New entry level Caterham

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » Mon Aug 05, 2013 3:29 pm

This has been spoken about for ages but some more information has finally been released.

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default ... ryId=28212

I like the sound of this a lot. Not going to win any willy waving competitions but it should be fun, full of character and cheap. What's not to like ?

Regards,

Jeremy

mckeann · Post by **mckeann** » Mon Aug 05, 2013 3:47 pm

Can't really see the point of a 80-90bhp caterham. The 135bhp k series super sports are about as slow as you would want to drive, anybody looking for less performance is probably wanting more style or comfort.

j2 lot · Post by **j2 lot** » Mon Aug 05, 2013 4:52 pm

I can understand the thinking of a low powered entry car and fun at low speed etc, but its not cheap at £17k

ian974 · Post by **ian974** » Mon Aug 05, 2013 5:45 pm

sounds interesting depending on the power level. Never driven one and while I'm sure it'd still be fun I'm not sure they'll really get anyone to notice with a 2 digit horsepower figure. Even if it gave exactly the same performance, I reckon it'd have had a better reception if they'd said 100-110 bhp.
Although, how economical does it need to be to get free road tax?

Digital · Post by **Digital** » Mon Aug 05, 2013 9:25 pm

The engine looks miniscule in that

Be interested to see how much it weighs...

Personally I wouldn't want to go much below the 120bhp of my car, it's great fun and not slow, but could do with a bit more power. Fine for what I use it for, but for road use I would imagine sub 100bhp could be hard work.

r10crw · Post by **r10crw** » Mon Aug 05, 2013 9:58 pm

Im guessing its for emissions but why not use a bike engine if you want it light. Something like the Triumph 675? Being a triple I guess its a light unit and no turbo, if you need low down torque then you have options. Be all brittish too.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:15 pm

r10crw wrote:Im guessing its for emissions but why not use a bike engine if you want it light. Something like the Triumph 675? Being a triple I guess its a light unit and no turbo, if you need low down torque then you have options. Be all brittish too.

In a word, reliability.

j2 lot wrote:I can understand the thinking of a low powered entry car and fun at low speed etc, but its not cheap at £17k

Details are sketchy at the moment but if £17k is an assembled on the road cost inclusive of all taxes then I think that's stonking value. How much cheaper do you want it to be ?! Not too difficult to spend that on a supermini or lowish spec family hatch these days. And how much does a 1.6 Elise cost ? Add another £10k. Minimal/no depreciation on the Caterham too.

So, 200bhp+ per tonne, £17k for an affordable engaging road car that can be ragged to the max and enjoyed whilst keeping legal within the UK speed limits sounds like a winner to me. My only slight tinge of disappointment is that they didn't use the 1.0 Ford Ecoboost engine as had been mooted.

Regards,

Jeremy

graeme · Post by **graeme** » Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:27 pm

Driver/pax weight have a much bigger effect on a small car.

You put 80kg + 50kg in a 100bhp, 500kg Caterham and your 200bhp/tonne drops to 159bhp/tonne. Still more than a standard S1 with the same people (136bhp/tonne) but hardly exciting.

j2 lot · Post by **j2 lot** » Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:57 pm

Jeremy wrote:
j2 lot wrote:I can understand the thinking of a low powered entry car and fun at low speed etc, but its not cheap at £17k
Details are sketchy at the moment but if £17k is an assembled on the road cost inclusive of all taxes then I think that's stonking value.

Point taken, but my point was that at that price why not pay an extra (guessing here, but) £1-2 k ? and get the same car with double the bhp

r10crw · Post by **r10crw** » Tue Aug 06, 2013 4:17 pm

Jeremy wrote:
r10crw wrote:Im guessing its for emissions but why not use a bike engine if you want it light. Something like the Triumph 675? Being a triple I guess its a light unit and no turbo, if you need low down torque then you have options. Be all brittish too.
In a word, reliability.

j2 lot wrote:I can understand the thinking of a low powered entry car and fun at low speed etc, but its not cheap at £17k
Details are sketchy at the moment but if £17k is an assembled on the road cost inclusive of all taxes then I think that's stonking value. How much cheaper do you want it to be ?! Not too difficult to spend that on a supermini or lowish spec family hatch these days. And how much does a 1.6 Elise cost ? Add another £10k. Minimal/no depreciation on the Caterham too.

So, 200bhp+ per tonne, £17k for an affordable engaging road car that can be ragged to the max and enjoyed whilst keeping legal within the UK speed limits sounds like a winner to me. My only slight tinge of disappointment is that they didn't use the 1.0 Ford Ecoboost engine as had been mooted.

Regards,

Jeremy

To be fair if you aim to get 200+/ton then how reliable do you think your 50bhp Suzuki will be when tuned to 100+hp? I dont think many cats do big miles so would have thought reliability played less of an issue anyway. And remember as soon as a 80Kg driver gets in your 200Bhp/ton will take quite a kicking.

I do agree with a engaging drive that you can push legally would be great just dont think the suzuki is the answer.

Your last sentence hit the nail on the head, the ecoboost would have been better, 120 hp out of the box.

GBOBM · Post by **GBOBM** » Tue Aug 06, 2013 5:21 pm

Have they actually quoted what the power figure will be or is it just speculation at this point?
100-120bhp would be fine in a car this light.

Mr Momo · Post by **Mr Momo** » Tue Aug 06, 2013 7:04 pm

POWER

ian974 · Post by **ian974** » Tue Aug 06, 2013 10:51 pm

Although the ecoboost sounds like a good idea, I'm wondering if it may have been cost driven to go with this. Depending how much this drivetrain costs, i'd imagine it would have been likely that using the ford engine would have resulted in a slightly quicker car that would cost a big chunk more?

Andy G · Post by **Andy G** » Wed Aug 07, 2013 7:07 am

The r400 I had was a bit boring, less power isn't going to improve things. Closer to the car of 50 years ago I suppose, but would you buy one over a use r3/400??

twisted2fit · Post by **twisted2fit** » Wed Aug 07, 2013 8:26 am

I'd buy a Westfield;-)

Scottish Elises