Discussion
Claire -
After initially being owned by a Bank/Stockbroker (Oppenheimer International)in London, presumably as a company car for an employee, Firefox then spent some time in the North West - firstly in Altrincham in Cheshire and then in Castleton, Rochdale, Lancashire.
The car then stayed with the next Cheshire owner from 1990 to 2003, and it is believed it had the same bodywork during this period.
The first reference to the car being labelled as a 420 SE comes in June 1988 - so presumably any change of body would have taken place between first registration in September 1986 and June 1988 when it would appear the car was still in the London area or down south, unless the employee was relocated to the Manchester area or the Altrincham purchaser acquired it from a southern location.
JJ
After initially being owned by a Bank/Stockbroker (Oppenheimer International)in London, presumably as a company car for an employee, Firefox then spent some time in the North West - firstly in Altrincham in Cheshire and then in Castleton, Rochdale, Lancashire.
The car then stayed with the next Cheshire owner from 1990 to 2003, and it is believed it had the same bodywork during this period.
The first reference to the car being labelled as a 420 SE comes in June 1988 - so presumably any change of body would have taken place between first registration in September 1986 and June 1988 when it would appear the car was still in the London area or down south, unless the employee was relocated to the Manchester area or the Altrincham purchaser acquired it from a southern location.
JJ
I've been watching this thread for a while now, and I've spoken to some of you guys out there about this. (you know who you are!) FF, your car certainly engenders much debate amongst the wedge fraternity!
At the risk of flinging the cat in the general direction of pigeons can I make a couple of observations?
FF has a wedge and it's a nice yellow one. Thats fine.
FF would like it to be a SEAC. Thats fine too.
FF would like everyone else to accept it as a SEAC. Thats a bit of a problem.
During my canvassing of opinion the majority of views expressed to me have been along the following lines:
For it to be a true SEAC it should have a number of unique SEAC features:
1, A rose jointed or part rose jointed or otherwise modified chassis over standard wedge - and it doesn't seem as if FFs car has this (unless I've missed something?)
2, A SEAC shaped body (kevlar or otherwise, part or full ) - and it doesn't seem to have this
3, A SEAC mechanical configuration. - It appears that FFs car may have a SEAC engine, or at the very least a 420 lump of some sort.
Now for me personally, it matters not if the car started life as a SEAC or not. It's what it is now that counts, and to be candid, looking at whats parked on the road now it doesn't seem to have full SEAC credentials any more. (Sorry FF, not trying to be contentious here, just honest)
Maybe it had an accident, and got a new body/chassis. Maybe it was a 390 that got given a SEAC engine at some point. I don't know why it is the way it is and neither does anyone else here by the looks of it.
Even if it was a SEAC or prototype SEAC when new, if it's had a new (non SEAC) chassis and a new (non SEAC) body, can it really still be called a SEAC?
FF old fruit, why not just accept that you've got a wedge, a very nice wedge, and one with a stonking 4.2 lump in it? You are a member of an exclusive "good taste" club! SEAC or not, lets move on?
Best regards
Andy
At the risk of flinging the cat in the general direction of pigeons can I make a couple of observations?
FF has a wedge and it's a nice yellow one. Thats fine.
FF would like it to be a SEAC. Thats fine too.
FF would like everyone else to accept it as a SEAC. Thats a bit of a problem.
During my canvassing of opinion the majority of views expressed to me have been along the following lines:
For it to be a true SEAC it should have a number of unique SEAC features:
1, A rose jointed or part rose jointed or otherwise modified chassis over standard wedge - and it doesn't seem as if FFs car has this (unless I've missed something?)
2, A SEAC shaped body (kevlar or otherwise, part or full ) - and it doesn't seem to have this
3, A SEAC mechanical configuration. - It appears that FFs car may have a SEAC engine, or at the very least a 420 lump of some sort.
Now for me personally, it matters not if the car started life as a SEAC or not. It's what it is now that counts, and to be candid, looking at whats parked on the road now it doesn't seem to have full SEAC credentials any more. (Sorry FF, not trying to be contentious here, just honest)
Maybe it had an accident, and got a new body/chassis. Maybe it was a 390 that got given a SEAC engine at some point. I don't know why it is the way it is and neither does anyone else here by the looks of it.
Even if it was a SEAC or prototype SEAC when new, if it's had a new (non SEAC) chassis and a new (non SEAC) body, can it really still be called a SEAC?
FF old fruit, why not just accept that you've got a wedge, a very nice wedge, and one with a stonking 4.2 lump in it? You are a member of an exclusive "good taste" club! SEAC or not, lets move on?
Best regards
Andy
Andy -
Thank you for your observations.
I cannot agree with you that I want it to be an SEAC. I have always said that I will accept the car for whatever it is. It was sold to me as an SEAC, with the previous owner seemingly believeing thatit was an SEAC. It was labelled 420 SE, and I can only assume that he made the same enquiries that I have, and been told that it was listed in TVR and TVRCC records as a 420 SEAC. Because of this listing, legal eagles may say that the car is legally speaking a 420 SEAC.
We know that in the 20's and 30's Rolls Royces (and other cars) were given bodies thzat were later changed for some reason - desire, new purpose, deterioration, or downright rot. However, a RR 20HP remains a RR 20HP even if the body has been changed.
I have been lucky to have had a number of lovely girlfriends who, for some obscure reason, changed their appearance by way of hair styling, or the way they dressed, make-up etc.. But I knew of course that they were the same beautiful girls that I knew all along - prior to the changes!
As the car is recorded as a 420 SEAC when it left the factory I have been happy to accept it as a 420 SEAC that has a different body (non-SEAC) for some reason. A number of others accept it as such. There seems to be a vociferous few who, because it does not have SEAC bodywork for whatever reason, seek desperately to declaim it as one, even though the records say SEAC.
This is really what has caused the problem.
The car does have adjustable suspension, though the bottom wishbones at the front are a proprietary item - Ford Cortina/Sierra I presume. It also has the NCK engine which people seem to say is one of the characteristics of the SEAC. Also, it has been well shown that the 6 (or is it 4 only) early (pre-production?) SEACs did not have the rose jointed suspension.
Many ideas have been put forward as to why the car is different. It could be derived from the 390 'Kevlar' racers. It might be some sort of development or pre - production car. The favourite would appear to be that the car left the factory as one of the early 6 (4?) SEACs and then at some time was crashed with the result that a 420 SE body was put on it.
Information given to me says the car was used by the factory and modified by the factory. There is also tell of a crash, believed to be by the factory, and then a later incident with a bus stop. Now this could be a plain old ordinary bus stop where we wait for a bus (which is more likely) - but just thinking expansively - could it be the Bus Stop at Spa?
Just looking carefully at some of the documents relating to the car this morning, I note that the V55/3 - Application for a Licence for a New Motor Vehicle and Declaration for Registration - shows the car to be:
TVR
Tasmin
Sports Drophead
2 Axle rigid body
Metallic Black
Ch. No. SA9DH35P3GB019494
Eng. No. NCK 010
cc 3498 (later corrected)
Kg 1056
There are some other handwritten remarks which may relate to the car being used before registration that I am looking into.
So where does this weight of 1056 Kg fit in with SEACs?
Whilst I think it is probably best, and most logical, to accept the car as an SEAC with different bodywork (probably due to a crash), finding out real facts about the car could still be useful.
cheers!
JJ
Thank you for your observations.
I cannot agree with you that I want it to be an SEAC. I have always said that I will accept the car for whatever it is. It was sold to me as an SEAC, with the previous owner seemingly believeing thatit was an SEAC. It was labelled 420 SE, and I can only assume that he made the same enquiries that I have, and been told that it was listed in TVR and TVRCC records as a 420 SEAC. Because of this listing, legal eagles may say that the car is legally speaking a 420 SEAC.
We know that in the 20's and 30's Rolls Royces (and other cars) were given bodies thzat were later changed for some reason - desire, new purpose, deterioration, or downright rot. However, a RR 20HP remains a RR 20HP even if the body has been changed.
I have been lucky to have had a number of lovely girlfriends who, for some obscure reason, changed their appearance by way of hair styling, or the way they dressed, make-up etc.. But I knew of course that they were the same beautiful girls that I knew all along - prior to the changes!
As the car is recorded as a 420 SEAC when it left the factory I have been happy to accept it as a 420 SEAC that has a different body (non-SEAC) for some reason. A number of others accept it as such. There seems to be a vociferous few who, because it does not have SEAC bodywork for whatever reason, seek desperately to declaim it as one, even though the records say SEAC.
This is really what has caused the problem.
The car does have adjustable suspension, though the bottom wishbones at the front are a proprietary item - Ford Cortina/Sierra I presume. It also has the NCK engine which people seem to say is one of the characteristics of the SEAC. Also, it has been well shown that the 6 (or is it 4 only) early (pre-production?) SEACs did not have the rose jointed suspension.
Many ideas have been put forward as to why the car is different. It could be derived from the 390 'Kevlar' racers. It might be some sort of development or pre - production car. The favourite would appear to be that the car left the factory as one of the early 6 (4?) SEACs and then at some time was crashed with the result that a 420 SE body was put on it.
Information given to me says the car was used by the factory and modified by the factory. There is also tell of a crash, believed to be by the factory, and then a later incident with a bus stop. Now this could be a plain old ordinary bus stop where we wait for a bus (which is more likely) - but just thinking expansively - could it be the Bus Stop at Spa?
Just looking carefully at some of the documents relating to the car this morning, I note that the V55/3 - Application for a Licence for a New Motor Vehicle and Declaration for Registration - shows the car to be:
TVR
Tasmin
Sports Drophead
2 Axle rigid body
Metallic Black
Ch. No. SA9DH35P3GB019494
Eng. No. NCK 010
cc 3498 (later corrected)
Kg 1056
There are some other handwritten remarks which may relate to the car being used before registration that I am looking into.
So where does this weight of 1056 Kg fit in with SEACs?
Whilst I think it is probably best, and most logical, to accept the car as an SEAC with different bodywork (probably due to a crash), finding out real facts about the car could still be useful.
cheers!
JJ
Hi FF. Not much this time but
This is a weak point in your case. A pre-war RR would have been called a 20hp Mulliner Saloon for example. Rebodied it may have become a 20hp Cross and Ellis DHC; thus your car rebodied would become a 420 SE. In answer to your earlier question, I have an Alvis TA14 Mulliner Saloon.
The adjustable part that was unique to SEACs is the rose jointing.
Yes, Mk3, 4, or 5.
IIRC there are a lot more than that without the RR suspension.
Quite well IMHO, 350s are a bit heavier.
Jonathan
firefox1712 said:
We know that in the 20's and 30's Rolls Royces (and other cars) were given bodies that were later changed for some reason - desire, new purpose, deterioration, or downright rot. However, a RR 20HP remains a RR 20HP even if the body has been changed.
This is a weak point in your case. A pre-war RR would have been called a 20hp Mulliner Saloon for example. Rebodied it may have become a 20hp Cross and Ellis DHC; thus your car rebodied would become a 420 SE. In answer to your earlier question, I have an Alvis TA14 Mulliner Saloon.
firefox1712 said:
The car does have adjustable suspension
The adjustable part that was unique to SEACs is the rose jointing.
firefox1712 said:
The bottom wishbones at the front are a proprietary item - Ford Cortina
Yes, Mk3, 4, or 5.
firefox1712 said:
Also, it has been well shown that the 6 (or is it 4 only) early (pre-production?) SEACs did not have the rose jointed suspension.
IIRC there are a lot more than that without the RR suspension.
firefox1712 said:
So where does this weight of 1056 Kg fit in with SEACs?
Quite well IMHO, 350s are a bit heavier.
Jonathan
My teenage son Tim is a confirmed wedge and TVR fan. He's been following this post. He's also now bigger than me and has forced me to post this 
. He's also seen FF's car.
Fun post, but he thinks it's quite simple really. FF's wedge doesn't look like a SEAC so it's not a SEAC. No messing!
Are the frankness of youth
. What do I know!
. He's also seen FF's car. Fun post, but he thinks it's quite simple really. FF's wedge doesn't look like a SEAC so it's not a SEAC. No messing!
Are the frankness of youth
. What do I know! redwedge5 said:
My teenage son Tim is a confirmed wedge and TVR fan. He's been following this post. He's also now bigger than me and has forced me to post this
Fun post, but he thinks it's quite simple really. FF's wedge doesn't look like a SEAC so it's not a SEAC. No messing!
Are the frankness of youth
I think this is spot on. Its a case of what it is now that matters and it isn't a seac anymore even if it was originally which we can't seem say for sure either way, interesating to watch it unfold though.
If I was to put a Griff body on my Chimaera what is it now? Same car underneath essentially. Most people would say its a Griff if they saw it I would imagine.
Chassis wise it sounds the same as my 350i body wise from what I remember from the original posts about it looked to be some where between a 350 and a 390 with a seac spoiler no front bumper.
If the engine is a 4.2 then its still a pretty special wedge.
If it was mine I'd get an expert to have a look at the engine to find out what spec it was, I understand (but may be wrong) the seac ones had some special parts in them.
What does the guy who restored it say about it? what were his reasons for rebadging it as a seac, might he have been looking into making it a seac replica but had trouble getting the new bodywork?
What does the HPI report say, If its been rebodied it must be recorded?
Seems bizarre that a Bank would buy a rebodied test car as new, very understanding fleet manager, but I suppose if it was for a director they may get away with it.
Personally I don't think it matters what it was unless your going to restore the bodywork and possibly the chassis back to being original seac.
All this is my personal opinion, I accept I'm bringing nothing new to this, I'm not trying to upset anyone, nor do I have any agenda, this is a discussion forum isnt it.
GF.
>> Edited by gf350 on Friday 8th October 21:43
gf350 said:
If I were to put a Griff body on my Chimaera what is it now? Same car underneath essentially. Most people would say its a Griff if they saw it I would imagine.
I'm not trying to upset anyone, nor do I have any agenda, this is a discussion forum isnt it.
Fair enough but IMHO a closer comparison would be if you put your 350 engine in in the Chimp would it then be a 350i? Different body, different suspension, but the same engine as a 350; now if I also had a letter from the factory...
Only a wild theory so I'm off for some
19560 said:
If I were to put a Griff body on my Chimaera what is it now? Same car underneath essentially. Most people would say its a Griff if they saw it I would imagine.
I'm not trying to upset anyone, nor do I have any agenda, this is a discussion forum isnt it.
Fair enough but IMHO a closer comparison would be if you put your 350 engine in in the Chimp would it then be a 350i? Different body, different suspension, but the same engine as a 350; now if I also had a letter from the factory...
Only a wild theory so I'm off for some
Good piont, I see where you are comming from, I'd call that a chimaera 350. Put it this way, If I put the 350i body on the chimaera I wouldn't stick a chimaera badge on it anymore personally.
GF.
not seen no Tivs yet 
Wedgers -
It could be said that I am getting a little weary of this, but I shall remain patient.
I only started this thread because the controversy was re-started with thoughts about a connection with the 390 'Kevlar' racers and the resultant thread on that subject; prompted by the article on those cars in the November 1985 issue of Fast Lane magazine.
As some contributors to that thread were making further comments about Firefox, I felt it might be worthwhile starting this thread to see if more information - facts - could be gained.
The facts are that the TVR factory information states that the car is a 420 SEAC. We do not know if the car left the factory with the SEAC body or the body it has now - but we presume the body was changed due to crash damage.
If the car left the factory identified as a 420 SEAC and had a different (420 SE) body fitted later then the car is technically a 420 SEAC with a 420 SE body. I have always been happy to accept the car as 'the odd one out', and most people seem, until recently, to have been happy to accept the car as being a 420 SEAC with diferent (non-SEAC) bodywork.
The legal position would be that which is based on fact. I know what the legal identity of the car is, but I cannot state it on a public forum for fear of jeapordising any legal action or criminal action against the seller for misdescription, deception, and/or fraud that I may wish to pursue.
As mentioned above, there are some people who appear to be busting a gut to prove it is NOT an SEAC, and they seem to be quite happy to twist perceptions and interpretations that have been held true and understood for decades in the motoring world to suit their own ends.
I continue to be interested in hearing any further information about the car. Factual information only can take us to the final conclusion as to the identity of the car.
I look forward to hearing further information.
Thank you.
firefox.
It could be said that I am getting a little weary of this, but I shall remain patient.
I only started this thread because the controversy was re-started with thoughts about a connection with the 390 'Kevlar' racers and the resultant thread on that subject; prompted by the article on those cars in the November 1985 issue of Fast Lane magazine.
As some contributors to that thread were making further comments about Firefox, I felt it might be worthwhile starting this thread to see if more information - facts - could be gained.
The facts are that the TVR factory information states that the car is a 420 SEAC. We do not know if the car left the factory with the SEAC body or the body it has now - but we presume the body was changed due to crash damage.
If the car left the factory identified as a 420 SEAC and had a different (420 SE) body fitted later then the car is technically a 420 SEAC with a 420 SE body. I have always been happy to accept the car as 'the odd one out', and most people seem, until recently, to have been happy to accept the car as being a 420 SEAC with diferent (non-SEAC) bodywork.
The legal position would be that which is based on fact. I know what the legal identity of the car is, but I cannot state it on a public forum for fear of jeapordising any legal action or criminal action against the seller for misdescription, deception, and/or fraud that I may wish to pursue.
As mentioned above, there are some people who appear to be busting a gut to prove it is NOT an SEAC, and they seem to be quite happy to twist perceptions and interpretations that have been held true and understood for decades in the motoring world to suit their own ends.
I continue to be interested in hearing any further information about the car. Factual information only can take us to the final conclusion as to the identity of the car.
I look forward to hearing further information.
Thank you.
firefox.
Claire -
Thank you for your post.
I tried to email you but without success. I'll see if I can paste that email here:-
Hello Claire -
Thank you for your submission to the thread.
As your father is one of the old stagers at TVR I wonder whether he might be able to canvass information from one or two of the others who have been there many years regarding 'Firefox'. Of course he might know something about the car himself.
Specification and numbers is as shown on the thread.
I would be most grateful for your help.
cheers!
JJ.
That seemed to work - hope to hear from you.
JJ
Thank you for your post.
I tried to email you but without success. I'll see if I can paste that email here:-
Hello Claire -
Thank you for your submission to the thread.
As your father is one of the old stagers at TVR I wonder whether he might be able to canvass information from one or two of the others who have been there many years regarding 'Firefox'. Of course he might know something about the car himself.
Specification and numbers is as shown on the thread.
I would be most grateful for your help.
cheers!
JJ.
That seemed to work - hope to hear from you.
JJ
Gassing Station | Wedges | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff