Is the MEV Exocet the modern day Caterham Lotus 7 ?
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
But then you're putting a heavy engine in a light chassis. No point.Same with the S2000 engine, it's very top heavy. It makes good power and the gearbox will be a dream, but it's still top heavy.
There's one engine that no-one's mentioned, which I'm glad about because I want to put one in a seven...
Noger said:
Didn't the designer get a PH ban for blatant advertising of his products in the Kit Car forum ?
This isn't much different.
Yes he did but this isn't advertising a vehicle it's a disscussion about what the title says how is the advertising it's like disscusin if a ferrari 458 is quicker than a mclaren mp4-12.This isn't much different.
To the poster before me the 133bhp figure comes from the 1.8 completly standared the ford 1.8 is 120bhp and the same as the 1.8 from a k-series engine.
And for reliablity a mx5 engine and gearbox is a very low stressed engine as the block comes from a 323f turbo so for the arguement about a new engine and box in a caterham will be more reliable that doesn't stand.
Purchase decisions of this sort are not just about which is stiffer, stronger and faster, there is also the huge part that history, pedigree, legends and peers have to play. New kid vs old pro? The new kid would have to be substantially better in key areas to even begin to counter the old kid's reputation. It would have to wipe the board with it to pull eyes away from the Caterham.
drivin_me_nuts said:
Purchase decisions of this sort are not just about which is stiffer, stronger and faster, there is also the huge part that history, pedigree, legends and peers have to play. New kid vs old pro? The new kid would have to be substantially better in key areas to even begin to counter the old kid's reputation. It would have to wipe the board with it to pull eyes away from the Caterham.
Granted the Caterham has the name, history, pedigree etc., and yes maybe the Exocet is the new kid on the block, but so far I’ve not heard anything criticised other than the cars looks, which is very much a personal taste issue.Watching the Spanish F1 today reminded me how an interpretation of the safety rules has led many manufactures to design hideous front end looking cars, apart from McLaren. So when it comes to racing is it form over function?
Sonic7 said:
The 7 purists will no doubt dismiss the MX150R but with more Exocet’s hitting the race tracks this year it will only be a matter of time before the two go head to head.
They already have.What are you expecting to see ?
At a guess, a bit faster than Academy racers (novices, with 125 bhp, and crap tyres), about on par with Roadsport B, slower than A and above. And we haven't even got into R500s and Busas and the like (not that any 7esque car is the fastest way to get round a track).
For £6500, without doubt a cheap and fun way to go racing. That is about a third of the cost of the Academy (although arguably you can get a fair amount of your outlay back, and the racing is very ...racey
).So yeah, absolutely in the spirit of the original 7. Caterham pretty much vacated the lower end of the market a long time ago, so it isn't even a comparison worth making. £15,000 for the Classic is a lot.
But, as a nearly 20 year veteran Caterham owner, I have heard this a lot. The Toniq-R, the Birkin, the Project whatever it was, Westfield (lost plot a few years ago)...all failed to put them out of business or make much of a dent. And, lets not forget, it worked the other way round too. They all sell well enough despite the big nasty ogre.
If the Exocet is the epitome of the "lash it together in a shed and go racing" ethos then bloody well done to them. But as fast as the fast9er) Caterhams...not a chance. Does it matter ? No.
They are gopping though
Sonic7 said:
drivin_me_nuts said:
Purchase decisions of this sort are not just about which is stiffer, stronger and faster, there is also the huge part that history, pedigree, legends and peers have to play. New kid vs old pro? The new kid would have to be substantially better in key areas to even begin to counter the old kid's reputation. It would have to wipe the board with it to pull eyes away from the Caterham.
Granted the Caterham has the name, history, pedigree etc., and yes maybe the Exocet is the new kid on the block, but so far I’ve not heard anything criticised other than the cars looks, which is very much a personal taste issue.Watching the Spanish F1 today reminded me how an interpretation of the safety rules has led many manufactures to design hideous front end looking cars, apart from McLaren. So when it comes to racing is it form over function?
MG CHRIS said:
Noger said:
Didn't the designer get a PH ban for blatant advertising of his products in the Kit Car forum ?
This isn't much different.
Yes he did but this isn't advertising a vehicle it's a disscussion about what the title says how is the advertising it's like disscusin if a ferrari 458 is quicker than a mclaren mp4-12.This isn't much different.
To the poster before me the 133bhp figure comes from the 1.8 completly standared the ford 1.8 is 120bhp and the same as the 1.8 from a k-series engine.
) I have my doubts. This reads like a brochure.Dunno about the 1.8 Ford. They come in 1.6 and 2 litre these days. The old 1.8 K series....well, they were what...140bhp up to 230bhp in the R500.
Weights...from below 400kg up to 600kg. More with a fat git on board, of course
Full cage doesn't add *that* much over an FIA bar. Lots of talk of k-series by posters here- let's not forget that Caterham is fitted with a range of tough, up-to-date Ford engines: Sigma 1600 (120bhp & 150bhp) and Duratec 2000 (150bhp, 175bhp+).
Re: the Exocet literature explaining why it's better than a Caterham- well:
-Caterhams are generally as safe as they need to be
-If adding torsional rigidity at the expense of weight was beneficial, Caterham would have done it years ago
-Independant rear suspension sounds fine but Caterhams manage brilliantly well with simple lightweight De-Dion
A Caterham is closer to 500kg than 600. The MEV is probably 20% heavier.
Re: the Exocet literature explaining why it's better than a Caterham- well:
-Caterhams are generally as safe as they need to be
-If adding torsional rigidity at the expense of weight was beneficial, Caterham would have done it years ago
-Independant rear suspension sounds fine but Caterhams manage brilliantly well with simple lightweight De-Dion
A Caterham is closer to 500kg than 600. The MEV is probably 20% heavier.
Sonic7 said:
Life Saab Itch said:
There's one engine that no-one's mentioned, which I'm glad about because I want to put one in a seven...
If were talking low cost higher performance how about a RX-8 rotary ‘wankel’ engine and gearbox in a MEV Exocet MX150R ?and the LSD.....
231hp, lighter, lower CofG, strong 6speed gearbox etc.
Life Saab Itch said:
Sonic7 said:
Life Saab Itch said:
There's one engine that no-one's mentioned, which I'm glad about because I want to put one in a seven...
If were talking low cost higher performance how about a RX-8 rotary ‘wankel’ engine and gearbox in a MEV Exocet MX150R ?and the LSD.....
231hp, lighter, lower CofG, strong 6speed gearbox etc.
HustleRussell said:
Not to mention the fact that they're very short engines- a Caterham with a rotary would be a mid engined car.
They already are mid-engined.I love the simplicity of the build, and it could open kit cars up to a whole new group of people, but is it really a kit car? This may be arguing semantics, but watching that build video isn't it just a re-body?
xRIEx said:
HustleRussell said:
Not to mention the fact that they're very short engines- a Caterham with a rotary would be a mid engined car.
They already are mid-engined.I love the simplicity of the build, and it could open kit cars up to a whole new group of people, but is it really a kit car? This may be arguing semantics, but watching that build video isn't it just a re-body?
xRIEx said:
HustleRussell said:
Not to mention the fact that they're very short engines- a Caterham with a rotary would be a mid engined car.
They already are mid-engined.I love the simplicity of the build, and it could open kit cars up to a whole new group of people, but is it really a kit car? This may be arguing semantics, but watching that build video isn't it just a re-body?
I have seen many Kit Cars which were built as a rebody of older cars, including the Samio a current production, all the Beach Buggies, of which there were hundreds built, many Robin Hoods based on the Triumph Dolomite and umpteen others.
Just a different approach to kit development IMO.
Certainly a Kit Car by any reasonable definition, and in the days if IVA, as we have it today, a major saving in bureaucracy and cost.
My Exocet (lightweight) weighs in at around 560KG's and has 171.2 bhp (see below). There's plenty more to be had from it if Stuart will allow me to increase the rev-limiter (pleeeeeease?). It's running on a standard 1800 MX5 engine with Jenvey Throttle Bodies and OMEX ECU. Thats it.
I am fortunate enough to get to drive many performance cars and I truely believe that the Exocet Lightweight is a better all round prospect than the Caterham, and I love Caterhams more than I love my own kidneys. So yea, please hear me out here....
The equivalent performance Caterham (R300) will set you back £27,995.00 whereas the Exocet Lightweight will cost you at least £20,000 less. Secondly should you wish to go racing, the Caterham academy will set you back an initial investment of £18,000 (including the car). The MX150R championship can easily be done for less than £10,000 (including the car). Thirdly the Exocet feels alot stiffer and more planted than the Caterham although I am yet to drive them both back to back to make a comparison (Caterham donations graciously received!)
Anyway, below is the dyno chart. I'm testing the Exocet for two days consecutively next week, one day I know I'm on track with a Caterham R300. Feel free to come out to Castle Combe on the 25th May or Llandow on the 26th and I'll happily show you all what the car is capable of.
It's whatever floats your boat really. Its true, the exocet isn't the prettiest car out here. I drive a car from inside it (most of the time!) and therefore I can't see it so not something I worry about. If you are concerned about looks then may I suggest a kit car is not for you?
James
I am fortunate enough to get to drive many performance cars and I truely believe that the Exocet Lightweight is a better all round prospect than the Caterham, and I love Caterhams more than I love my own kidneys. So yea, please hear me out here....
The equivalent performance Caterham (R300) will set you back £27,995.00 whereas the Exocet Lightweight will cost you at least £20,000 less. Secondly should you wish to go racing, the Caterham academy will set you back an initial investment of £18,000 (including the car). The MX150R championship can easily be done for less than £10,000 (including the car). Thirdly the Exocet feels alot stiffer and more planted than the Caterham although I am yet to drive them both back to back to make a comparison (Caterham donations graciously received!)
Anyway, below is the dyno chart. I'm testing the Exocet for two days consecutively next week, one day I know I'm on track with a Caterham R300. Feel free to come out to Castle Combe on the 25th May or Llandow on the 26th and I'll happily show you all what the car is capable of.
It's whatever floats your boat really. Its true, the exocet isn't the prettiest car out here. I drive a car from inside it (most of the time!) and therefore I can't see it so not something I worry about. If you are concerned about looks then may I suggest a kit car is not for you?
James
Edited by JamesHayward on Monday 14th May 12:52
Noger said:
JamesHayward said:
Thirdly the Exocet feels alot stiffer than the Caterham and has recently been proven to protect the occupants when it collided with a tree at around 60mph. As we all know, a Caterham has tragically recently proven otherwise (with all due respect to the parties involved lets not start a fight about this, I'm NOT saying the Caterham is unsafe by any means).
Seriously ? You are trying to say that because car A hits a tree it PROVES that it is safer than if CAR goes backwards into a tyre wall ?That is so utterly stupid I can only imagine that PH are getting paid by MEV to promote their product on here.
So yes. Let's get into a fight about it. People hit trees in Caterhams and survive. I have seen the pictures.
But trying to suggest the two scenarios are even remotely close is retarded.
Trying to sell a car by suggesting it wouldn't have killed you in similar circumstances is sick.
t
t. Edited by HustleRussell on Monday 14th May 12:24
Woahhhh for a start I'm not PH editorial, secondly PH are not being paid by MEV for editorial. In actual fact editoral don't like MEV because of Stuart's constant marketing on the forum. I am Autosport International and am responsible for the PistonHeads show. Nothing really to do with Garlick, Riggers & Dan (different department) so please don't slate them for my mis-interpretation.
Having re-read what i've written I've phrased it completely wrong for which I appologise. This is the problem when doing five different things at once! I have amended my previous post, and I can assure you I am not trying to sell MEV's, simply backing up what I believe to be a good product.
Having re-read what i've written I've phrased it completely wrong for which I appologise. This is the problem when doing five different things at once! I have amended my previous post, and I can assure you I am not trying to sell MEV's, simply backing up what I believe to be a good product.
Edited by JamesHayward on Monday 14th May 12:44
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff