RE: Caterham gets Suzuki power

[robcollingridge]

Really? The best thing about my Fury is the light-weight and incredible driver involvement but, without decent power you might as well be in a soap box downhill racer. Tell me, what is the point of this car exactly?

[nta16]

robcollingridge said:

That's a shockingly low power figure, even for a light-weight car. To put it in perspective, my Fisher Fury R1 is 450Kg (on the road weight with half tank of fuel) and has ~160bhp. Once you add a heavy driver to this Caterham, it is going to feel very slow :-(

only to a willy waving Fisher Fury R1, 450kg with ~160bhp owner

only ~160bhp at 450kg, I wouldn't get out of bed to drive with figures that low

perhaps the extra two wheels makes yours feel slower the car engines suit cars more

[nta16]

TinyCappo said:

On a run it would do over 50MPG!

on an economy test run at mainly 60mph I got ~60mpg, sometimes I'd drive and try to keep it off turbo (a little green fan symbol would come on to show the turbo)

I can remember being told that when the limiter kicked in the engine cut down to two cylinders !

[Noger]

robcollingridge said:

Tell me, what is the point of this car exactly?

Entry level "Juniors" series between Caterham Karts and the Academy ?
Allows entry to markets where there are tighter restrictions on engines and emissions
Doesn't canibalise the "Super****" part of the Caterham market

Now if this really is 500kg (which it won't be, Live axle and tiny engine is lower than that in a Caterham, I know, I have one !) and 90 bhp....well that is a little low. But some weight saving and some tuning and you have something approaching the old Classic.

The Academy cars (which have heavier engines and axles) only have 120bhp...and they are still quite fun.

Yes, none of these are going to set your hair alight, but they are still going to be bloody good fun at lowish speeds. Which is kinda what the 7 things is all about.

[TinyCappo]

nta16 said:

TinyCappo said:

On a run it would do over 50MPG!

on an economy test run at mainly 60mph I got ~60mpg, sometimes I'd drive and try to keep it off turbo (a little green fan symbol would come on to show the turbo)

I can remember being told that when the limiter kicked in the engine cut down to two cylinders !

I drove one with a limiter and yes its a hard limiter like an overboost fuel cut. It randomly cuts fuel. Its an odd way of injecting fuel indeed its not seperate looms for each injector in sequential injection two are fired on one loom and one sits seperate (was fun trying to set up the AEM till we just ran new injector looms to each plug. I used 550cc injectors in the end a 720cc engine with 1,650cc of injectors :P )

Edited by TinyCappo on Thursday 8th August 11:51

[Mr2Mike]

robcollingridge said:

That's a shockingly low power figure, even for a light-weight car. To put it in perspective, my Fisher Fury R1 is 450Kg (on the road weight with half tank of fuel) and has ~160bhp. Once you add a heavy driver to this Caterham, it is going to feel very slow :-(

Nonsense. Even with a 100kg driver it's still 150bhp/tonne, hardly "very slow". You also won't need to scream the nuts off it to extract the performance; bike engines work brilliantly in bikes, less well in cars IME.

[robcollingridge]

Noger said:

Yes, none of these are going to set your hair alight, but they are still going to be bloody good fun at lowish speeds. Which is kinda what the 7 things is all about.

But there are so many better and cheaper options. I totally get the light-weight thing, driver involvement and fun. That's why I built my Fury. Even with a car engine it would be better and cheaper than this Caterham in every respect. What's not to like about a ~500Kg car with superb handling and driver involvement but, you can have decent power too. You've got to want that Caterham badge very badly to justify that kind of money for it.

I'm running 13x6" rims with 'narrow' 185/60R13 A048's which can easily handle 160+bhp and provide amazing grip (in the dry), whilst being wonderfully progressive on the limit. It's awesome fun at low speeds, despite being capable of 0-60mph in ~4s and 0-100mph in ~10s. It will also do 130+mph on the straights. Why compromise?

Maybe a 11,500rpm red-line and manual paddle shift to a sequential 6-speed gearbox are not everyone's cup of tea but you pay your money and make your choice. I've got cars with car engines in them too ;-) For me the engine noise is a big part of the experience and I can't see this sounding too good either. For what it's worth, my Fury R1 is £175/year fully comp to insure, £135 road tax and incredibly cheap to run. If you are really looking for budget fun though, you wouldn't be buying a Caterham.

I'm sure this new Caterham will be a fun car. It's got a lot of the important ingredients but not all of them. It's going to end up the runt of the Caterham litter and might also damage the brand longer term. If they were really innovating, then Caterham would have hit the cost and emissions targets whilst keeping a decent level of performance. They took the lazy route.

[Agent Orange]

robcollingridge said:

Maybe a 11,500rpm red-line and manual paddle shift to a sequential 6-speed gearbox are not everyone's cup of tea but you pay your money and make your choice.

Bingo.

robcollingridge said:

If they were really innovating, then Caterham would have hit the cost and emissions targets whilst keeping a decent level of performance.

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/articles/news_2013062501_en.htm

o Exemption for small producers: To minimise the administrative burden, manufacturers of less than 1 000 cars per year registered in the EU will not have to meet any emissions target.

I don't believe Caterham produces more than 500 cars per year so not about any emission target.

[nta16]

robcollingridge said:

But there are so many better and cheaper options. I totally get the light-weight thing, driver involvement and fun. That's why I built my Fury. Even with a car engine it would be better and cheaper than this Caterham in every respect. What's not to like about a ~500Kg car with superb handling and driver involvement but, you can have decent power too. You've got to want that Caterham badge very badly to justify that kind of money for it.

fair enough

robcollingridge said:

I'm running 13x6" rims with 'narrow' 185/60R13

showing a total misunderstanding of what narrow wheels and tyres are

robcollingridge said:

A048's which can easily handle 160+bhp and provide amazing grip (in the dry), whilst being wonderfully progressive on the limit. It's awesome fun at low speeds, despite being capable of 0-60mph in ~4s and 0-100mph in ~10s. It will also do 130+mph on the straights. Why compromise?

more willy-waving and obsession with figures totally missing the point given by others previously

robcollingridge said:

Maybe a 11,500rpm red-line and manual paddle shift to a sequential 6-speed gearbox are not everyone's cup of tea but you pay your money and make your choice. I've got cars with car engines in them too ;-) For me the engine noise is a big part of the experience and I can't see this sounding too good either. For what it's worth, my Fury R1 is £175/year fully comp to insure, £135 road tax and incredibly cheap to run.

more willy-waving and what to some would be comparatively expensive costs

robcollingridge said:

If you are really looking for budget fun though, you wouldn't be buying a Caterham.

a fair point

robcollingridge said:

I'm sure this new Caterham will be a fun car. It's got a lot of the important ingredients but not all of them. It's going to end up the runt of the Caterham litter and might also damage the brand longer term. If they were really innovating, then Caterham would have hit the cost and emissions targets whilst keeping a decent level of performance. They took the lazy route.

fair enough

from what you tell us you have a fast and quick car, lightweight with a very high revving motorbike engine - it's to your taste but not to everybody's

[Pat H]

robcollingridge said:

Stuff

All fair enough.

But some people just want something for a run out to the pub.

And others would like an old classic Lotus, but can't be arsed with all the expense and hassle.

The new Caterham will fill the gap left by the old 85bhp 1600GT Crossflow, which will suit quite a lot of people, methinks.

[braddo]

robcollingridge said:

But there are so many better and cheaper options.....

You're looking at this from a UK perspective (and distracted by showing off about your car ).

Read the article (ETA, sorry, I thought it was mentioned in this article but I guess I saw it elsewhere) - a key reason for this Caterham's existence is for non-UK markets where there is punitive road tax on emissions and/or engine capacity. The UK is amazingly liberal for allowing cars like your Fury to be road registered. In lots of other markets it simply isn't an option and used Caterhams and the like are very rare.

And the better and cheaper options you allude to don't help Caterham sell cars....

Edited by braddo on Thursday 8th August 15:27

[TinyCappo]

These do sound absolutely amazing the appropriate exhaust fitted. Even with the cat they roar like a 911 and the turbo chatter and wastegate noises are seriously addictive.

[robcollingridge]

@nta16 You have a serious willy fixation man. Not every 'small' number quoted is about your nob ;-)

The bike-engine v car-engine thing is irrelevant too. I was just using my Fury R1 as an example. My elder brother has a 550Kg Sylva Striker with a Ford Crossflow engine, live rear axle and drum brakes on the back. That would run rings around this under-powered Caterham too. Seriously cheap and fun motoring on road and track.



Ultra-narrow tyres are for 'old codgers' stuck in a 1950's dream. Get with it, this is the 21st Century! ;-) Sure you can drift every corner but, so can anyone with cold tyres on a damp road. It's a very narrow definition of 'fun'. You need to drive more cars.

And I get that Caterham want to sell more cars abroad too but, I don't think this is the way to do it. People put up with the impracticalities of seven-style cars because they are intoxicating. This new Caterham is the equivalent of an alcohol-free beer. I hope I get to drive one soon and that I am proved wrong but, I won't hold my breath.

[nta16]

robcollingridge said:

@nta16 You have a serious willy fixation man. Not every 'small' number quoted is about your nob ;-)

wouldn't worry me if it was, I've had small cars with low output figures too but more importantly I am humbled to be acknowledged by a master of the quick quip and witty repartee

robcollingridge said:

The bike-engine v car-engine thing is irrelevant too

now that not right is it because a bike weights a lot less than even the mighty Fisher Fury so the power and speed figure will be a lot better, and just imagine if you could make it into a unicycle

robcollingridge said:

I was just using my Fury R1 as an example.

gowann, give the figures again

robcollingridge said:

My elder brother has a 550Kg Sylva Striker with a Ford Crossflow engine

yes ! c'mon power figures . . .

robcollingridge said:

Ultra-narrow tyres

the discussion was narrow wheels and tyres only you have mention ultra anything - it's all superlatives with you

robcollingridge said:

You need to drive more cars.

I have, that's how I know 'low' power can be great fun


have a word with your elder brother, chill out, get your full face helmet on and go out and enjoy your car

[Noger]

robcollingridge said:

Noger said:

Yes, none of these are going to set your hair alight, but they are still going to be bloody good fun at lowish speeds. Which is kinda what the 7 things is all about.

But there are so many better and cheaper options. I totally get the light-weight thing, driver involvement and fun. That's why I built my Fury. Even with a car engine it would be better and cheaper than this Caterham in every respect. What's not to like about a ~500Kg car with superb handling and driver involvement but, you can have decent power too. You've got to want that Caterham badge very badly to justify that kind of money for it.

I'm running 13x6" rims with 'narrow' 185/60R13 A048's which can easily handle 160+bhp and provide amazing grip (in the dry), whilst being wonderfully progressive on the limit. It's awesome fun at low speeds, despite being capable of 0-60mph in ~4s and 0-100mph in ~10s. It will also do 130+mph on the straights. Why compromise?

Maybe a 11,500rpm red-line and manual paddle shift to a sequential 6-speed gearbox are not everyone's cup of tea but you pay your money and make your choice. I've got cars with car engines in them too ;-) For me the engine noise is a big part of the experience and I can't see this sounding too good either. For what it's worth, my Fury R1 is £175/year fully comp to insure, £135 road tax and incredibly cheap to run. If you are really looking for budget fun though, you wouldn't be buying a Caterham.

I'm sure this new Caterham will be a fun car. It's got a lot of the important ingredients but not all of them. It's going to end up the runt of the Caterham litter and might also damage the brand longer term. If they were really innovating, then Caterham would have hit the cost and emissions targets whilst keeping a decent level of performance. They took the lazy route.

As others have said, you seem to be getting mixed up with *your* ability to engineer (very well!) a s/h R1 into a GRP bodied car in the UK, and doing the same as a new car manufacturer in a global market.

Whilst it may be possible for them to get new 1 litre bike engines, I know Caterham had problems in the past. And from a noise and emissions perspective, they are going to be difficult. Plus nowadays you need a reverse and tedious stuff like that The reverse box isn't a great piece of technology to have on a "mass market car". You and I may not think we want one, but most people will expect the reverse gear to a) exist b) be part of the gear box.

Whilst this is certainly an slightly off the wall choice, I am not sure it is "lazy".

PS I have driven a GSXR1000 STM Phoenix, super hoot !

PPS We probably started our BECs at the same time, I was totally inspired by Rich's R1 build too (but went with Gixxer power due to STM running them in their race Phoenix at the time).

[danp]

rob - how's the project going for your new lightweight sportscar? not sure i saw any updates recently?

[Lowtimer]

robcollingridge said:

My elder brother has a 550Kg Sylva Striker with a Ford Crossflow engine, live rear axle and drum brakes on the back. That would run rings around this under-powered Caterham too.

While Caterham has not officially published the final power output, it has strongly implied it by naming it as a 180 bhp / tonne car weighing 500 kg, which means the best evidence we have of the power output is not exactly hard to calculate at 90 bhp. Being a modern electronically-managed turbo it is also likely that the power and torque curves will be substantially fuller than they would be for a cooking 85 bhp normally aspirated engine.

Tell us again how your brother's 550kg drum-braked Sylva, which will only push out 85 bhp at one specific peak power RPM, and less everywhere else in the rev range, will runs rings around the Caterham, and why.

Edited by Lowtimer on Friday 9th August 08:32

[Mr2Mike]

robcollingridge said:

Ultra-narrow tyres are for 'old codgers' stuck in a 1950's dream.

What do you consider ultra narrow? A 185 section tyre on a car weighing less than 500kg certainly isn't narrow IMO.

[robcollingridge]

OK, my last post on this thread. I've said enough and already too many tangents.

My last set of 'willy waving' stats:

@lowtimer

My brother's Crossflow engined Striker is a long way from standard and approximately 135bhp. It certainly felt more powerful than my standard Elise S1, even allowing for the weight advantage.

@danp

House move has to come first :-( Really liking Andy Bate's Sabre II as the basis for it now. Also love his modified Fireblade engine (189bhp at 14,000rpm). My kind of engine! IVA emissions might be tricky though.

@Mr2Mike

I think 185's are narrow for a proper sports car but, they suit the Fury perfectly and are nice and light in weight. The last 5 sets A048's have lasted just 1800 to 2400 miles of road use though. That works out at about about 21p per mile in tyres for those that like their stats ;-)

'Ultra-narrow' is 2CV or Morgan 3-wheeler narrow in my view. Only expect to see them on eco-cars and electric cars these days, where low rolling resistance is needed.

I'll come back to this thread once I've driven this new Caterham.

[suffolk009]

I have vague memories of watching a TV documentary about the design of the Elise S1. In it I believe the engineers reckoned that for the standard 118bhp S1 a front tyre the width of a space-saver spare would provide the optimum ride and handling. They realised that was a bit too narrow for peoples tastes so made them wider.

Did anyone else see that?