Caterham v Westfield - Whats the difference??

[Colin Mill]

Sam_68 said:

Colin Mill said:

...the depreciation on a Caterham is glacial - you are going to loose way more on your top-top every year so it's not much of an issue.

It depends where you catch them on their depreciation curve. The sensible thing to do with all highly specialised cars is to buy them when they are a few years old, as the depreciation tends to bottom out quite early.

Having said which, another part of the self delusion/self justification mechanism most people use is to work out yearly depreciation on these sorts of cars, which both neatly sidesteps the fact that they tend to do very limited mileage and writes of a fair chunk of depreciation against inflation.

If you bought a high-spec Caterham new, just don't ever work out the depreciation per mile, adjusted against inflation - it will ruin your whole day and make buying a Kia Ceed with full options look like a sound financial investment.

Inflation! With inflation running at perhaps 4% you can hardly offset a significant fraction of any car's depreciation against inflation. In this case new Caterham prices have hardly budged in the 6 years since I bought mine. And as you can easily see from a look at any car price guide the mileage corrections on value are not especially steep. In other words you pay depreciation substantially based on vehicle age, not mileage.

I'm not quite sure in any case what you are driving at. The low usage equally applies to all cars in this sector so it's no different with a Westfield.

As for the Kia analogy you could keep a Ceed in the garage with delivery mileage on it and it would still be worth no more than 50% of its purchase price after 3 years. You would actually have to write a Caterham off to get that level of depreciation.

[Snapper7]

[quote]
Golf Juliet Tang
[report] [news] Yesterday (11:05)
You have to try some cars really. I am a Caterham owner and have never driven a Westie.
Note that recently there was a joint meeting of the WSCC and the L7C at Curborough sprint course; the fastest induvidial cars were Westies, collective points tally went to the Caterhams.
The rivalry is friendly and the banter accepted.

[/quote]

The faster Westfields were running slicks where as the Caterhams were not. In the compensation adjustments the Caterhams came top.

The reality is that both cars are fast and the more you spend the faster they will go.

The Caterham will hold its value far greater. If historical linage is also important to you the Caterham is the only true historical car to descend from the original Lotus 7 Series 3, although it would add the caveat that it has been greatly improved and modified over time. But you will still find original Series 3 Lotus in it.

Personally if you have the Money I would always opt for the Caterham every time. However if you don't have the money and it is the choice of a Westfield or nothing, then I would say get the Westfield.

I have owned a Westfield with a x-flow engine and 3x Caterhams. I loved the Westfield to bits when I had it, but I always hankered after the Caterham while owning it. I also preferred the Caterham over the Westfield because I felt that I was driving the real thing.

So at the end of the day I would say it comes down to what you prefer and the budget available.

[Sam_68]

Colin Mill said:

Inflation! With inflation running at perhaps 4% you can hardly offset a significant fraction of any car's depreciation against inflation.

Do the sums. It'd be enough to pay for a week's holiday somewhere nice, once a year, on a reasonably well-specced Caterham.

Colin Mill said:

I'm not quite sure in any case what you are driving at. The low usage equally applies to all cars in this sector so it's no different with a Westfield.

Yes, absolutely - the percentage depreciation on almost any low mileage sportscar is horrendous when you calculate it against useage instead of age. But we all still try to convince ourselves that our purchase is justifiable because it has low depreciation... it's self-delusional, simple as that.

And the Caterham performs no better than the Westfield... in reality, because it costs a lot more money, it loses more money despite having a slightly higher percentage residual value.

If you can afford not to care, then that's fine and dandy - good luck to you, it's your money and you should feel free to spend it how you wish - just don't pretend to us or to anyone else that the Caterham makes more sense financially, 'cos it doesn't.

[NuisanceFactor]

Snapper7 said:

The Caterham will hold its value far greater. If historical linage is also important to you the Caterham is the only true historical car to descend from the original Lotus 7 Series 3, although it would add the caveat that it has been greatly improved and modified over time.

Don't forget the Birkin S3.

[GetCarter]

Not mentioned, but there is currently a 7 month waiting list for a CC built Seven.

Whenever there is a waiting list, second hand prices for nearly new remain very high, as people don't like to wait!

BTW Caterham say it's 6 months. Believe me, it's 7!

[Colin Mill]

Sam_68 said:

Do the sums. It'd be enough to pay for a week's holiday somewhere nice, once a year, on a reasonably well-specced Caterham.

Not anywhere I'd be interested in staying

Sam_68 said:

Colin Mill said:

I'm not quite sure in any case what you are driving at. The low usage equally applies to all cars in this sector so it's no different with a Westfield.

Yes, absolutely - the percentage depreciation on almost any low mileage sportscar is horrendous when you calculate it against useage instead of age. But we all still try to convince ourselves that our purchase is justifiable because it has low depreciation... it's self-delusional, simple as that.

Well you have to factor in what you might spend in dissipation if you didn't own the sportscar. Try golf for example - can make owning a Caterham look like small change - and you have to put up with the sort of to$$ers that play golf

Worse still try owning even a modest yacht or powerboat - that is like shovelling tenners into a hole.

I even save on my tin-top as, without the Caterham, I would have bought a 3 litre Spec B Legacy instead of settling for the 2.5i which has an easy life as I don't feel the need to wring its neck.

Sam_68 said:

And the Caterham performs no better than the Westfield... in reality, because it costs a lot more money, it loses more money despite having a slightly higher percentage residual value.

Well, it's a while since I did the relative sums but when I bought mine the Westfield wasn't that much cheaper as a complete new kit than the Caterham and the low point in the second hand market looked quite a lot worse for used Westfields so unless new Westfields have got cheaper in the interim (I see that they are not very forthcoming on their website regarding prices at the moment) I remain to be convinced that the Caterham is more expensive on total ownership costs.

Sam_68 said:

just don't pretend to us or to anyone else that the Caterham makes more sense financially, 'cos it doesn't.

Check my posts - I never said anything of the sort. However, you seem to be trying to convince us that it makes lots less sense than a Westfield so perhaps you would give is the figures and prove it.

Edited by Colin Mill on Sunday 19th September 19:48

[Sam_68]

Colin Mill said:

I'm considerably richer than yow...

I'm merely countering the oft used and nonsensical argument by Caterham owners that the marque makes more financial sense than;
a) Westfields or other 'Seven' type cars.
b) Other cars in general.

There's limited difference between Caterham and Westfield in this respect (particularly when you buy second hand, in which case it's down to how good a deal you make).

They are both a financial disaster in terms of cost vs. the amount of use you get out of them, but Caterham owners seem particularly self-delusional in this respect.

[Colin Mill]

Sam_68 said:

Colin Mill most certainly hasn't said:

I'm considerably richer than yow...

I'm merely countering the oft used and nonsensical argument by Caterham owners that the marque makes more financial sense than;
a) Westfields or other 'Seven' type cars.
b) Other cars in general.

There's limited difference between Caterham and Westfield in this respect (particularly when you buy second hand, in which case it's down to how good a deal you make).

They are both a financial disaster in terms of cost vs. the amount of use you get out of them, but Caterham owners seem particularly self-delusional in this respect.

Can I suggest you actually have this argument to someone who actually voices the view with which you seem to take so much issue. I have simply expressed the view that a Westfield is not, as you seem to insist, a far lower financial burden than a Caterham. I am waiting for you to produce even the most tenuous piece of evidence in support of this.

Perhaps instead of inventing quotes to fit what you think I think perhaps you can confine yourself to taking things I HAVE said and give hard and fast evidence to prove that they are wrong.

[rqy99g]

I wanted a Caterham for many many years and basically couldn't afford one, so over the years I looked at many different options (Sylva/Raw Strikers were always my favourite alternative 7). I went to the Stoneleigh Kit Car show in 2009 to help me make my final decision as I was now able to afford a 7 type car.

Having looked around there was only one choice for me and that was the Caterham. While there were some really excellent alternatives which were very well built, to me they did just look like kit cars and that includes Westfields, but that was only my opinion.

I still have a hankering for a purely track based car and I think if I did go that way I would look at a Sylva R1OT (value to fun ratio).

I would say go to Stoneleigh (or simular) have a good look around and talk to the owners, then go with what you are happy with, it's your car.

I love my Caterham and never regret my choice.

[Smollet]

What is the weight difference of a basic entry level Caterham to that of a similar Westfield or other marque?

[allen l]

Just forget the depreciation blahblah. Simply buy the car that you like if it fits your budget. It's the only way to fully enjoy the purchase!

[Colin Mill]

Smollet said:

What is the weight difference of a basic entry level Caterham to that of a similar Westfield or other marque?

Nailing down the exact weights is tricky as Caterham have quoted slightly different figures from time to time for apparently the same spec car. As for entry level, the currently fashionable figure for the Classic (which still comes with the k-series) is 525kg.

[Noger]

Performance cars are all about delusion though, are they not ?

BMW - the ultimate driving machine ?

If people want to use "hold their value very well" to rationalise the post purchase cognitive dissonace of spending quite a lot of money on something they really won't use that much....then why not.

No different to someone really thinking their diesel Bimmer is a some kind of finely honed track weapon.

[Smollet]

Colin Mill said:

Smollet said:

What is the weight difference of a basic entry level Caterham to that of a similar Westfield or other marque?

Nailing down the exact weights is tricky as Caterham have quoted slightly different figures from time to time for apparently the same spec car. As for entry level, the currently fashionable figure for the Classic (which still comes with the k-series) is 525kg.

I was thinking more of the difference in the weight rather than the weight itself. My Roadsport SV with a Sigma 150 is said to be 575kg. With me in it it's considerably more

[Chris71]

Caterhams are:

• A bit smaller
• Somewhat lighter
• A bit prettier IMHO - the daintier proportions work better for the Seven shape
• A bit quicker in a straightline for a given engine spec
• Usually better equipped (although to be fair you'd hope so for the price)
• Often have better engines - you still see quite a few x-flow or Pinto Westies (even thought the Zetec is probably now the main one) but K-Series is the norm for 2nd hand Caterhams
• Rather more standardised (perhaps a bad thing if you want to stand out, but it's a good thing if you want to locate parts or sell-on to people looking for a known spec)
• Even less prone to depreciation, they only go so low irrespective of how old and tatty they are!
• More straightforward to build and fix with a huge amount of support and parts availability if you're not a mechanical genius (and even some proper dealerships/service centres if you're that way inclined) - also means a typical example assembled by a typical builder is less likely to have mistakes in it (to be fair, perhaps less relevant to Westfields, but it's a real difference to some of the more basic kits)

Westfields are:

• Better value in outright terms
• Higher specced price-for-price
• A bit roomier for the larger gentleman

ETA:

Smollet said:

What is the weight difference of a basic entry level Caterham to that of a similar Westfield or other marque?

With a certain amount of fuel, a full screen, a hood, full height sidescreens and the odd spanner still lying in it my Roadsport A came out at 518kg on a friend's corner weight scales. I think SEiW Westies can be north of 600kg?

Edited by Chris71 on Monday 20th September 13:07

[GreigM]

Chris71 said:

With a certain amount of fuel, a full screen, a hood, full height sidescreens and the odd spanner still lying in it my Roadsport A came out at 518kg on a friend's corner weight scales. I think SEiW Westies can be north of 600kg?

Depends on the engine - my SEiW is < 500kg, typical would be around 550...

[Sam_68]

Noger said:

Performance cars are all about delusion though, are they not ?

Absolutely!

Noger said:

If people want to use "hold their value very well" to rationalise the post purchase cognitive dissonace of spending quite a lot of money on something they really won't use that much....then why not.

It's also a very useful tool for justifying your purchase to SWMBO.

Just don't expect anybody who knows anything about cars to fall for it.

[GetCarter]

Nobody would buy an R500 intending for it to make financial sense! However, I was amazed at what I got for my last one when I sold it (as a percentage from new) ... compared to the Aston, Porsche, Lotus etc.

Still. Sevens and Westies are both great at what they do, and I'm missing the word Caterfield these days - which used to be so popular. United we stand and all that.

[Colin Mill]

GetCarter said:

Nobody would buy an R500 intending for it to make financial sense! However, I was amazed at what I got for my last one when I sold it (as a percentage from new) ... compared to the Aston, Porsche, Lotus etc.

Partly because Caterham themselves have such a significant chunk of the used Caterham market and are thus in a reasonable position to dictate prices.

Given that a new Classic still starts at only £13.3k their prices for used Classics here look pretty steep:-

http://www.caterham.co.uk/assets/html/preowned-sea...

Edited by Colin Mill on Monday 20th September 19:54

[Chris71]

GreigM said:

Chris71 said:

With a certain amount of fuel, a full screen, a hood, full height sidescreens and the odd spanner still lying in it my Roadsport A came out at 518kg on a friend's corner weight scales. I think SEiW Westies can be north of 600kg?

Depends on the engine - my SEiW is < 500kg, typical would be around 550...

Bike engined by any chance?

I must admit I didn't realise they were that close, I could have sworn I heard a figure starting with a six.

I suspect a Syva Striker could be lighter than either engine-for-engine.