caterham vs westfield

[hot66]

Hi

I am looking fot a fun fast road / track day car & have initially been considering a 968clubsport. Over the past couple of days though ( probabally due to the sun coming out ) I have been thinking about a caterham or westfield.

What are the differences between a Caterham & Westfield. Which would be the easiest to sell on in the future when I want to upgrade?

Thanks

James

[jackal]

do a serch on any forum on the internet for caterham+best+westfield, you name it: caravan weekly, home gardening tips, south east anglers discussion group ..... and you will find years and years of material you can read through




short answer though:

go and test drive both and see which you prefer

[hot66]

search now done . Thanks

[jackal]

if you want some help with creating a truly fast and sorted westfield then let me know and i can put you in touch with someone

as for resale, there is no doubt that a caterham despite bigger intial outlay loses less money than a westfield

[Eric Mc]

As a proud Caterham owner, I have to say that a well sorted Westfield is every bit as good as comparable Caterham. However, because of the manner in which Westfields are sold (i.e much more sourcing of own parts etc), there are more well sorted Caterhams out there than there are Westfields.

When comparing like with like, there is little to choose between the two.

[red2000s]

I recently sold my (modified for more power) Caterham Superlight and bought a Westfield 2000S. I was looking for around 250/260hp with all the right bits for hillclimbs and sprints. Reasons for decision:
- Westfield about 75% of the cost
- Westfield far better specification at the lower cost, including sequential box
- Westfield faster on circuit than CSR260 (per EVO test)
- Supplier attitude and support way different. One company books time on Bruntingthorpe for a performanc test before I buy, the other is supremely unhelpful wrt test drives. One company sets up the car and provided options *exactly* as I want, the other shrugs and basically says take it or leave it.
- This may surprise some - Westfield build quality way better.

These things are always a tad subjective but that's my experience FWIW.

[jackal]

red2000s said:

- Westfield faster on circuit than CSR260 (per EVO test)

tell me you're on a wind up here, surely ... ?

[red2000s]

Absolutely not. IIRC about 0.25 sec faster on a lap of Anglesey according to an EVO test a few months ago. The CSR is way heavier, about 75kg hence about 15%, and with 7bhp more. Hence p/w way better for the 2000S.

[fergus]

red2000s said:

- Supplier attitude and support way different. One company books time on Bruntingthorpe for a performanc test before I buy, the other is supremely unhelpful wrt test drives. One company sets up the car and provided options *exactly* as I want, the other shrugs and basically says take it or leave it. - This may surprise some - Westfield build quality way better. These things are always a tad subjective but that's my experience FWIW.

Unfortunately, as someone relatively new to Caterham, I have to agree with you. Their atitude & technical knowledge is woeful. Also, their pricing policy on spares is a joke. They are VERY reluctant to give out any non caterham part numbers (perhaps understandably). Other than the fact that the car is a cheap way to go quickly, I would not be interested!

I think there are a lot of Caterham traditionalists out there. e.g. poor reception of change in chassis manufacture moving from Arch to Caged. Funny how a lot of the Arch chassis seem to have corrosion problems due to poor powder coating, etc. All IMHO of course...

[red2000s]

Fergus,

Have to agree on the powder costing. My SL had major chassis corrosion problems and perforated ali as a result after 6 years. IMO GRP bodywork is much more sensible on a steel frame. The "traditionalists" as you call thenm seem to think that GRP is somehow "not right". I refer the said brigade to the original Elite, Elan, through to the Elise.

Having said that, the SL was great fun, despite the corrosion and the ineviatble K series head problems......

[jackal]

it was a a magazine test.

Whilst evo did a proper fair job the point is the caterham setup was a joke (a 'work in progress' journo road-biased setup, hugely undresteery and no LSD) and both laptimes were woefully slow in any case (slower than even an R400 with 200bhp) and I should know because i edited the evo DVD and have seen all the footage of those 2 cars at anglessey. Whats more ive been out with the sports 2000s demo car in my paltry 220bhp car and have driven extensively with a friend in his highly developed 240bhp westfield..... power means little compared to setup and chassis/suspension. If you want some definitive speed tests (where you can rule out teh fact that the car isnt set up properly or is on rubbish tyres or not driven to its absolute limit etc..) look at the csr race times, show me any westfield that has run 1.44 at oulton ?

Not trying to bash westfields, ive said before on here and elsewhere that i think they are great alternatives to a caterham and offer the same buzz for far less money... but i do feel obliged to highlight the misinterpretation of a bit of journalism, regardless of what cars are involved.

[lord summerisle]

and the series 4 Seven....

[red2000s]

You pays your money.......
BTW, I did get to drive a CSR (well sorted I was told) a couple of months ago. Much more of a road-oriented car than the SL or 2000S. Understeery, obviously heavier, less nimble..... IMHO.

[jackal]

i cant really see the appeal of the CSR myself... unless you are into touring and like taking teh thing to teh USA and that type of thing


caterhams are all about lightweight and lack of inertia for me

[red2000s]

Blimey, we agree! That's actually one of teh reasons I changed to the Westfield, which is about 25kg heavier than my old SL but with MUCH more mechanical grip. I heard last year that the 2ltr Superlight would be introduced, but for my purposes it has way less power and torque, is only slightly lighter and has far less set-up capability (track laps vs off the line grip for hillclimbs, for example).

[rubystone]

fergus said:

red2000s said: - Supplier attitude and support way different. One company books time on Bruntingthorpe for a performanc test before I buy, the other is supremely unhelpful wrt test drives. One company sets up the car and provided options *exactly* as I want, the other shrugs and basically says take it or leave it. - This may surprise some - Westfield build quality way better. These things are always a tad subjective but that's my experience FWIW. Unfortunately, as someone relatively new to Caterham, I have to agree with you. Their atitude & technical knowledge is woeful. Also, their pricing policy on spares is a joke. They are VERY reluctant to give out any non caterham part numbers (perhaps understandably). Other than the fact that the car is a cheap way to go quickly, I would not be interested! I think there are a lot of Caterham traditionalists out there. e.g. poor reception of change in chassis manufacture moving from Arch to Caged. Funny how a lot of the Arch chassis seem to have corrosion problems due to poor powder coating, etc. All IMHO of course...

Fergus, you need to join L7Club GB and get to know who to buy what from - that way you'll not bother going to Caterham at all and get good service and well priced spares. Start with Mick at Redline....The powdercoating problem occurs mainly in 1996 year cars - my (just sold) 1997 HPC has zero corrosion on it at all. Equally, these cars don't like road salt at all, and even one day's use on salty roads can start the corrosion off. Does your car have any of these problems?

[LRdriver II]

Well what is the difference between Caterham Mega-grads and the Westfields racing today at Snet?

The westies pipped them by a second in qualifying, but I assume thats down to the extra torque from the 1.8 zetec against the 1.6 K. Snett being a power circuit and all..