Buying a R400 or R500 - where is best to look?

[SpeedFreakDave]

Hi guys,

Just wondering which dealers etc are good. I have looked on the classifieds here, auto trader and Caterham UK.

Thanks!

[SaliMali]

Try Blatchat.com You haven't got to be a member to read the posts-just to reply.

My car is in the for sale section

[will_]

SpeedFreakDave said:

Hi guys,

Just wondering which dealers etc are good. I have looked on the classifieds here, auto trader and Caterham UK.

Thanks!

Classifieds here is the best. As above, try www.blatchat.com which is the ownersclub website. Also try www.classiccarsforsale.co.uk and www.carandclassic.co.uk Classic Driver ( www.classicdriver.com ) also sometimes have cars, usually from dealers.

There aren't many dealers. I've spoken with Millwoods and Woodcote, though haven't actually bought from eithers. Caterham themselves are good but arguably expensive and they don't do 'deals'.

ETA - good luck - there are not many R400/R500 for sale at any one time, depending on the age/mileage/spec you're looking for, and of course your budget.

Edited by will_ on Tuesday 13th May 18:35

[SpeedFreakDave]

Thanks guys, I took a quick look, not loads out there at present!

Yes Andy yours does look nice. Several people suggesting the R500 will hold value better and there are some available from garages - send me a mail if feel like it and we can chat in private. Thanks

[will_]

SpeedFreakDave said:

Thanks guys, I took a quick look, not loads out there at present!

Yes Andy yours does look nice. Several people suggesting the R500 will hold value better and there are some available from garages - send me a mail if feel like it and we can chat in private. Thanks

But may cost a lot more to run (regular engine rebuilds) so the better residuals may only be of dubious 'value'. IMO the R400 is best balance of performance, reliability, running costs and residuals of the two. The bright green R400 in the classifieds here is worth a look, excellent spec.

[SpeedFreakDave]

yeah I saw that one too, not sure on the colour! Mind you, it is the kind of car that can get away with it. I want this for a track car.

[rubystone]

will_ said:

But may cost a lot more to run (regular engine rebuilds) so the better residuals may only be of dubious 'value'.

That reminds me - I fired mine up the other day and moved it out of the garage - must run down to Minister for a rebuild now....

[SpeedFreakDave]

rubystone said:

will_ said:

But may cost a lot more to run (regular engine rebuilds) so the better residuals may only be of dubious 'value'.

That reminds me - I fired mine up the other day and moved it out of the garage - must run down to Minister for a rebuild now....

hahaha is the R500 pricey to run? whats been your experience so far?

[will_]

rubystone said:

will_ said:

But may cost a lot more to run (regular engine rebuilds) so the better residuals may only be of dubious 'value'.

That reminds me - I fired mine up the other day and moved it out of the garage - must run down to Minister for a rebuild now....

No need for the rolls eye 'smiley', it's a valid point. IIRC the Evo buying guide (which was presumably researched via Caterham and the Club) said engine rebuild every 3,000 miles didn't it? What's the cost of that at Minister? £1500 +?

[rubystone]

will_ said:

No need for the rolls eye 'smiley', it's a valid point. IIRC the Evo buying guide (which was presumably researched via Caterham and the Club) said engine rebuild every 3,000 miles didn't it? What's the cost of that at Minister? £1500 +?

Will. You need to:-

(a) read my profile

and

(b)re-read that Evo article


If David offered "rebuilds" at £1500, he'd give Graeme a heart attack and he'd look even more miserable than he does normally

[rubystone]

SpeedFreakDave said:

rubystone said:

hahaha is the R500 pricey to run? whats been your experience so far?

If you speak to Graeme Fuller at Minister he will tell you that Caterham decided not to adopt all of the recommendations for the engine specification that was recommended by Minister at the time.

Minister apply their recommended spec to any R500 engine they rebuild and this, along with the adherence to the 8600 rev limit, makes these cars very reliable indeed. Provided, of course, that they are warmed up properly!

I bought my car with an engine that had been poorly rebuilt by a "race team" I have never heard of. They did such a poor job of skimming the head that I had to source a new one and re-used pistons which had been marked by contact with the valves! Minister fully rebuilt the engine for me.

I've owned my car for over 2 years now and most of its mileage is done on-track. I make sure the oil is changed every 4 track days or so and warm it up properly before driving it hard.

A once a year service and "spanner check" is all that I have done now.

Apparently these engines require a refresh after 10,000 road miles. A friend ran one exclusively on the road to 17,000 miles without a rebuild and sold it on with that mileage - I bet it's still running strong too.

[SpeedFreakDave]

Rubystone,

Thanks for the details, interesting! How often are you having rebuilds done if you are only using the car on the track?

Cheers

[will_]

rubystone said:

will_ said:

No need for the rolls eye 'smiley', it's a valid point. IIRC the Evo buying guide (which was presumably researched via Caterham and the Club) said engine rebuild every 3,000 miles didn't it? What's the cost of that at Minister? £1500 +?

Will. You need to:-

(a) read my profile

and

(b)re-read that Evo article


If David offered "rebuilds" at £1500, he'd give Graeme a heart attack and he'd look even more miserable than he does normally

(a) Your profile was most interesting - I didn't need to read it to know that you have an R500 however, if that's what you were suggesting.

(b) The Evo buying guide says:

"The R500 will need to be 'refreshed' after 3000 track miles...at a cost of between £2000 and £3500" (p.138). Whether you chose to do that or not, any buyer will knock the price of the car down by at least £2000 unless there has been evidence of a rebuild within 3000 miles - he won't know whether those were track or road miles. This, in turn, means that the "residuals" of the R500 should still be considered in light of the running costs - which was the whole point I made earlier, and which I suggest is still well founded. We'll have to agree to disagree and let the OP make his own mind up.

'Cost' was a major consideration as to why I went for the R400 - over the course of my ownership, bearing eveything in mind, I think it will work out as better value than the R500.

Will

[rubystone]

will_ said:

"The R500 will need to be 'refreshed' after 3000 track miles...at a cost of between £2000 and £3500" (p.138).

That's why I asked you to re-read the Evo article. Your original post omitted the word "track". That may mislead individuals using this thread as a reason to buy, or not to buy an R500.

Now, the oft quoted wisdom (is it correct - I don't know?) is that 1 track mile equals 10 road miles....on that basis, the Evo article could be interpreted as stating that an R500 used on the road could cover 30,000 miles without a rebuild. And I don't see why that couldn't be a fact. After all, the R500 engine used better quality components than those in the VHPD derivative SLR and R400.

Edited by rubystone on Friday 16th May 11:34

[will_]

rubystone said:

will_ said:

"The R500 will need to be 'refreshed' after 3000 track miles...at a cost of between £2000 and £3500" (p.138).

That's why I asked you to re-read the Evo article. Your original post omitted the word "track". That may mislead individuals using this thread as a reason to buy, or not to buy an R500.

Now, the oft quoted wisdom (is it correct - I don't know?) is that 1 track mile equals 10 road miles....on that basis, the Evo article could be interpreted as stating that an R500 used on the road could cover 30,000 miles without a rebuild. And I don't see why that couldn't be a fact. After all, the R500 engine used better quality components than those in the VHPD derivative SLR and R400.

Edited by rubystone on Friday 16th May 11:34

And again, I make the point that when buying a car you won't know how many miles were done on track and how many were done on the road, meaning that any buyer would want to see evidence of an engine rebuild (or at least I would). Hence my assertion that residuals must be considered in light of running costs/rebuilds - afterall, there is no such specific advice for the R400 is there? The implication being that the R500 is therefore more fragile.

[rubystone]

will_ said:

And again, I make the point that when buying a car you won't know how many miles were done on track and how many were done on the road, meaning that any buyer would want to see evidence of an engine rebuild (or at least I would). Hence my assertion that residuals must be considered in light of running costs/rebuilds - afterall, there is no such specific advice for the R400 is there? The implication being that the R500 is therefore more fragile.

Your statement earlier on suggest that a buyer (which you now admit is you) would knock £2k off the value of the R500 unless it had had evidence of a rebuild within the last 3,000 miles. I know the history of 4 R500s that have sold recently and of them, only one has had a rebuild and that was because the owner is never happy with the power he has . On that basis, you wouldn't have bought any of the cars, but clearly the buyers of these cars had no such qualms.

The R500 "fragility" issue is predicated on the back of the problems Caterham had with the cars when they were new; problems that have been resolved, and yet people like you still quote these - it's the equivalent of the RMS issue with the 996 and Boxster.

Mark Durrant supplied his R500 for the Evo article - I wonder whether they asked him about the R500 engine issues? Keith Jecks has owned an R500 from new - that's 8 years - and he tore down his engine for a precautionary rebuild and found no issues at all with it. Both Mark and Keith drive their cars very hard on track - harder than I drive mine...

Residuals for R500s have held firm at £21k - £23k for the past 3 years. Residuals for SLRs have dropped from £20k to £17k over the same period.

Tango 7 knows more about the residuals on K engined R400s than I do - I'm sure he'll be along to discuss this later.

[fergus]

rubystone said:

[Residuals for SLRs have dropped from £20k to £17k over the same period

Ruby, I think you've made a mistake, should that not be £20k to £19.995k?

Edited by fergus on Friday 16th May 13:42

[1st_petrolhead]

I have owned and ran an R500 for four year and done 15,500 miles. I would hazzard a gues that the running cost would be no higer than a R400, ie service, oil, cam belts etc.

I would recon the engine would have gone to 20,000 had I not sold it and continues looking after it ie Warming it up and not driving it hard until the oil temp was 50 deg +.

When I was considering replacing my SL with either a R400 or R500 I decided on the R500 for the following reasons:

Residual value
Better spec or R500 engine comapred to R400
Extra that the R5oo hads that R400 does not ie Carbon/Kevlar Tillets, Stack dash, Barnby mag wheels, Aero wishbones etc.

My view was with the beter engine (All steel) and other bits it represented better vaule

PS you mention the green car, is it the one in Scotland? If so I nearly bought it. Its a great spec for an R400 and fantastic colour and has been well looked after, the owner being an Area organiser for the l7club

Edited by 1st_petrolhead on Friday 16th May 13:46

[will_]

rubystone said:

will_ said:

And again, I make the point that when buying a car you won't know how many miles were done on track and how many were done on the road, meaning that any buyer would want to see evidence of an engine rebuild (or at least I would). Hence my assertion that residuals must be considered in light of running costs/rebuilds - afterall, there is no such specific advice for the R400 is there? The implication being that the R500 is therefore more fragile.

Your statement earlier on suggest that a buyer (which you now admit is you) would knock £2k off the value of the R500 unless it had had evidence of a rebuild within the last 3,000 miles. I know the history of 4 R500s that have sold recently and of them, only one has had a rebuild and that was because the owner is never happy with the power he has . On that basis, you wouldn't have bought any of the cars, but clearly the buyers of these cars had no such qualms.

What do you mean by "which you now admit is you"? I'm a pretty good example of a potential R500 buyer, having previously owned a Roadsport and looking to upgrade with a £25k budget. Had I decided that the R500 was what I wanted, I would have bought any of those cars for the right money, and dependent on history or condition. I didn't say I wouldn't have bought a car without a rebuild, I said that I would factor it in to what I would suggest the car was worth - what did they sell for?

rubystone said:

The R500 "fragility" issue is predicated on the back of the problems Caterham had with the cars when they were new; problems that have been resolved, and yet people like you still quote these - it's the equivalent of the RMS issue with the 996 and Boxster.

Yet which were still worth quoting in the Evo article? Which was presumably not made up and was researched, using the club and the manufacturer? I wonder where they got that information from? 'People like me' still quote them because suposedly reliable sources (like specialist buying guides) still quote them too. Presumably you have written to Evo to display your disgust that they are pedalling lies about your car?

rubystone said:

Mark Durrant supplied his R500 for the Evo article - I wonder whether they asked him about the R500 engine issues?

I wonder - it would only really be relevant if he had the car from new and therefore knew what track miles/engine problems it had had.

This appears to be going round in circles so let me repeat myself. Whether or not it is true, the R500 has a reputation for having engine issues which any buyer would beware of, especially now that a supposedly reputable buying guide is available. I would be surpised if a buyer was not at least considering the costs of a refresh if one had not been done recently on a car they were looking to buy. That in turn would be a factor in how much they would see the car being worth. So overall, which was the point I originally made and which you attempted to swipe with your sarcastic reply, was that better residuals may be negated by higher running costs (read my second post again), and therefore it is something to consider when deciding between an R400 and an R500. It is no more complex than that.

As I also said earlier, we shall agree to disagree and the OP can make his own mind up. Whichever one he goes for will still be one of the finest bang-for-buck performance cars out there.

Edited by will_ on Friday 16th May 14:11

[rubystone]

will_ said:

Yet which were still worth quoting in the Evo article? Which was presumably not made up and was researched, using the club and the manufacturer? I wonder where they got that information from?

You see, there you go again "presumably". I gave you a clue when I mentioned Mark's name.....

will_ said:

Presumably you have written to Evo to display your disgust that they are pedalling lies about your car?

Why? They state that the recommendation is that these cars have a refresh every 3,000 track miles. That's a hell of a lot of track miles and thus not an unreasonable statement. As I said earlier, perceived wisdom is that 1 track mile equals 10 road miles which extrapolates to 30,000 road miles...or do you not accept that perceived wisdom figure, Will?

will_ said:

This appears to be going round in circles so let me repeat myself. Whether or not it is true, the R500 has a reputation for having engine issues which any buyer would beware of, especially now that a supposedly reputable buying guide is available. I would be surpised if a buyer was not at least considering the costs of a refresh if one had not been done recently on a car they were looking to buy.

The problem is, you are perpetuating something based on hearsay, not personal experience, and remarks like "surprised" are evident that you tar everyone with the same brush as yourself.

To me, you sound like someone who regrets not buying an R500 and is trying to justify your purchase of a lesser spec car to yourself via this forum.

I've just given you accurate figures for the residuals on R500s - these cars continue to sell for strong money given their rarity and the recognition of their being the peak of the K Series Caterham era. There's absolutely nothing wrong with your R400 whatsoever, but an R500 it is not....as you'd find out if you ever get to drive an R500.