Discussion
The Superlight was the 1.6 135bhp k-series car and the superlight version of the Caterham 7 was different to the roadsport in that it had adustable suspension and the 6x speed gear box instead of the 5 speed box. Windscreen, Sidescreens and spare wheel carrier was all extra.
The R300 (Original) was a superlight spec'ed chassis with the 1.8 140bhp engines + Rollerbarrel throttle bodies giving the car approx 150-160bhp and extra torque. but the 1.8 didn't rev to such a high rpm.
The new version with the Ford engine is very different.
The R300 (Original) was a superlight spec'ed chassis with the 1.8 140bhp engines + Rollerbarrel throttle bodies giving the car approx 150-160bhp and extra torque. but the 1.8 didn't rev to such a high rpm.
The new version with the Ford engine is very different.
BertBert said:
only the first few R300s were on TBs. They then moved to VVCs.
Bert
I'm not sure that's true, certainly never heard that one before.Bert
All the RXXX cars I have ever seen or known about are on roller barrel TBs.
The VVC was a totaly different model,you could get the Roadsport in VVC I believe.
dino ferrana said:
Definitely true the later K R300s had VVC engines. The reason was they ran out of EU2 (finned cam cover) engines.
Yup, that was in fact always the plan. There were comparatively few RTB versions and the plan was always to put the VVC in after.With regard to the lumpiness or otherwise of RTBs, it's not endemic. You can get nice smooth well mapped K-engines in RTBs. It's a question of how good the map is rather than the TBs.
Bert
BertBert said:
dino ferrana said:
Definitely true the later K R300s had VVC engines. The reason was they ran out of EU2 (finned cam cover) engines.
Yup, that was in fact always the plan. There were comparatively few RTB versions and the plan was always to put the VVC in after.With regard to the lumpiness or otherwise of RTBs, it's not endemic. You can get nice smooth well mapped K-engines in RTBs. It's a question of how good the map is rather than the TBs.
simon j said:
Is it worth going for the super light rather than the R300 to save a few thousand . How quick is the super light compared to the R300 . What other differences between the two are there other than engine BHP , thanks guys
If you are looking to save "a few thousand" then you must be thinking of the new Ford engines, so much of the discussion here is probably a bit up the wrong tree. With that assumption made, let me say that I recently went through the same decision making process. I was looking at the Sigma 150 in the Roadsport package, but in the end put down my deposit on the R300, mostly as I had made up my mind to go for the stock duratec rather than the 150bhp Sigma.From various sources, the wisdom I received was that the 150 was a work in progress, still looking for maps that worked well for all engines, plus the sigma just doesn't yet have the same tunability as the equivalent K series. The duratec on the other hand is largely unstressed in the R300 form, and there is plenty of tuning headroom and parts available. The standard induction system is superbly tractable on the road, and I can't wait to get that kit delivered later in the year.
Check out Track and Race Cars Mag's review of the R300 in the May issue if you want to talk yourself into it
Otherwise, if you're small enough to fit easily in the Series 3 body, try test driving the two different engines and see what you reckon.
Edited by Nicodema on Tuesday 9th June 16:15
fergus said:
BertBert said:
dino ferrana said:
Definitely true the later K R300s had VVC engines. The reason was they ran out of EU2 (finned cam cover) engines.
Yup, that was in fact always the plan. There were comparatively few RTB versions and the plan was always to put the VVC in after.With regard to the lumpiness or otherwise of RTBs, it's not endemic. You can get nice smooth well mapped K-engines in RTBs. It's a question of how good the map is rather than the TBs.
I've had my map checked, the roller barrels balanced (though in the end I have bought an airflow gauge to do it myself as they go off really quickly) and vernier cams fitted and timed in.
It's still a git trying to do a steady 30 or 40 in it mind!
My R300 was an 04 and on the Roll-out-the-barrels;-)it was as smooth as a plenum - once I got used to it!! The smallest of throttle imputs made a difference, if you didn't have a steady right foot it would kangaroo.........It was down to me - after a few thousand miles I would not have had the throttle any other way!
You knew when the thottle was fully open..............I miss that hammering noise of the K on full chat....
You knew when the thottle was fully open..............I miss that hammering noise of the K on full chat....
Arewethereyet said:
My R300 was an 04 and on the Roll-out-the-barrels;-)it was as smooth as a plenum - once I got used to it!! The smallest of throttle imputs made a difference, if you didn't have a steady right foot it would kangaroo.........It was down to me - after a few thousand miles I would not have had the throttle any other way!
You knew when the thottle was fully open..............I miss that hammering noise of the K on full chat....
Indeed, very true...I did say.....You knew when the thottle was fully open..............I miss that hammering noise of the K on full chat....
My gripe with the roller barrels is just that they are so sensitive to throttle input it's very tricky to hold a steady throttle and you can get kangerooing as your weight goes on / off the throttle.
BertBert said:
it's not endemic. You can get nice smooth well mapped K-engines in RTBs. It's a question of how good the map is rather than the TBs.
Bert
I know of two RR's that disliek roller barrels compared to DTH TB's. When they are fully open there is probably nothing better but everywhere else they are more of a compromise than a convention setupBert
bertie said:
Well you live and learn!
Having had a VVC Elise and an R400, side by side in the garage, I'd dare to suggest that for 90% of the time, the VVC would be nicer to drive.
On a track at def con 4 the roller barrels are great, but on the road they are a jumpy PITA.
Just MHO.
Roller Barrels can cause noise issues on track days, but then again I think the VVC engine can be tricky in the wet with all that low down torque. I had a VVC Caterham Roadsport on Avon ZR1s and when it rained you had to tread so carefully with the throttle; conversely when I borrowed a SSR RB throttle car from Caterham it was easy to drive in the wet - in fact I drove it in a torrential downpour without an issue. I'm not pressing that point too much, because it may have been the tyres, but a friend of mine's mentioned it too, so it could well be the spread of torque. I love the VVC engine though - I've got it in my Elise now. The SSR engine would be the one I'd want in an R300 though, for the delivery and the noise Having had a VVC Elise and an R400, side by side in the garage, I'd dare to suggest that for 90% of the time, the VVC would be nicer to drive.
On a track at def con 4 the roller barrels are great, but on the road they are a jumpy PITA.
Just MHO.
I fell in love with the CC SSR's engine and very nearly bought an R3/4/500 as a result!Gassing Station | Caterham | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff