RE: Westfield SEIGHT | Spotted

RE: Westfield SEIGHT | Spotted

Tuesday 14th July 2020

Westfield SEIGHT | Spotted

The notion of a V8 in a tiny sports car was always beguilingly daft; perhaps now more than ever...



The joy of small, light cars is the circle of virtuosity that comes with them. Less weight needs less energy required to move it; less energy can come from a smaller engine, which in turn needs less fuel to create the energy. A lower overall mass puts less strain on other hardware, meaning smaller brakes, tyres and so on can be used and last longer. It's all very clever; one day the lightweight approach to making efficient cars might actually catch on.

Plus there's the other upside, naturally, of the additional involvement and engagement that comes with stripping away layers of flab from a sports car. Anyone who's driven a 660cc Caterham, the Alpine with a fairly humble 1.8 or a Lotus Elise with a Toyota Corolla engine will be well placed to talk about the considerable performance benefits that come with lightweight construction.

Moreover, it means that should the sports car powertrain be upgraded to something a little naughtier, the results are astonishing. Take the new Ariel Atom 4, for example; the 320hp VTEC turbo in a Civic Type R makes that a quick car, but in something less than half the weight it's absolutely ballistic. Same goes for the supercharged Caterhams.


That said, those cars are expensive new, and you might be waiting years to get hold of them. So what to do, for those coveting the thrill of a wildly over-engined British sports car?

Well, they could do a lot worse than looking at a Westfield SEIGHT. Perhaps the best known of the Westfield sports cars - primarily because a stonking Rover V8 avoided any Caterham comparisons - the SEIGHT was produced for almost 20 years by Westfield until 2010. So yes, a decade ago, it was possible to buy a new 3.3-metre long, c. 660kg sports car with a 3.5-litre V8 in it - madness. Glorious, glorious madness.

It promises an unforgettable experience, too, the sound and torque of the engine unlike anything else offered in comparable sports cars (save for the ultra low-volume and equally mental Atom V8). Indeed there's something of the concentrated TVR about the Westfield SEIGHT, with the drive dominated by the combination of little mass and Rover V8 muscle. Which is surely no bad thing.


This one looks a perfect example of what a SEIGHT can be. Registered back in 2004 but having covered just 6,000 miles since, it's been specified with a sports exhaust, sports seats and upgraded Gaz suspension. Predictably given the low mileage, this Westfield looks almost factory fresh.

At £17,895, there really is nothing else like it for combining the irrepressible appeal of a big V8 with the excitement of a dinky British roadster. Spend £20k on a TVR and you're likely looking at something older and with many more miles recorded. Of course, the flipside is that a Griffith or a Chimaera will be more accommodating (all things being relative) though it'll surely be hard to think of practical concerns when thundering through the countryside in a Westfield.

With regulations growing in severity seemingly every day - and potentially threatening the success of makers like Westfield and Caterham - creations like the SEIGHT increase in significance and appeal. Because nobody does loopy little sports car like Britain, and very few of them were (or are) quite as mad as the V8 Westfield. What are you waiting for?


SPECIFICATION | WESTFIELD SEIGHT

Engine: 3,950cc, V8
Transmission: 5-speed manual, rear-wheel drive
Power (hp): c. 200@4,750rpm
Torque (lb ft): c. 235@2,600rpm
MPG: Maybe not bad
CO2: Maybe not great
Year registered: 2004
Recorded mileage: 5,746
Price new: N/A
Yours for: £17,895

See the original advert here


Author
Discussion

mooseracer

Original Poster:

1,882 posts

170 months

Tuesday 14th July 2020
quotequote all
I'd say the Atom V8 was rather more than equally mental.

Do like a Westfield having had a VX redtop powered one. The v8 never appealed for some reason, based on no experience I have to say.

jcdti

9 posts

46 months

Tuesday 14th July 2020
quotequote all
That is truly mad, but also kind of a weird combo. I'm no expert, but wasn't the Rover V8 famed for having quite lazy characteristics? Torquey and quite low revving. For me, a little sports car like that should have a buzzing, lightweight, and high-revving engine that makes you work for the power. Regardless, it's a funky little thing.

unsprung

5,467 posts

124 months

Tuesday 14th July 2020
quotequote all


Definitely something for the "sense of occasion" moments in one's life.

And an utter scalpel in terms of the oft-asked question round here: Will it take the B roads?


Water Fairy

5,494 posts

155 months

Tuesday 14th July 2020
quotequote all
jcdti said:
That is truly mad, but also kind of a weird combo. I'm no expert, but wasn't the Rover V8 famed for having quite lazy characteristics? Torquey and quite low revving. For me, a little sports car like that should have a buzzing, lightweight, and high-revving engine that makes you work for the power. Regardless, it's a funky little thing.
Yes it is. It is also very expensive to tune.

motco

15,944 posts

246 months

Tuesday 14th July 2020
quotequote all
jcdti said:
That is truly mad, but also kind of a weird combo. I'm no expert, but wasn't the Rover V8 famed for having quite lazy characteristics? Torquey and quite low revving. For me, a little sports car like that should have a buzzing, lightweight, and high-revving engine that makes you work for the power. Regardless, it's a funky little thing.
Instinctively, I would have thought that bike engines notwithstanding, the ideal currently readily available engine is the Honda S2000 c/w it's magnificent gearbox. No worries about low torque in such a lightweight chassis, and the red line at c.9,000 need I say more? Such a car exists by the way.

aarondbs

845 posts

146 months

Tuesday 14th July 2020
quotequote all
This appeals although I absolutely know that a low revving, not particular efficient in terms of bhp/litre, V8 has no place here. But the noise, fear and sense of occasion just appeal.

GroundEffect

13,835 posts

156 months

Tuesday 14th July 2020
quotequote all
Water Fairy said:
jcdti said:
That is truly mad, but also kind of a weird combo. I'm no expert, but wasn't the Rover V8 famed for having quite lazy characteristics? Torquey and quite low revving. For me, a little sports car like that should have a buzzing, lightweight, and high-revving engine that makes you work for the power. Regardless, it's a funky little thing.
Yes it is. It is also very expensive to tune.
My mate has one with the 4.0 V8 from a Chimaera in it. It doesn't need tuning - honestly. Over a lap it's a little skittish so similar lap times around Brands or Snetterton, but in a straight line it is just gone vs my Elise R.


AMGSee55

633 posts

102 months

Tuesday 14th July 2020
quotequote all
Completely unnecessary to have such a large engine in a car like that when a smaller 4-pot does the job better - honestly, who needs an old-fashioned rumbly v8 with copious amounts of low-down torque in a Westfield??

Answer: Me - where do I sign? biggrin

rampageturke

2,622 posts

162 months

Tuesday 14th July 2020
quotequote all
rover v8 vomit

thiscocks

3,128 posts

195 months

Tuesday 14th July 2020
quotequote all
Certainly something different but for the sake of 200hp and a beefier torque curve I'm not sure it would be worth the weight penalty. Something this small and light hardly needs a load of low down torque anyway. I'd agree a high smaller reving 4cyl is a better choice but I'm sure this would be fun to experience.

2Btoo

3,422 posts

203 months

Tuesday 14th July 2020
quotequote all
Didn't the SeIGHT hold the record for the fastest production car 0-60-0 time for a while? Something like 8 seconds (which has presumably been smashed to smithereens now?)

ate one too

2,902 posts

146 months

Tuesday 14th July 2020
quotequote all
A modern 2 litre 4 pot turbo would produce more horsepower and torque and be far more reliable than a shonky old Rover V8.

300bhp/ton

41,030 posts

190 months

Tuesday 14th July 2020
quotequote all
jcdti said:
That is truly mad, but also kind of a weird combo. I'm no expert, but wasn't the Rover V8 famed for having quite lazy characteristics? Torquey and quite low revving.
Not really. But a lot of the V8's were low CR, strangled on twin SU or Stromberg carbs and in a heavy vehicle with TALL gearing. So they would appear lazy and unwilling to rev in such applications.

However a higher CR version with better gearing and maybe a wilder cam is a screamer of an engine. Obviously not the highest rpm, it is only a 2v per cylinder engine. You can make them rev high for race track use. But road use more around the 6000-6500rpm. But they are lovely and free revving.

This was my cammed 3.5 in my TR7 V8, obviously no SEIGHT, but the TR still only weighed just over a tonne. And was making approx 230hp on the dyno. Hitting just below 6500rpm before shifting.


CrutyRammers

13,735 posts

198 months

Tuesday 14th July 2020
quotequote all
GroundEffect said:
My mate has one with the 4.0 V8 from a Chimaera in it. It doesn't need tuning - honestly. Over a lap it's a little skittish so similar lap times around Brands or Snetterton, but in a straight line it is just gone vs my Elise R.
Pretty sure that one would already count as "tuned". I think the TVR ones were different to the stock ones weren't they?

300bhp/ton

41,030 posts

190 months

Tuesday 14th July 2020
quotequote all
Water Fairy said:
jcdti said:
That is truly mad, but also kind of a weird combo. I'm no expert, but wasn't the Rover V8 famed for having quite lazy characteristics? Torquey and quite low revving. For me, a little sports car like that should have a buzzing, lightweight, and high-revving engine that makes you work for the power. Regardless, it's a funky little thing.
Yes it is. It is also very expensive to tune.
Again not really. They are pretty cheap and easy to get a solid 200-250hp from and lots of torque. Plus a wonderful soundtrack and an addictive power delivery. Where they get it expensive is if you are shooting for 300+bhp n/a

CrutyRammers

13,735 posts

198 months

Tuesday 14th July 2020
quotequote all
2Btoo said:
Didn't the SeIGHT hold the record for the fastest production car 0-60-0 time for a while? Something like 8 seconds (which has presumably been smashed to smithereens now?)
Yeah. People have got to remember that these were born in the 90s, we're now getting on for 30 years later. "Stick a v8 in it" was a pretty effective way of getting more power back then. Personally, I wanted something more revvy, but there are plenty of these and Dax and other 7 alikes still sporting them. Because v8s are cool. As to whether it "suits" the car, well it depends what you like and how you are going to use it; that's the whole point of these after all.

300bhp/ton

41,030 posts

190 months

Tuesday 14th July 2020
quotequote all
rampageturke said:
rover v8 vomit
Well that's just stupid and probably shows quite a lot of ignorance rolleyes

BTW - doesn't your profile say you have a 1.25 Fiesta?

300bhp/ton

41,030 posts

190 months

Tuesday 14th July 2020
quotequote all
thiscocks said:
Certainly something different but for the sake of 200hp and a beefier torque curve I'm not sure it would be worth the weight penalty. Something this small and light hardly needs a load of low down torque anyway. I'd agree a high smaller reving 4cyl is a better choice but I'm sure this would be fun to experience.
I think you need to look at it in context. the RV8 is all aluminium. And nothing at like a classic big block V8. It is pretty light and compact, especially compared to the cast iron 4 pots that you may have found when this was first done.

I'm betting there is no weight saving running a Ford Pinto or even Crossflow over the RV8.

CrutyRammers

13,735 posts

198 months

Tuesday 14th July 2020
quotequote all
300bhp/ton said:
Water Fairy said:
jcdti said:
That is truly mad, but also kind of a weird combo. I'm no expert, but wasn't the Rover V8 famed for having quite lazy characteristics? Torquey and quite low revving. For me, a little sports car like that should have a buzzing, lightweight, and high-revving engine that makes you work for the power. Regardless, it's a funky little thing.
Yes it is. It is also very expensive to tune.
Again not really. They are pretty cheap and easy to get a solid 200-250hp from and lots of torque. Plus a wonderful soundtrack and an addictive power delivery. Where they get it expensive is if you are shooting for 300+bhp n/a
Rv8s must have the most over quoted power figures in history. A standard 3.5 was what, 180hp? There were a lot of "250hp" engines floating around which turned out to be more like 210ish when tested.
I suppose it depends how you define "expensive", as soon as you start tuning any engine you're into multiple thousands, in my experience. Getting 250hp from an Rv8 is going to cost 5k, easy.

Xcore

1,344 posts

90 months

Tuesday 14th July 2020
quotequote all
3.5 was only 150bhp iirc.

Just fit tvr manifolds and stick a turbo on it.