RE: Driven: Westfield Sport Turbo
Discussion
Firstly, not many Caterhams are sub <500kgs in the real world. They aren't called caterkilo's for nothing! The Superlights are certainly in this region, which this car is almost certainly not a competitor to. FWIW my Westfield is paired down pretty much as far as it'll go without starting to spend silly money on carbon and alloy bits, and that's a real 535kgs. It can be done but it will be stripped of just about all creature comforts, like an SL. Also a lot of the weight will come from euro compliance. I've money on that that massive can also has a cat in it. I'll have all sorts of emmissiaons stuff on the engine and comfort stuff in the cockpit.
However what it does mean is that you could buy this compliant car in Europe, then set to making it very interesting. All the interior out, GRP seats, plain dash with an AIM or alike display, ditch the screen, weather gear, heater, washers, fit an RAC bar, smaller lighter wheels and you're already starting to lose some significant weight. In that respect it could be very interesting indeed. However as long as we can still build kit cars, the regular Caterfields will make much more sense here.
However what it does mean is that you could buy this compliant car in Europe, then set to making it very interesting. All the interior out, GRP seats, plain dash with an AIM or alike display, ditch the screen, weather gear, heater, washers, fit an RAC bar, smaller lighter wheels and you're already starting to lose some significant weight. In that respect it could be very interesting indeed. However as long as we can still build kit cars, the regular Caterfields will make much more sense here.
Edited by juansolo on Thursday 22 October 16:02
bales said:
300bhp/ton said:
Marf said:
hbwold said:
That exhaust silencer looks hideous. I'm not sure about this car, too heavy and I'm not sure a turbocharged Westfield/Caterham is a good idea with the turbo lag, think it would be a bit unpredictable on/off the boost being such a relatively small light car, just a thought really as I've never driven a turbocharged one.
Look at the specs, full torque at 1950rpm, anything above that RPM and the boost provided by the turbo will be nothing more than a function of the throttle pedal, hardly laggy or on/off.The 1950rpm is just the point when then engine produces enough exhaust gas flow to power the turbo, below this point the turbo doesn't make boost and can't suffer lag, but this area of rpms aren't lag.
Hope this helps
Call it turbolag then as one word if it makes you feel better. But turbolag and boost threshold are distinctly not he same thing and it is not semantics. One is about power curve, and the other about throttle response. Boost threshold will be visible on a dyno graph whereas turbolag will not. And yes maybe Marf does know the difference, but I don't know them to know that. And what about everyone else reading this thread. If it was such a simple thing there wouldn't be this confuse over it in the first place. Only this morning I was reading an Autocar article on the new Focus RS were it talked about lag but referenced rpms and boost threshold.
Semantics? I'm am pretty sure Marf knows what he is talking about.
If your going to be really pedantic what he said is correct as 'lag' purely means a time delay before an expected response occurs, therefore if you put your foot down at 1500rpm there will be a delay between pressing the pedal and getting any meaningful acceleration....i.e lag....
Hope this helps
Edited by bales on Thursday 22 October 14:49
300bhp/ton said:
Lol yeah guess all cars suffer lag then, like turning the key to start then engine or getting in the vehicle....
Call it turbolag then as one word if it makes you feel better. But turbolag and boost threshold are distinctly not he same thing and it is not semantics. One is about power curve, and the other about throttle response. Boost threshold will be visible on a dyno graph whereas turbolag will not. And yes maybe Marf does know the difference, but I don't know them to know that. And what about everyone else reading this thread. If it was such a simple thing there wouldn't be this confuse over it in the first place. Only this morning I was reading an Autocar article on the new Focus RS were it talked about lag but referenced rpms and boost threshold.
Well since 99% of the motoring press and 99% of people use the term lag, so I think it is appropriate to use the term that everyone knows what you are talking about, so yes, it is semantics.Call it turbolag then as one word if it makes you feel better. But turbolag and boost threshold are distinctly not he same thing and it is not semantics. One is about power curve, and the other about throttle response. Boost threshold will be visible on a dyno graph whereas turbolag will not. And yes maybe Marf does know the difference, but I don't know them to know that. And what about everyone else reading this thread. If it was such a simple thing there wouldn't be this confuse over it in the first place. Only this morning I was reading an Autocar article on the new Focus RS were it talked about lag but referenced rpms and boost threshold.
For example is there is a road test of lets say a seriously tuned road car say an Evo, it has a GT35 on it and lets assume it doesn't make full boost till 4.5k rpm (as an example)
Would the driver describe the car as;
a.) Stupidly fast but very laggy or suffers from extreme turbo lag..
or
b.) Stupidly fast but the boost threshold is very high...
The vast majority would have no-idea what they were talking about! Whether or not the word has a number of meanings, it is known as turbo lag by 99.99% of people!!
bales said:
The vast majority would have no-idea what they were talking about! Whether or not the word has a number of meanings, it is known as turbo lag by 99.99% of people!!
Precisely, but this whole debate misses the point, 300bhp/ton said that 1950rpm would be the boost threshold of this engine, but this cannot be the case as this is in fact the RPM that peak torque is available from, ergo the turbo will be on full chat by 1950rpm and the boost threshold will be lower than that.Marf said:
whythem said:
Nickellarse said:
£25K. Same as the R300.
I suppose it depends on whether you like turbo power or not. Seems a lot to me.
The article says that the Westfield is £3k less than the R300. In either case, the Caterham is the better buy regarding deprciation.I suppose it depends on whether you like turbo power or not. Seems a lot to me.
I guess that at the end of the day, as per usual, you pays yer money and takes your choice.
I'd never tell me mates that it had a Corsa lump in it though. You'd never hear the end of it!
I love this car, it's absolutely the right way for Westfield to go and moves the game on in terms of quality for all the Kit Car makers.
650kg may sound heavy to all the people who believe the hype that all Sevens are 500kg, that's simply not true. Most Westfields when specced with a windscreen, heater, carpets and wet weather gear are way in excess of 600kg & V8's are over 750kg, and although lighter, most caterhams similarly specced weigh around the 550kg mark.
To compare this car with an R300 is interesting but misses the point. In a way it's a deliberate move by Westfield away from comparison with Caterham and into a car that they hope and should have much broader appeal.
It's a brave decision because the purists feel that this is a move away from self assembly cars and I guess time will tell if it's a good one or not. Personally I love it and wish them every success.
650kg may sound heavy to all the people who believe the hype that all Sevens are 500kg, that's simply not true. Most Westfields when specced with a windscreen, heater, carpets and wet weather gear are way in excess of 600kg & V8's are over 750kg, and although lighter, most caterhams similarly specced weigh around the 550kg mark.
To compare this car with an R300 is interesting but misses the point. In a way it's a deliberate move by Westfield away from comparison with Caterham and into a car that they hope and should have much broader appeal.
It's a brave decision because the purists feel that this is a move away from self assembly cars and I guess time will tell if it's a good one or not. Personally I love it and wish them every success.
bales said:
300bhp/ton said:
Lol yeah guess all cars suffer lag then, like turning the key to start then engine or getting in the vehicle....
Call it turbolag then as one word if it makes you feel better. But turbolag and boost threshold are distinctly not he same thing and it is not semantics. One is about power curve, and the other about throttle response. Boost threshold will be visible on a dyno graph whereas turbolag will not. And yes maybe Marf does know the difference, but I don't know them to know that. And what about everyone else reading this thread. If it was such a simple thing there wouldn't be this confuse over it in the first place. Only this morning I was reading an Autocar article on the new Focus RS were it talked about lag but referenced rpms and boost threshold.
Well since 99% of the motoring press and 99% of people use the term lag, so I think it is appropriate to use the term that everyone knows what you are talking about, so yes, it is semantics.Call it turbolag then as one word if it makes you feel better. But turbolag and boost threshold are distinctly not he same thing and it is not semantics. One is about power curve, and the other about throttle response. Boost threshold will be visible on a dyno graph whereas turbolag will not. And yes maybe Marf does know the difference, but I don't know them to know that. And what about everyone else reading this thread. If it was such a simple thing there wouldn't be this confuse over it in the first place. Only this morning I was reading an Autocar article on the new Focus RS were it talked about lag but referenced rpms and boost threshold.
For example is there is a road test of lets say a seriously tuned road car say an Evo, it has a GT35 on it and lets assume it doesn't make full boost till 4.5k rpm (as an example)
Would the driver describe the car as;
a.) Stupidly fast but very laggy or suffers from extreme turbo lag..
or
b.) Stupidly fast but the boost threshold is very high...
The vast majority would have no-idea what they were talking about! Whether or not the word has a number of meanings, it is known as turbo lag by 99.99% of people!!
and I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near 99% And one could argue if the press got it right, so would more readers.
It's as bad as people like Clarkson mixing up wastegates and dump valves. Totally different things, as different as a throttle
body is to an exhaust manifold.
And the reason I say about lag and boost threshold is because they mean such different things behind the drivers seat. A car which is laggy may still have a low boost threshold. So if fine balance and throttle control are your things (which I guess many caterham purists are) then any turbocharged engine no matter how low in revs it makes boost will still to them be laggy to drive and not have the same level of throttle contol and balance.
People like kambites have said such a thing is something they really like about na engines. So for them no matter
how good this westfield is or isn't. They probably wouldn't like driving it as much as a na caterham.
Marf said:
bales said:
The vast majority would have no-idea what they were talking about! Whether or not the word has a number of meanings, it is known as turbo lag by 99.99% of people!!
Precisely, but this whole debate misses the point, 300bhp/ton said that 1950rpm would be the boost threshold of this engine, but this cannot be the case as this is in fact the RPM that peak torque is available from, ergo the turbo will be on full chat by 1950rpm and the boost threshold will be lower than that.As for boost threshold. I actually don't know were you say it occurs. Is it went it first makes any boost, significant boost or peak boost? If it's the latter then peak torque may well occur near to peak boost but I don't have any data to varify or deny that for this engine.
And while I agree most modern turbo motors have minimal lag and there are plenty of methods to help
minimise it and a low boost threshold can indicate low lag levels, it doesn't exclusivly prove the engien won't be laggy.
And the difference I mean is when you go across a round about a bit too quick and the back steps out. You automatically lift ofthe vas at 5000rpm then reapply it to fluted the slide. During this process you will have induced turbolag depsite the high rpms and there will be a wait before you get the power to he wheels and then it'll bit harder than in a na engine. Worsrt case is to push the pedal and get no immediate response so push it harder then WHAM! all he ponies delivered at once, you over correct and spin off. Knoing that it makes peak torque at 1950rpm is of no use in this situation.
Wadeski said:
this VX engine must be begging for a remap...
+1 just thinking of all the corsa VXRs ive seen with over 200 bhp Example: http://pistonheads.com/sales/1263341.htm
Running 'safely' at 250 bhp would make up for it being a fatty- at least on the straights lol
Tom_C76 said:
For me, the full corsa instrument set in the middle is a throwback to the bad days of 80s kitcars. Nowhere near as nice as either the Caterham or older Westfields. And in a sports car I'd definitely want the rev counter in my eyeline...
They have to use the full Corsa Intrument (IPC) because the thing would not run without on standard GM management!!!DP 1 said:
Wadeski said:
this VX engine must be begging for a remap...
+1 just thinking of all the corsa VXRs ive seen with over 200 bhp Example: http://pistonheads.com/sales/1263341.htm
Running 'safely' at 250 bhp would make up for it being a fatty- at least on the straights lol
Off subject, I know it's the old "what would you rather have" question, but for £17K plus at least a grand a year for insurance, what would you rather have? Older scoobie, older Mitsu, older 911 - you could get a 996 for £17K... Or a tuned Corsa. I'm not being a snob or anti youth, but...
jason61c said:
Too much money for an ugly looking car when for about half the price you could build something with less weight and more power.
I think you're missing the point. This isn't for us, This is for places where they can't build kit cars and put them on the road easily. Basically the rest of Europe.Nickellarse said:
Off subject, I know it's the old "what would you rather have" question, but for £17K plus at least a grand a year for insurance, what would you rather have? Older scoobie, older Mitsu, older 911 - you could get a 996 for £17K... Or a tuned Corsa. I'm not being a snob or anti youth, but...
They're a very different driving experience to all the other cars you're suggesting. Also they're incredibly cheap to insure. No idea where you get the £1k+ figure from.juansolo said:
Nickellarse said:
Off subject, I know it's the old "what would you rather have" question, but for £17K plus at least a grand a year for insurance, what would you rather have? Older scoobie, older Mitsu, older 911 - you could get a 996 for £17K... Or a tuned Corsa. I'm not being a snob or anti youth, but...
They're a very different driving experience to all the other cars you're suggesting. Also they're incredibly cheap to insure. No idea where you get the £1k+ figure from..Adam. said:
juansolo said:
Nickellarse said:
Off subject, I know it's the old "what would you rather have" question, but for £17K plus at least a grand a year for insurance, what would you rather have? Older scoobie, older Mitsu, older 911 - you could get a 996 for £17K... Or a tuned Corsa. I'm not being a snob or anti youth, but...
They're a very different driving experience to all the other cars you're suggesting. Also they're incredibly cheap to insure. No idea where you get the £1k+ figure from.Steamer said:
.Adam. said:
juansolo said:
Nickellarse said:
Off subject, I know it's the old "what would you rather have" question, but for £17K plus at least a grand a year for insurance, what would you rather have? Older scoobie, older Mitsu, older 911 - you could get a 996 for £17K... Or a tuned Corsa. I'm not being a snob or anti youth, but...
They're a very different driving experience to all the other cars you're suggesting. Also they're incredibly cheap to insure. No idea where you get the £1k+ figure from.Super Slo Mo said:
Steamer said:
.Adam. said:
juansolo said:
Nickellarse said:
Off subject, I know it's the old "what would you rather have" question, but for £17K plus at least a grand a year for insurance, what would you rather have? Older scoobie, older Mitsu, older 911 - you could get a 996 for £17K... Or a tuned Corsa. I'm not being a snob or anti youth, but...
They're a very different driving experience to all the other cars you're suggesting. Also they're incredibly cheap to insure. No idea where you get the £1k+ figure from.
Plus at 17K who would chose a chavy tuned up vxr or a nearly new edition 30? HMM lol
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff