TVR Griffiths 200/400 and their Chassis Numbers

[Peter Mallett]

I recall brushpainting a mate's Anglia that colour, once. Refused to do it again.

[Puur]

Hi All!

This is my first post here, but hopefully not the last!

My name is Måns, and this weekend I picked up a Griffith 400 from a shed in southern Sweden.

I think it is Griffith 400 number 21 and it was first registered 1965 as DFR 157C. I will check the chassis number later to make shure.

1966 the TVR-factory with new owner Martin Lilley registered it to a 1966 Tuscan V8 Short Wheelbase.

And somewhere around this time the car was used for different types of racing like autocross e.t.c. by a guy I think was called Mike Day(Michael Day?).

1971 a swede visited UK to buy a fast sportscar, and choosed between a Ford GT40 and this Griffith. He choose the Griffith. Back in Sweden the Griff' was used as a sportscar on public roads and also continued it's racing career as a ice racing car on frozen lakes. The big ice-spikes on the tires shredded the rear wheel arches, as can be seen in the images below.

1984 was the last year it was used in traffic, and due to many winters with ice racing the car was dismantled 1988 in order to restore it. One year later restoration came to a halt and in 1989 the bits and pieces was placed in the shed.

Since the owner had fun with the car for so many good years, he still had hope to someday restore his darling to its former glory. But earlier this year, he sold it to my dad, who in turn sold it to me since he just recently got his hands on a Tuscan V8 in perfect condition.

My dad is a friend with the previous owner, both are members of the Swedish TVR Car Club since the late seventies. So we will interview him to get all details of the cars history, so there will be more info to come.

And the extraordinary thing is that the car is complete. Every single bolt and nut! I got two chassis/frames for it, the original one, which probably is beyond repair, and a new(from the mid eighties) after market chassis, which will be the one I will use. Even the wooden parts of the interior is in good condition despite 22 years in a shed...

Due to a con rod failure in the seventies the original engine was replaced with a 289 race engine from a factory race Ford Mustang. The original blown up engine still exists and will be collected in a couple of weeks. The gearbox is a T10, which as far as I know a close ratio.

My plan with this car is to restore it close to original shape, as it were when it left the factory. Which means Racing Green paintjob, wire wheels etc. The only modifications will be small racing related changes like better shocks/springs etc, plus FIA approved roll cage, driver seat and harness. And get FIA-papers and start racing historically in Sweden.

[Puur]

Originally Posted by Puur

I think it is Griffith 400 number 21 and it was first registered 1965 as DFR 157C. I will check the chassis number later to make shure.

I was wrong in the time of writing the post above, this is car number 20, NOT 21. Sorry for any confusion.

And we also have found an old poster with this actual car driven by Autocross Champion Mike Day.

And we also has found a picture from when Warren Allport from Autocar was testing this car early in 1965, from the book "The TVR's" by Graham Robson.

[jellison]

Cool Post Puur.

Good luck with the rebuild (mine was in a similar state when I got it).

Keep us posted

[griffith200]

Hi all,
This is regarding the subject Griffith. I am aware of this car and it is apparently chassis 200/GB5/020, owned by Jorgen Kongstad in Sweden. It is NOT a Series 400 but one of the 40-plus British Series 200s.
The body was that of the Series 400 Kamm-tail design but was numbered at the factory as Series 200 cars.
I am glad to hear that it will once again be on the road again. I would hope that Måns will get in touch with me so that we can continue to keep this car and its history active in the registry.
Cheers,
Mike

[Puur]

Originally Posted by jellison

Cool Post Puur.

Good luck with the rebuild (mine was in a similar state when I got it).

Keep us posted

Thanks! I will start the rebuild this winter. I'll keep you guys posted!

Originally Posted by griffith200

Hi all,
This is regarding the subject Griffith. I am aware of this car and it is apparently chassis 200/GB5/020, owned by Jorgen Kongstad in Sweden. It is NOT a Series 400 but one of the 40-plus British Series 200s.
The body was that of the Series 400 Kamm-tail design but was numbered at the factory as Series 200 cars.
I am glad to hear that it will once again be on the road again. I would hope that Måns will get in touch with me so that we can continue to keep this car and its history active in the registry.
Cheers,
Mike

Hi Mike! You are right about the number and previous owner Jörgen who had the car for 40 years. I'll send you an email regarding your comment about it being a Griffith 200.

[mark garritt]

DRT643C is back on the market minus its ID by the looks of it (racecars direct.com), I'm guessing we’ll see another brand new car with the ID borrowed from a quite famous car!

I think this probably makes Simon Garrad's the only original car with current HTP papers?

[Heightswitch]

seems a bit peculiar selling a car such as DRT without the log book. Also being that it can be very easily demonstrated to be DRT I would think somewhat illegal??

N.

[terence]

Originally Posted by Heightswitch

seems a bit peculiar selling a car such as DRT without the log book. Also being that it can be very easily demonstrated to be DRT I would think somewhat illegal??

N.

By a few people not a million miles away.
Interesting to note the asking price,are Griff's going out of favour? I wonder it only did 'one qualifying session'?

[mark garritt]

Originally Posted by terence bower

By a few people not a million miles away.
Interesting to note the asking price,are Griff's going out of favour? I wonder it only did 'one qualifying session'?

I believe a new car has been built so the ID will transfer along with the history etc.

I wonder how long it is before the scrutineers etc pick up the fact everyone's running new cars.

As you say, DRT is too well known to have two versions in existence. The guy that now owns it is a really nice chap, I think he’s been given very poor advice, I think he’s probably now devalued the old and the new car.

Looking at the advert for what was DRT, they've changed it quite a bit too. I suspect some of it finding it's way to the new car.

[terence]

[QUOTE=mark garritt;3009710]I believe a new car has been built so the ID will transfer along with the history etc.

I wonder how long it is before the scrutineers etc pick up the fact everyone's running new cars.[Quote]


Well,its not before time,this practice has been going on for several years!

[simon drabble]

a skein of Mongoose...

[John Turner]

Nothing much wrong with building a new car as such, but passing the identity of a car with a known history over to it is plainly an unhappy outcome, especially since the original car exists and is denied its identity. As Mark says, both cars will now be tainted and lose value.

I love these cars and I started this thread years ago, but they are an absolute minefield, and I suspect one of the most difficult cars for us to ever compile a sensible, let alone accurate, chassis history for due to all the mods, replicas and also the secrecy about some of them - how hard has it been to get chassis nos out of some owners.

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by John Turner

Nothing much wrong with building a new car as such, but passing the identity of a car with a known history over to it is plainly an unhappy outcome, especially since the original car exists and is denied its identity.

Regardless of the car make or model, I find that very disappointing- for want of a better word.

[Peter Mallett]

Strictly speaking it is fraud. Replicas, continuations etc. are ok in this respect but passing a "clone" off as the original is fraud.

Just to be clear, where a car has been crashed or severely damaged and major componentry is replaced, but the car still remains as registered, even if it doesn't possess all of its original parts, it can still be called the original car. But if it has been taken apart then bits shared between two other cars, then neither can be called the original. In my opinion.

[simon drabble]

guys let's be careful when banding words like that around as we do not know all the facts.....

[Peter Mallett]

Lol, Simon would you like me to quote the Theft Act? It is available for anyone to read. Try thinking fake paintings. Although your point is valid. Of course it only applies if the car is being sold as the original without the explanation that it is a copy/bitsa built up from parts of the original. Of course I am commenting on the content of the posts above not the character of the vendor nor indeed the adverts themselves.

BTW, if this is the advert: http://www.racecarsdirect.com/listin..._for_sale.html then there's nothing to suggest that this is anything other than a restoration/rebuild.

[MGDavid]

as a matter of course I always ignore ads that say things like 'make great track day car' - what sort of seller needs to say that?
Ad is amazingly light on detail for such an iconic model, presumably doesn't have papers, but by careful wording manages to mention Spa 6 hrs

[Peter Mallett]

Irrespective of what it is eligible for, let's not forget it is a great car.

[terence]

Originally Posted by John Turner

Nothing much wrong with building a new car as such, but passing the identity of a car with a known history over to it is plainly an unhappy outcome, especially since the original car exists and is denied its identity. As Mark says, both cars will now be tainted and lose value.

I love these cars and I started this thread years ago, but they are an absolute minefield, and I suspect one of the most difficult cars for us to ever compile a sensible, let alone accurate, chassis history for due to all the mods, replicas and also the secrecy about some of them - how hard has it been to get chassis nos out of some owners.

Quite possibly because they dont want them appearing on other cars John?
As this car was the second Griffith to have won the six hour back when JW owned it,[in its original state]it looks as though that history has been torn from the car,I hope that some of the original still remains.[I put a lot of bloody hard work into it! LoL]

[LAK]

On a more positive note re Griffs, Jason (with the brilliant help and support of Zef - thank you) has rebuilt the engine of ours and we hope to have it back on track sometime this year. Not sure when as we have a huge amount of other commitments (50s, HRDC etc) but may be a race with Bernie and/or CSCC. Can't wait for the beast to breath again! Jason's planning an MOT soon then a run in - our cars must always be road legal and this one's been SORNd for far too long. Should I warn the good folk of Guildford before we venture out...?

[terence]

If you'r going to be driving,I think it only polite to do so Louise.Right,I'm off now.LoL

[mark garritt]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Lol, Simon would you like me to quote the Theft Act? It is available for anyone to read. Try thinking fake paintings. Although your point is valid. Of course it only applies if the car is being sold as the original without the explanation that it is a copy/bitsa built up from parts of the original. Of course I am commenting on the content of the posts above not the character of the vendor nor indeed the adverts themselves.

BTW, if this is the advert: http://www.racecarsdirect.com/listin..._for_sale.html then there's nothing to suggest that this is anything other than a restoration/rebuild.

You're quite right, and we're speculating as we've not seen the 'new' yellow DRT with FIA papers etc hit the track yet!

[mark garritt]

What seems reasonable? Should a specialist builder who's quite vocal about cars available on the market, but then builds new cars and passes them off as originals be praised for keeping the brand alive, or exposed as a fraud? I believe the problem with this practice is people will invest and lose a fortune in their pride and joy.

[terence]

Originally Posted by mark garritt

What seems reasonable? Should a specialist builder who's quite vocal about cars available on the market, but then builds new cars and passes them off as originals be praised for keeping the brand alive, or exposed as a fraud? I believe the problem with this practice is people will invest and lose a fortune in their pride and joy.

Obviously they should be exposed because there are so many clone's out there already. Its a wonder the market is as strong as it is,more clones can only do damage eventually.