SV vs S3

[scubadude]

Finally found ourselves close enough to a Caterham dealer with time to spare and popped into the Crawley place at the weekend. My main aim was to get my wife to sit in one and get her opinion up close rather than just my drooling whenever we pass one on the road...

I love the look and concept of the new 160 but she instantly put the brakes on that declaring the S3 chassis too small (despite fitting in it) but warmly put thumbs up to the SV, a car even I (6ft 2") need to move the seat well forward in!

I have no objection to the (minor) additional space but have always had feeling they look "fat", the grill looks wider and the whole car looks fractionally squashed in the vertical... clearly irrational and when looking at the 2nd hand cars they had in stock I noticed its only really pronounced in certain (lighter) colours.

I couldn't find much comment online with regards any driving, ownership and building differences, pros or cons between the two, anyone driven or built both and care to comment?


BTW- Very Dangerous place to visit, my wife picked out an almost perfectly specced car from the 2nd hand stock... fortunately it had been purchased but the sign had fallen off the windscreen.

[delmatt]

I like the idea of an SV in some respects but they do look a bit wrong from some angles.....the nosecone is HUGE for example.

[Redbrix]

Interesting. I have exactly the same issue. I test drove an SV last week and found it absolutely fine for driving position and overall comfort but I also sat in the S3 and found it was a bit more snug and did not have an issue at shoulder level (with 2 of us in, both between 5'11" and 6' and both circa 90kgs) nor in the footwell with pedal placement. Lowered floor created a very nice driving position btw.

I was told at the time that the SV makes a better tourer and provides greater stability at higher speed, due to wider track at front and rear, but that the S3 is the more agile car. I decided to place an order for the SV with the recomendation of hiring an S3 for a day prior (cost refundable due to having placed an order) but I now have found out that I dont have a day available to hire the car prior to the end of season for hire (31st Oct)

Like you I much prefer the look of the S3 visually despite its narrower track - I think its proportionately more balanced but this is just subjective. Funnily enough its when you see the SV and S3 together that the SV looks slightly wrong (to me at least) On its own its not so apparent.

The other issue is the extra £2500 for the SV - I dont know enough about 2nd hand prices to state whether that difference is recoverable. I would guess not?

Would also be interested to hear others views especially those of a similar build.

[rotorwings]

It all depends on what you're used to seeing. I own an SV, and now when I see an S3 it looks 'squashed' to my eye.

But I do like how low the SV looks directly from the back or front due to its extra width.

[anonymous-user]

Key question, have you got a long list of witty-yet-scathing comebacks for the never ending list of "Who ate all the pies?" jokes coming your way?

[huwp]

Redbrix said:

Interesting. I have exactly the same issue. I test drove an SV last week and found it absolutely fine for driving position and overall comfort but I also sat in the S3 and found it was a bit more snug and did not have an issue at shoulder level (with 2 of us in, both between 5'11" and 6' and both circa 90kgs) nor in the footwell with pedal placement. Lowered floor created a very nice driving position btw.

I was told at the time that the SV makes a better tourer and provides greater stability at higher speed, due to wider track at front and rear, but that the S3 is the more agile car. I decided to place an order for the SV with the recomendation of hiring an S3 for a day prior (cost refundable due to having placed an order) but I now have found out that I dont have a day available to hire the car prior to the end of season for hire (31st Oct)

Like you I much prefer the look of the S3 visually despite its narrower track - I think its proportionately more balanced but this is just subjective. Funnily enough its when you see the SV and S3 together that the SV looks slightly wrong (to me at least) On its own its not so apparent.

The other issue is the extra £2500 for the SV - I dont know enough about 2nd hand prices to state whether that difference is recoverable. I would guess not?

Would also be interested to hear others views especially those of a similar build.

The SV holds it's value better than the S3.

[Redbrix]

huwp said:

The SV holds it's value better than the S3.

I cant see why would that would be the case? Surely there is a market for both, so I can sccept that the SV might be priced somewhat higher for an identically spec'd S3 given the cost of the SV chasis at +£2500 but your statement suggests that the depreciation rate is actually lower, therefore making it the more desirable chassis. Is there greater demand for the SV against a more limited supply?

I was told current production is split 50:50.

Edited by Redbrix on Thursday 18th September 21:42

[anonymous-user]

huwp said:

The SV holds it's value better than the S3.

Does it heck. SVs tend to be built to a higher spec which is what usually makes them more desirable.
Given an S3 Roadsport or a CSR I know which I'd choose but seat width and boot space isn't a factor.

[IBDAET]

I have an S3 that by Staurday will be wider than an SV.

But I am just odd.

[anonymous-user]

Crossflow Kid said:

huwp said:

The SV holds it's value better than the S3.

Does it heck. SVs tend to be built to a higher spec which is what usually makes them more desirable.
Given an S3 Roadsport or a CSR I know which I'd choose but seat width and boot space isn't a factor.

It does, from what I've been told and seen. As said, the sales level has reached 50:50 now and we may well see more SVs sold than S3 in the near future.

To me it makes sense. I'm amazed by the earlier post saying 2 6 footers were I an S3 with plenty of room. I've been in a number of S3s with people shorter than 6' and not especially well built, and always been rubbing shoulders! The SV just has a bigger potential market.

I don't see any reason why S3s should be built to lower specs unless it is the more well heeled who are buying SVs. That begs the question would some S3 buyers have bought an SV if they had the money?

[lawtoma]

I think it all comes down to personal preference, and depends what you want to use it for. I'd be inclined to say forget about residuals, because it should ultimately come down to how much you enjoy it when you drive it rather than how much someone else thinks it's worth when you come to sell it!
My other half and I did the same as you, went down to crawley - except the car the had in stock hadn't been sold already, and its now sat in my garage!
We sat in the S3 and thought it a bit of a squeeze,then sat in the SV and thought "this feels more like it" - a bit more space for touring, a bit more comfortable and more "normal" feeling. But then we got out in the cars and the S3 won hands down, for us. Snug, rather than tight, making it feel somehow better connected than the SV. Like a glove, to the SV's mitten. And the "more normal" feeling of the SV didn't feel quite right, for what is certainly not a normal car. For us, the S3 was the choice.
I'm 5'11" and broad, but my other half is 5'3" and petite. With another big bloke in the passenger seat "snug" can start to feel like "tight" so for touring with some of my mates an SV would probably feel a bit less "intimate". But for my other half and I, and for the occasional blat with 6' and 16 stone of ballast, the S3 is great!
I can't comment on the track/setup pros and cons of each, but would thoroughly recommend driving both, and see which feels more right, for you!

Edited by lawtoma on Thursday 18th September 23:08

[forest07]

My partner who is not too interested in Caterhams did comment about one in the local park not looking right. Turned out to be an SV.

I guess they have helped Caterham increase sales, I think they look slightly odd when fitted with 13" wheels.

[framerateuk]

I rattle around in an SV. There's too much sideways movement, the seat doesn't go far forward enough and the gearstick was too far back.

If you need the extra size then by all means go for it, but the snugness of the S3 is what makes it special.

Also, do you really need the extra space? My other half and I did a 10 day tour of Scotland in our S3 and we had plenty of room for clothes.

I'd suggest driving both before you make your mind up. There's quite a difference.

[scubadude]

framerateuk said:

If you need the extra size then by all means go for it, but the snugness of the S3 is what makes it special.

This was partly my feeling, I fit the S3 (IMO) just right, perhaps I hadn't properly explained the fit to my wife- something she might realise when she experiences the car on the road, we are planning a test drive for the spring as it seems everyone is packing their cars away or fully booked for now.

I hadn't considered residuals, not sure that's the right mindset to approach a Caterham with, the world Sensible isn't really in the process :-)

I was surprised at the number of SV's in their 2nd hand stock, I'd (wrongly) assumed it was a niche spec.

[anonymous-user]

REALIST123 said:

I don't see any reason why S3s should be built to lower specs unless it is the more well heeled who are buying SVs.

I suspect a lot of SVs are upgrade cars for people who start out with an S3 and then seek improvements.
Hand in hand with the performance upgrade goes a comfort/size upgrade (for those that want it)

[framerateuk]

scubadude said:

I hadn't considered residuals, not sure that's the right mindset to approach a Caterham with, the world Sensible isn't really in the process :-)

I wouldn't worry about residuals. Caterhams hold their value well.

I noticed many 125 Sigmas priced much higher than my 140 this summer. Get a good deal and it'll hold it's value very well.

[scubadude]

framerateuk said:

I wouldn't worry about residuals. Caterhams hold their value well.

I noticed many 125 Sigmas priced much higher than my 140 this summer. Get a good deal and it'll hold it's value very well.

I was planning to build- I understand why some buy a factory car but if I commit I want the "whole" experience :-)

[Redbrix]

REALIST123 said:

It does, from what I've been told and seen. As said, the sales level has reached 50:50 now and we may well see more SVs sold than S3 in the near future.

To me it makes sense. I'm amazed by the earlier post saying 2 6 footers were I an S3 with plenty of room. I've been in a number of S3s with people shorter than 6' and not especially well built, and always been rubbing shoulders! The SV just has a bigger potential market.

I don't see any reason why S3s should be built to lower specs unless it is the more well heeled who are buying SVs. That begs the question would some S3 buyers have bought an SV if they had the money?

I didnt say there was plenty of room in the S3 with 2 up, I said it was snug.
To explain further, the S3 required the 6'/90kg passenger to sit with hands on lap with elbows in, in order to avoid banging shoulders. This would be fine I think for short journeys or if you very rarely have a broad passenger or a passenger at all (which would be my case)
By comparison the SV allowed both of us to sit with arms out and more relaxed.
I definitely need to test drive an S3 prior to placing my order - any volunteers living south of Guildford?

[onward]

I've just bought a SV (an SV or a SV? doesn't sound right?)
I'm 5'8" and quite slim but I can only see myself and my wife getting wider, not taller though. I'm really thinking of her not me, thats the kind of guy I am.

It has the GT seats, so it still feels very snug.

[IBDAET]

forest07 said:

My partner who is not too interested in Caterhams

Give it 20 years, it wont improve!