Monday 23rd March 2015

New Caterhams Seven range confirmed

Roadsports and Superlights replaced by 270, 360 and 480 models as Seven range shrinks to five

---

Updates to the Caterham Seven don't happen all that often, so it's always big news when they do. The last significant refresh for us in the UK was the arrival of the Seven 160 and 620R back in 2013. Today Caterham has officially announced the three models that will sit between those cars with spec and pricing details.

So this is a 270S...

So it's out with the old 140hp Supersport, the Supersport R and the R400, replaced by the Seven 270, Seven 360 and Seven 420 respectively. All will be available with an 'S' option pack, designed for 'the casual road driver', or an 'R' pack aimed at track day users.

The 270 is powered by a new Ford Sigma 1.6 with 137hp at 6,800rpm and 122lb ft at 4,100rpm; a kerbweight of 540kg means 254hp per tonne. It will hit 60mph in five seconds and a top speed of 122mph.

As standard a Seven 270 has 14-inch aluminium wheels, cloth seats, a Motolita wheel and not an awful lot else. The S pack adds such luxuries as a heater (!), windscreen, hood, carpet and leather seats. A 270R comes with a limited-slip diff, sport suspension, 15-inch wheels (13s and track focused geometry are available if you wish), a lightweight flywheel, carbon dash, a Momo wheel and harnesses.

... this is a 360R...

For the most part, the S and R option packs add the same equipment to the other new Sevens. On the 360 (183hp, 325hp per tonne, 4.8 seconds to 60), the R pack also adds an uprated master brake cylinder over the extras listed above. A 360S adds the same equipment as a 270S.

Both the Seven 360 and 420 use the 2.0-litre Duratec, the latter dry-sumped and producing 213hp (210bhp) and 155lb ft. It directly replaces the R400 and sits one rung down from the 620 in the Seven range. Top speed is 136mph, 60 takes 3.8 seconds and its power to weight is 380hp per tonne. Your guess is as good as ours as to what the names actually relate to... The S and R packs are identical to those available on the 360 and all cars use a five-speed manual.

... and this is a 420R. Got it?

One final point of clarification in the revised Caterham range. The Seven 160 is only available with an 'S' extras above standard, likewise the 620 can only be had with the 'R' option pack. All understood?

The new Seven range starts at £18,995 for a factory built 160. The 270 costs £22,995, the 360 is £26,995 and it's £29,995 for a 420. The 620 remains a long way off at the top of the range, beginning at £49,995. The 'S' option pack costs £2,995, the 'R' £3,995 and orders being taken from today. All that's required now is some sunshine!

 

[soad]

What happened to 280?

[Axionknight]

I'd probably take the 270, (or is it 280?) to be honest - surely that'd be enough for what would be a majority of road use over track days.

Cracking cars, I must own one someday, and soon.

Edited by Axionknight on Monday 23 March 14:21

[pozi]

soad said:

What happened to 280?

It lost 10 (insert whatever Caterham use to make these numbers up) and became the 270

[bertie]

Hmm interesting, I like the concept of having whatever engine you like and then bias it towards road or track.

[g7jhp]

So in summary the 5 car Caterham 7 range is now:

- Seven 160: Can only have 'S pack' extras (no 'R pack' option on 160) - £18,995.
- Seven 270: 1.6 Sigma, 137hp, 540kg, 254hp per tonne. 60mph in 5s & 122mph - £22,995.
- Seven 360: 2.0 Duratec, 183hp, 325hp per tonne, 60mph in 4.8s - £26,995.
- Seven 420: 2.0 Duratec, 213hp 380hp per tonne, 60mph in 3.8s & 136mph - £29,995.
- Seven 620: Can only have 'R pack' extras (no 'S pack option on 620) - £49,995.[/b]

The 270, 360 and 420 can be had with 'S pack' (for 'casual road driver'), or 'R pack' (track day user').

The 360 or 420 look like the ones to buy!

[bertie]

g7jhp said:

So in summary the 5 car Caterham 7 range is now:

- Seven 160: Can only have 'S pack' extras (no 'R pack' option on 160) - £18,995.
- Seven 270: 1.6 Sigma, 137hp, 540kg, 254hp per tonne. 60mph in 5s & 122mph - £22,995.
- Seven 360: 2.0 Duratec, 183hp, 325hp per tonne, 60mph in 4.8s - £26,995.
- Seven 420: 2.0 Duratec, 213hp 380hp per tonne, 60mph in 3.8s & 136mph - £29,995.
- Seven 620: Can only have 'R pack' extras (no 'S pack option on 620) - £49,995.[/b]

The 270, 360 and 420 can be had with 'S pack' (for 'casual road driver'), or 'R pack' (track day user').

The 360 or 420 look like the ones to buy!

Indeed, a 360S or 420S is calling me!

[soad]

pozi said:

soad said:

What happened to 280?

It lost 10 (insert whatever Caterham use to make these numbers up) and became the 270

Seems that way.
http://uk.caterhamcars.com/cars

[Krikkit]

Surely an S or R pack is almost a non-option on Caterhams?

[flat6buster]

Seven 270: 137hp, 254hp per tonne. 60mph in 5s
Seven 360: 183hp, 325hp per tonne, 60mph in 4.8
Seven 420: 213hp 380hp per tonne, 60mph in 3.8s

So add 46 bhp or 71 hp per tonne from 270 to 360 and accelerate to 60mph 0.2 seconds quicker
Then add 30 bhp 55 hp per tonne from 360 to 420 and accelerate to 60mph 1 second quicker

I don't understand how a smaller increase in bhp and power to weight has such an enormously larger impact on acceleration?

Gearing?

[struttob]

Silly Money !

Bob

[tomwoodis]

flat6buster said:

Seven 270: 137hp, 254hp per tonne. 60mph in 5s
Seven 360: 183hp, 325hp per tonne, 60mph in 4.8
Seven 420: 213hp 380hp per tonne, 60mph in 3.8s

So add 46 bhp or 71 hp per tonne from 270 to 360 and accelerate to 60mph 0.2 seconds quicker
Then add 30 bhp 55 hp per tonne from 360 to 420 and accelerate to 60mph 1 second quicker

I don't understand how a smaller increase in bhp and power to weight has such an enormously larger impact on acceleration?

Gearing?

Isn't the 360 a 5-speed as standard whereas the 420 is 6 speed as standard? This would account for the bigger gap. I'm still not convinced the gap is as big as they claim though so I take your point.

[subirg]

struttob said:

Silly Money !

Bob

Very true. Why spend £40k on a really fast caterham fun machine when you can spend £250k on a pointless McLaren, Ferrari or Lambo.

[tomwoodis]

Also, to answer the question on model designations raised by the poster. I was of the understanding that it comes from the fact the cars weigh ~ 500kg and that the models are therefore based on approx (rounded HP x 2) so:

135hp x 2 = 270
180hp x 2 = 360
210hp x 2 = 420
310hp x 2 = 620

The article suggests that the 360hp has 183 HP so if we are being picky they could have rounded it to 185 x 2 = 370 but they always used to quote the SuperSport R (it's predecessor) as having 180hp and the R400 as having 210hp so this is presumably where the model numbers are coming from.

Edited by tomwoodis on Monday 23 March 18:03

[T0MMY]

I'm sure it was a rhetorical question but just to state the obvious, they clearly approximate a weight of half a tonne for all their cars so just double the power to give the name as a reference to the power:weight ratio.

The 620R looks phenomenally bad value compared to the 420 now doesn't it but I suppose it's a halo model. My 7-alike feels mighty quick with only 300bhp/tonne so I would have thought the 420R would be enough for anyone and the 620R somewhat hard to fully utilise.

subirg said:

Very true. Why spend £40k on a really fast caterham fun machine when you can spend £250k on a pointless McLaren, Ferrari or Lambo.

Whilst Caterhams offer a lot more bang for your buck than supercars, I expect he was referring to alternative types of kitcar offering much better value. £10-15k could get you a 7 with a different badge that would likely be as quick as any but the 620R round a racetrack.

EDIT: Beaten to it above, but just to add, they are using bhp not hp hence the slightly lower figures

[kambites]

One that that genuinely surprised me when I drove a number of kits cars last time I was looking to buy, was that Caterhams genuinely are significantly better than their cheaper competition. Perhaps not quite enough better to justify the price, but better nonetheless.

I'm sure you could make a competitors Seven-alike just as good as a Caterham but if you were paying to have the work done (or valuing your own time at anything sensible) I think it would end up costing as much as a Caterham. Of course many people enjoy tinkering with such cars which makes that a moot point.

[T0MMY]

kambites said:

One that that genuinely surprised me when I drove a number of kits cars last time I was looking to buy, was that Caterhams genuinely are significantly better than their cheaper competition. Perhaps not quite enough better to justify the price, but better nonetheless.

The thing with kitcars is though that so much depends on the spec and setup. This is less the case with factory caterhams but if you took two MK Indys built by different shed dwellers they would probably feel quite different to drive. In my experience these cars are so sensitive to geometry and tyre choice etc.

[kambites]

T0MMY said:

The thing with kitcars is though that so much depends on the spec and setup. This is less the case with factory caterhams but if you took two MK Indys built by different shed dwellers they would probably feel quite different to drive.

Indeed, and I think that's why Caterham can get away with charging what they do - their quality control is in a different league to almost all of the competition. In some ways, they're closer to a full production car maker than a kit-car manufacturer; even if you buy a Caterham in kit form there's not much you can do wrong in assembling it.

I wouldn't buy a Caterham myself but I can see why it would appeal to someone who just wants a mentally fast, raw car with the minimum of fuss.

[T0MMY]

kambites said:

Indeed, and I think that's why Caterham can get away with charging what they do - their quality control is in a different league to almost all of the competition. In some ways, they're closer to a full production car maker than a kit-car manufacturer; even if you buy a Caterham in kit form there's not much you can do wrong in assembling it.

I wouldn't buy a Caterham myself but I can see why it would appeal to someone who just wants a mentally fast, raw car with the minimum of fuss.

If I was rich enough that a 5 figure price difference literally made no odds to me I'd probably go with a Caterham to be honest, but I just couldn't justify it when I bought my MNR. Laptime comparisons suggest that the Caterhams aren't any quicker than many other equivalent well set up kitcars but they do have a bit more polish about them than something like a Striker.

[McWigglebum4th]

I still have a thing for the 160

At the start of every single sunny commute i find myself thinking

A caterham 160 gets the same MPG as my panda


Then i end up in stop start traffic and think

Maybe i should buy that nissian leaf

[T0MMY]

McWigglebum4th said:

I still have a thing for the 160

At the start of every single sunny commute i find myself thinking

A caterham 160 gets the same MPG as my panda


Then i end up in stop start traffic and think

Maybe i should buy that nissian leaf

I do like the idea of the 160 but it's priced a little too close to the considerably faster 270 really...if I got one I think I'd regret not finding the extra cash.