RE: Caterham gets Suzuki power

[dino ferrana]

whirlybird said:

Surprised that Caterham didn't look at the Smart Engine, 700cc Triple + Turbo, (450 smart spec), 61 bhp stock but potential to exceed 100bhp in BRABUS spec ???
Always fancied putting one in the front of a Mini, Original and use the 6 speed Paddle shift, thats on my original 2003 Smart Cabrio.
Someone may well have done it !!!!!

They are using the Suzuki engine, gearbox and axle by the look of it! Smart unit wouldn't work as it is rear-engine and rear drive!

[McWigglebum4th]

dino ferrana said:

whirlybird said:

Surprised that Caterham didn't look at the Smart Engine, 700cc Triple + Turbo, (450 smart spec), 61 bhp stock but potential to exceed 100bhp in BRABUS spec ???
Always fancied putting one in the front of a Mini, Original and use the 6 speed Paddle shift, thats on my original 2003 Smart Cabrio.
Someone may well have done it !!!!!

They are using the Suzuki engine, gearbox and axle by the look of it! Smart unit wouldn't work as it is rear-engine and rear drive!

And the smart unit is made of chocolate

[anonymous-user]

darth_pies said:

Yes it does but not very likely given that they already sell the 125bhp Roadsport 125 for 20k.
This sounds more like sub-100bhp.

And that's their problem. Sub 100bhp is going to feel a bit gutless on the longer tracks and could prove frustrating on the road. It's hard enough to make progress in them IME because you cant see beyond the car ahead with the low driving position. There's probably too many models in the line up at this point.

[Tophatron]

How much does the engine weigh? I thought the Ecoboost 3 cyl would have been a great shout for this type of car..

[CraigyMc]

yonex said:

darth_pies said:

Yes it does but not very likely given that they already sell the 125bhp Roadsport 125 for 20k.
This sounds more like sub-100bhp.

And that's their problem. Sub 100bhp is going to feel a bit gutless on the longer tracks and could prove frustrating on the road. It's hard enough to make progress in them IME because you cant see beyond the car ahead with the low driving position. There's probably too many models in the line up at this point.

Sub 100bhp doesn't seem to worry bikers much.

This is quite likely to be the lightest caterham. OK so it won't set the world on fire over about 60mph, but who cares?

C

[CraigyMc]

Tophatron said:

How much does the engine weigh? I thought the Ecoboost 3 cyl would have been a great shout for this type of car..

The suzuki triple is apparently half the weight of the (already small) ecoboost engine, which caterham also tried.

C

[framerateuk]

Pat H said:

Surely there's a 150bhp lightweight normally aspirated lump that is available somewhere? I really liked the K Series VVT Seven that I drove a few years ago.

There is, the Ford Sigma - which they sell in 125 and 140 guise (150 is no longer available since the 140 gave better overall performance without the need for the independent throttle bodies).

It's also starting to get quite a decent aftermarket tuning following with upgrades for 155, 175 and 200 now available (for a price!!!).

[kambites]

Pat H said:

Surely there's a 150bhp lightweight normally aspirated lump that is available somewhere? I really liked the K Series VVT Seven that I drove a few years ago.

Plenty of bike engines, but the number of normally aspirated car engines seems to be falling by the day.

Do Caterham offer any bike engines in the Seven?

[suffolk009]

I remember that I mentioned in the ecoboost thread that choice of gearbox would be getting tricky for Caterham soon. There are the newly developed sequential type boxes, but they will never be fitted into a £17k car (obviously). The Suzuki solution supplies gearboxes and also sorts out a new supply of live axles. The old live axle was a refurbed Marina/Ital item. Long unavailable.

[CraigyMc]

Tophatron said:

How much does the engine weigh? I thought the Ecoboost 3 cyl would have been a great shout for this type of car..

The ecoboost triple is apparently 97kg dressed.
The indie reporter said the Suzuki K6A triple is just over half the ecoboost engine's weight.

I'll have to stick a "citation needed!" sign on my own post as I don't believe the K6A will weigh 50kg dressed.

C

[CraigyMc]

yonex said:

darth_pies said:

Yes it does but not very likely given that they already sell the 125bhp Roadsport 125 for 20k.
This sounds more like sub-100bhp.

And that's their problem. Sub 100bhp is going to feel a bit gutless on the longer tracks and could prove frustrating on the road. It's hard enough to make progress in them IME because you cant see beyond the car ahead with the low driving position. There's probably too many models in the line up at this point.

Just for discussion's sake, the 1.4 K roadsport is a 105bhp engine.
In a 550kg car, that does 0-60 in 6.5s. Remove another 10% of the weight and you're looking at somewhere in the region of 6s to 60mph.

OK, it only does 110mph flat out: if you want something for an autobahn, this isn't your car.

C

(ETA: The first, original Lotus 7 had 40bhp. Didn't stop it being fun!)

Edited by CraigyMc on Monday 5th August 17:30

[DonkeyApple]

CraigyMc said:

Just for discussion's sake, the 1.4 K roadsport is a 105bhp engine.
In a 550kg car, that does 0-60 in 6.5s. Remove another 10% of the weight and you're looking at somewhere in the region of 6s to 60mph.

OK, it only does 110mph flat out: if you want something for an autobahn, this isn't your car.

C

The original 7 was about the same BHP and in the right hands will still run rings around most things.

[CraigyMc]

DonkeyApple said:

The original 7 was about the same BHP and in the right hands will still run rings around most things.

There is room in the market for something which is just for *fun*.

I get the impression that loads of people on here want every car to be a Nissan GTR.

You know which is more fun, and it doesn't have 4wd.

C

[Agent Orange]

These guys apparently have got an additional 130+ bhp out of a K6A! <> 200bhp?!

http://www.k-takeoff.com/index2.html

http://www.7tune.com/take-off-ea11r-suzuki-cappucc...

[suffolk009]

CraigyMc said:

yonex said:

darth_pies said:

Yes it does but not very likely given that they already sell the 125bhp Roadsport 125 for 20k.
This sounds more like sub-100bhp.

And that's their problem. Sub 100bhp is going to feel a bit gutless on the longer tracks and could prove frustrating on the road. It's hard enough to make progress in them IME because you cant see beyond the car ahead with the low driving position. There's probably too many models in the line up at this point.

Just for discussion's sake, the 1.4 K roadsport is a 105bhp engine.
In a 550kg car, that does 0-60 in 6.5s. Remove another 10% of the weight and you're looking at somewhere in the region of 6s to 60mph.

OK, it only does 110mph flat out: if you want something for an autobahn, this isn't your car.

C

(ETA: The first, original Lotus 7 had 40bhp. Didn't stop it being fun!)

Edited by CraigyMc on Monday 5th August 17:30

40bhp? Only if you had a tuned version! Otherwise it was a standard Ford sidevalve quoted as 28bhp.

[CraigyMc]

suffolk009 said:

40bhp? Only if you had a tuned version! Otherwise it was a standard Ford sidevalve quoted as 28bhp.

Apologies. I wasn't around at the time

C

[smart51]

Suzuki turbo Kei cars make 64 BHP at the rear wheels. Japanese law says 64 BHP max but doesn't say where it has to be measured. Mine was dynoed at 77 BHP at the flywheel.

[nta16]

suffolk009 said:

I hope they go for really unfashionable narrow steel wheels and perhaps even some skinny rear arches. Here's a picture I found of a Lotus 7 Series 2, I think they look great. The series 1 had even narrower arches.

modern drivers with the fashion for wide wheels and low profile tyres and powerful engines have no idea of the fun of thinner wheels and tyres and smaller less powerful engines in lighter cars (or perhaps some Caterham owners the origins of the Lotus 7s) and that fun can be had below the legal speed limits instead of needing to be well above for the fun to start

uhhhhm, 660cc turbo charged engines, why does this sound familiar - but how on earth would that type of engine be able to pull the skin off a rice pudding let alone be fun, narh, it's not possible (is it?) and how on earth in the past did they have sports cars with 328cc n/a engines, must be a myth, mind a lot of people weren't as lardy-arsed as many of us are now

nope, one litre turbo with 100hp and minimum speed of 110mph is absolutely the barest requirement for a car to be fun and really you need a lot more

I was totally wrong buying those cars without those minimum requirements and they were fun and even with my limited driving skills I couldn't on certain types of road keep up with and pass proper powered cars - it was just a dream

[Andy Cappo]

Agent Orange said:

These guys apparently have got an additional 130+ bhp out of a K6A! <> 200bhp?!

http://www.k-takeoff.com/index2.html

http://www.7tune.com/take-off-ea11r-suzuki-cappucc...

200hp is about the limit you want to go for it to remain reliable but we have seen higher.



The F6A with the iron block is 80kg. The K6A has an ali block and is considerably lighter. Delimited the standard engine is able to achieve a top speed of 135mph (GPS confirmed) it just takes a while to get there!

[CraigyMc]

Andy Cappo said:

The F6A with the iron block is 80kg. The K6A has an ali block and is considerably lighter.

Is that a dressed weight?

I wonder what sort of turbo they'll be using.

Aluminium is about 1/3rd as dense as iron, but the castings won't be the same shape unless someone insane made them.

C