By on September 3, 2019

Recently, Rare Rides featured its first-ever TVR, a wedge from the decade or so where all of TVR’s offerings were variations on the same doorstop shape. The 2500M predated wedge design and thus maintained a more traditional British roadster shape. In Part I of this two-part series, we’ll cover the humble beginnings of TVR’s M Series cars.

Leading into the 1970s, TVR suffered from a lean model lineup. The company offered just two models: An entry-level Vixen powered by inline-four and six-cylinder engines and, for customers desiring more power, there were V6 and V8 coupes nearly identical to the Vixen called Tuscan.

Realizing both cars needed replacement, the company’s management set to work on a new offering. Sort of. The format of the new TVR would be the same as all the others: Front-engine, rear-drive, and in either roadster or coupe format. Using fiberglass and a body-on-frame construction, the new car shared its chassis with the outgoing Vixen and Tuscan. Body shells were reworked and lengthened in profile compared to the stumpy outgoing designs.

The new “M Series” entered production in 1972. First of the bunch was the 2500M, which utilized a 2.5-liter inline-six borrowed from Triumph. It was joined at various times by the 1600M (Ford Kent 1.6 I4, from Fiesta) and the 3000M (Ford Essex 3.0 V6). Between 1972 and 1979, TVR made many changes, adjustments, and variations to its builds. Often, M Series cars were completed with whichever components fell easily to hand, so among the same series of cars mechanical and trim components could vary. Late in production there was also a 3000S — similar to a 3000M, but available only in convertible form. More on that next time.

Given the importance of the United States to TVR’s balance sheet, the choice to use a Triumph inline-six for the 2500M was an easy one. That engine came straight from the TR6, and had already been certified under U.S. emissions regulations. Though the 2500M remained on sale in the U.S. market, it was dropped in the UK by 1973 as the V6 3000M had much better performance. Due to the design of the 2500M, the TR6 engine would overheat at high revs or in traffic situations. Vents along the fenders were supposed to help cool the engine, but proved ineffective. So TVR said “Eh, whatever,” and eliminated them.

Despite being a bit hot under the collar, the fortunes of TVR’s M were going fairly well. But semi-smooth sailing didn’t last long. In Part II, we’ll learn about the variety of factors which converged from multiple angles to end the M Series cars.

[Images: seller]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

5 Comments on “Rare Rides: The 1977 TVR 2500M, Continuing a Theme (Part I)...”


  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    When the Golden Mile in Scarboro (eastern suburb of the GTA) was truly ‘golden’ in the late 1970’s with over 20,000 well paying blue collar manufacturing jobs (most unionized) and car dealerships representing nearly every manufacturer, there was actually a TVR dealership in the north side, west of Warden.

    I think that it was around for over a decade.

    There is now a TVR specialist/dealer on Lawrence East, which is the next major east-west road in that neighbourhood.

  • avatar
    mwgillespie

    Wow, Arthur, you’re giving me flashbacks. Bill Davis. David Crombie. Hazel McCallion. Toronto the Good!

    Long gone, for better or worse…

  • avatar
    conundrum

    Nice opening summary.

    Wouldn’t have ever used the Valencia 1.6l Fiesta engine – that was a special shortened block made for transverse use with a different cylinder head. Only available for 1977 and later, made for North America only. Why bother changing it over from FWD when you could buy a regular 1.6 Kent made for north-south use for less money and more power? That’s what they did – but most people wanted a lot more power, which is what the Essex 3.0 V6 gave. A different engine from the week-kneed Cologne V6.

    https://motor-car.net/ford-engines/item/16095-kent-valencia-engine

    With bigger engines, TVR’s were hairy beasts with challenging at the limit handling. As time went on they got even hairier and more challenging still. Then when they designed their own inline six and V8, they were completely OTT. CAR Magazine in the UK were the lead cheerers for this brand and followed its travails through the years, and its rep for snap oversteer.

    Didn’t know about the Triumph 6 in them – they were a bit niche were TVR. As used in the UK, the 6 had mechanical petrol injection (Lucas, argh) and supposedly 150 horses, which was a huge overstatement, ours had, what, 104 wheezy malaise-era horsepups and didn’t rev. Not much joy with that engine in a TVR!

  • avatar
    ToddAtlasF1

    I saw a really nice Triumph GT6 in traffic yesterday, which is something of a relative to this car. I think the hairiest TVRs of them all were the Griffith 400s assembled by a New York car dealer during the ’60s.

  • avatar
    Flipper35

    The Cerbera Speed 12 would have been hairy too. the one street legal car was tested by a Euro mag. “We had issues with wheel spin at 150mph”.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • 3800FAN: Ok you hate the ridgeline…dont buy one. Be happy a company is willing to roll the dice and invest...
  • Jeff Semenak: A used Checker Marathon with slant 6 – Auto combo would last a millennium ; maybe longer.
  • Brett Woods: Ugh. That whole exchange of taunts was gross. Clearly the capsule Musk’s team built would have...
  • ToolGuy: I suspect that Toyota will exit the automotive business soon – because Ford is unbeatable. True fact:...
  • ToolGuy: Over half (54% – see link below) of the people buying a Ford are trading in [coming from] a Ford. The...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States