>> Edited by firefox1712 on Monday 27th September 09:15
Mike B -
Thanks for your thoughts about putting the car on your site.
The only immediately useable photos are those at the time of purchase which show the car without the front bumper - plus a few others taken on a rainy day which I can't find on my hard drive at the moment.
Otherwise I have some high res ones which will take some time to upload/send and therefore some time for you to load onto the site.
I'll have a look and see what I can sort out. In the meantime, I am aiming to have some new photos done some time soon.
cheers!
JJ
Thanks for your thoughts about putting the car on your site.
The only immediately useable photos are those at the time of purchase which show the car without the front bumper - plus a few others taken on a rainy day which I can't find on my hard drive at the moment.
Otherwise I have some high res ones which will take some time to upload/send and therefore some time for you to load onto the site.
I'll have a look and see what I can sort out. In the meantime, I am aiming to have some new photos done some time soon.
cheers!
JJ
firefox1712 said:
Details:-
Engine Number NCK 010
Firefox - is this the engine number from the block or just from the plate on the inner wing ?
What does the V5 give for the engine number ?
Does it have the Jaguar AFM and if so is the engine number stamped on it (either under the holding bracket or on the circular output flange for the hose to the plenum) ?
The only reason I ask is that I would have thought NCK10 was very early for a 4.2 and that this engine would have been a 3.9 for an early 390SE or possibly a 4.2 in a 420SE, but not a 4.2 for a SEAC ?
The bible gives production figures of 5 in 84 and 13 in 85 for the 390/420SE. If NCK built all the engines then this would mean they would be up to 18 by 86 when they produced the SEAC's and this seems to be borne out by the 4.2 SEAC's I have seen as NCK 30 is in one of the earliest. If the engine in the car is an 85 to 4.2 then I would say this confirms you have a 420 SE.
Maybe NCK (TVR Power) have records and can confirm the engine spec. Was there a difference in the 4.2 spec between the SE and the SEAC ?
Should we have a post your NCK no here forum ?
(I have an 89 450 no 130 or 135, depending upon which number you take !).
chunder said:
Should we have a post your NCK no here forum ?
(I have an 89 450 no 130 or 135, depending upon which number you take !).
I have NCK045, definnitely a 3905, car registered Sept. 87.
I'd have to agree that no. 10 'seems' a bit early for a 4.2, unless NCK were getting jiggy with their engine work already by that time. You'd think they'd have got the 3.9 sussed before they went even larger... only a bore/stroke check could tell.
More trawling through the archives:
Tim Lamont:
"The 390Se had the 3.9 lump, cars with the 4.2 were badged as 420SE, engine as per SEAC with posibly a slightly softer cam."
What Tim says makes sense but the 420SE badging came late so there are a few early 390s with 4.2 litre engines. Look very closely at the front indicator lenses, 350/390 body shells have the renault diamond cast in.
Tim Lamont:
"The 390Se had the 3.9 lump, cars with the 4.2 were badged as 420SE, engine as per SEAC with posibly a slightly softer cam."
What Tim says makes sense but the 420SE badging came late so there are a few early 390s with 4.2 litre engines. Look very closely at the front indicator lenses, 350/390 body shells have the renault diamond cast in.
Gassing Station | Wedges | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff