Seven 160 Roadtest in Autocar
Discussion
Performance figures unfortunately taken in the wet. 0-60 in 8.4 secs and braking from 30-0 in 15.1m (dry-rain) and 19.8m (wet).
Everyone seems to think the handling is a hoot at lowish speeds with the narrow Avon ZT5 on 4.5" rims, but I'd be very worried about the wet weather braking.
Still, they gave it 4 stars overall.
Everyone seems to think the handling is a hoot at lowish speeds with the narrow Avon ZT5 on 4.5" rims, but I'd be very worried about the wet weather braking.
Still, they gave it 4 stars overall.
Well that is really the issue isn't it? I love the idea of the 160 but the reality falls short . Turbo engine- just wrong. Revvy little n/a three would be great - 100bhp wouldn't be an issue with some of the stuff around now. Or whatever is closest to 1400K in character these days. I had one and it revved forever and sounded epic. The 160's gearing is daft - 40 max in second ???And it has the usual daft pricing where everything is an extra. So you pay 20k for a novelty when 5 or 6 k less would get you a proper Seven secondhand.
It will sell in Japan and Europe- and maybe here to the Morgan 3 wheeler demographic. Would I even consider one to replace my Seven - not in a million years...
It will sell in Japan and Europe- and maybe here to the Morgan 3 wheeler demographic. Would I even consider one to replace my Seven - not in a million years...
If wet weather breaking is on your worry list, I think you best stay well clear of sevens all together 
Seriously, a seven is a lot of things but safe (compared to modern tintops) it is not.
As others, I don't get the 160. At that price, I would personally buy a second hand R300/R400, and that would also be my recommendation to anyone asking. If you like, you can put skinny tires on that one and also slide about at low speeds. Then when that gets tiresome, you could put on some real tires again
Seriously, a seven is a lot of things but safe (compared to modern tintops) it is not.As others, I don't get the 160. At that price, I would personally buy a second hand R300/R400, and that would also be my recommendation to anyone asking. If you like, you can put skinny tires on that one and also slide about at low speeds. Then when that gets tiresome, you could put on some real tires again
130g said:
If wet weather breaking is on your worry list, I think you best stay well clear of sevens all together
Too late, I've had a Supersport for over 7 years and drive it all year round!But I couldn't help but notice that the braking figure from 60-0 is the worst of ANY vehicle listed in their Road Tests and by a considerable margin. OK, it was raining during their test, but by the law of averages a fair number of the others must have been too.
Bert, the rear wings are narrower; helps it fit into the Japanese Kei-class.
I'm the 3 wheeler demographic.
I'll have mine in BRG with dark gun metal steelies, black pack with chrome lights, may even pop to Morgan to see if they'll sell me some wheeler decals.
Love it because it is different, value for money it is awful.
We all look for different things in a car I guess.
I'll have mine in BRG with dark gun metal steelies, black pack with chrome lights, may even pop to Morgan to see if they'll sell me some wheeler decals.
Love it because it is different, value for money it is awful.
We all look for different things in a car I guess.
We do- and the frustrating thing to me is that the 160 is so nearly right. Get a better powerplant which revs and howls, better gearing and some funky looking 14" Minilites with 70 profile rubber and it would be perfect.And sell the car at a proper OTR price rather than the usual nonsense of charging for paint etc
Isn't the point of this for Japan and rest of Europe where homologated Caterhams are few and far between? The powerplant passes the emissions tests and they can buy gearbox and axle with it, which has to be cheaper. The Ford Ecoboost 1 litre is twice the price to buy as a crate apparently! The reason for live axle is the suspension is cheaper to produce than de dion or IRS, so without it the car woudl be more expensive.
dino ferrana said:
Isn't the point of this for Japan and rest of Europe where homologated Caterhams are few and far between? The powerplant passes the emissions tests and they can buy gearbox and axle with it, which has to be cheaper. The Ford Ecoboost 1 litre is twice the price to buy as a crate apparently! The reason for live axle is the suspension is cheaper to produce than de dion or IRS, so without it the car woudl be more expensive.
I doubt Caterham are expecting many UK sales of the 160/165.dino ferrana said:
Isn't the point of this for Japan and rest of Europe where homologated Caterhams are few and far between? The powerplant passes the emissions tests and they can buy gearbox and axle with it, which has to be cheaper. The Ford Ecoboost 1 litre is twice the price to buy as a crate apparently! The reason for live axle is the suspension is cheaper to produce than de dion or IRS, so without it the car woudl be more expensive.
Indeed; big tax advantages in many countries too.Using the Suzuki rear axle reduces the rear track to comply with Japanese Kei-class regs (as the donor vehicle does). The standard de Dion suspension is too wide so it makes sense to use an off the shelf compliant axle instead of spending money on engineering a new de Dion tube. The standard front suspension is already narrow enough when fitted with the 160's 4.5" rims.
Trawling the net killing time waiting for my 160 to be built - came across this and other threads on your excellent forum! I've read lots of reservations about the 160 that seem to boil down to relatively high cost, low power/performance, turbo engine and solid rear axle/skinny tyres.
Seems to me the 160 is an expression of choice.
First - where I'm coming from: Wanted a 7 for 30 years since owning a Dutton phaeton in my late 20s (1600GT cortina engine). In the meantime I've completely rebuilt a spitfire and (almost) a herald, and taken my bike test since I couldn't afford a caterham going on to own 4 motorbikes. I say that to support my claim that I am a motoring enthusiast. But I also work in hospital picking up pieces when things go pear shaped and am recently a grandad. I disagree with sceptics regarding global warming and in any case there is clearly only a limited supply of oil so my grandchildren may need some! For that reason I do my local journeys by bicycle but still regard driving as a gift. Sadly, I have never troubled the world of motorsport! On the green side, I have little problem with motorsport and sports cars - where possible, less cars on the school run and commuting would be a much bigger priority!
To my points:
1) Cost - What price do we expect to pay for a hand build British sports car from a manufacturer with a comparable heritage?
2) Performance - If we do want high performance, low cost and even independent rear suspension, we can always get a motorcycle! The original recipe for the 7 involved much lower power than even the 160, but my none of my bikes felt as fast as sitting that low in a 7 does on a country lane.
3) Turbo - With the turbo this car can be both genuinely sporting in the classic sense while sipping fuel almost as lightly as any current petrol car, so it can be great fun and at the same time not 'cost the earth'. A compromise?
4) Safety - Loss of control of motorcycles is usually down to the rider - people come off at combinations of bends and speeds that the bike can handle but the rider 'bottles out' - high tech cars still wind up in smashes. If my 160 crashes, skinny tyres and live axle or not, it will probably be my fault, not the car's!
Someone mentioned the 160 appealing to a particular demographic. Caterham produce a range of cars including some that probably go beyond most drivers abilities. The sheer simplicity of this car is appealing in itself (turbo notwithstanding). But no other manufacturer produces a real sports / drivers car with that sort of heritage that acknowledges a demographic that enjoys driving but would like this level of fuel consumption and emissions, and is happy to exploit it at legal speeds.
Seems to me the 160 is an expression of choice.
First - where I'm coming from: Wanted a 7 for 30 years since owning a Dutton phaeton in my late 20s (1600GT cortina engine). In the meantime I've completely rebuilt a spitfire and (almost) a herald, and taken my bike test since I couldn't afford a caterham going on to own 4 motorbikes. I say that to support my claim that I am a motoring enthusiast. But I also work in hospital picking up pieces when things go pear shaped and am recently a grandad. I disagree with sceptics regarding global warming and in any case there is clearly only a limited supply of oil so my grandchildren may need some! For that reason I do my local journeys by bicycle but still regard driving as a gift. Sadly, I have never troubled the world of motorsport! On the green side, I have little problem with motorsport and sports cars - where possible, less cars on the school run and commuting would be a much bigger priority!
To my points:
1) Cost - What price do we expect to pay for a hand build British sports car from a manufacturer with a comparable heritage?
2) Performance - If we do want high performance, low cost and even independent rear suspension, we can always get a motorcycle! The original recipe for the 7 involved much lower power than even the 160, but my none of my bikes felt as fast as sitting that low in a 7 does on a country lane.
3) Turbo - With the turbo this car can be both genuinely sporting in the classic sense while sipping fuel almost as lightly as any current petrol car, so it can be great fun and at the same time not 'cost the earth'. A compromise?
4) Safety - Loss of control of motorcycles is usually down to the rider - people come off at combinations of bends and speeds that the bike can handle but the rider 'bottles out' - high tech cars still wind up in smashes. If my 160 crashes, skinny tyres and live axle or not, it will probably be my fault, not the car's!
Someone mentioned the 160 appealing to a particular demographic. Caterham produce a range of cars including some that probably go beyond most drivers abilities. The sheer simplicity of this car is appealing in itself (turbo notwithstanding). But no other manufacturer produces a real sports / drivers car with that sort of heritage that acknowledges a demographic that enjoys driving but would like this level of fuel consumption and emissions, and is happy to exploit it at legal speeds.
Edited by SP160 on Wednesday 7th January 22:32
SP160 said:
Trawling the net killing time waiting for my 160 to be built - came across this and other threads on your excellent forum! I've read lots of reservations about the 160 that seem to boil down to relatively high cost, low power/performance, turbo engine and solid rear axle/skinny tyres.
Seems to me the 160 is an expression of choice.
First - where I'm coming from: Wanted a 7 for 30 years since owning a Dutton phaeton in my late 20s (1600GT cortina engine). In the meantime I've completely rebuilt a spitfire and (almost) a herald, and taken my bike test since I couldn't afford a caterham going on to own 4 motorbikes. I say that to support my claim that I am a motoring enthusiast. But I also work in hospital picking up pieces when things go pear shaped and am recently a grandad. I disagree with sceptics regarding global warming and in any case there is clearly only a limited supply of oil so my grandchildren may need some! For that reason I do my local journeys by bicycle but still regard driving as a gift. Sadly, I have never troubled the world of motorsport! On the green side, I have little problem with motorsport and sports cars - where possible, less cars on the school run and commuting would be a much bigger priority!
To my points:
1) Cost - What price do we expect to pay for a hand build British sports car from a manufacturer with a comparable heritage?
2) Performance - If we do want high performance, low cost and even independent rear suspension, we can always get a motorcycle! The original recipe for the 7 involved much lower power than even the 160, but my none of my bikes felt as fast as sitting that low in a 7 does on a country lane.
3) Turbo - With the turbo this car can be both genuinely sporting in the classic sense while sipping fuel almost as lightly as any current petrol car, so it can be great fun and at the same time not 'cost the earth'. A compromise?
4) Safety - Loss of control of motorcycles is usually down to the rider - people come off at combinations of bends and speeds that the bike can handle but the rider 'bottles out' - high tech cars still wind up in smashes. If my 160 crashes, skinny tyres and live axle or not, it will probably be my fault, not the car's!
Someone mentioned the 160 appealing to a particular demographic. Caterham produce a range of cars including some that probably go beyond most drivers abilities. The sheer simplicity of this car is appealing in itself (turbo notwithstanding). But no other manufacturer produces a real sports / drivers car with that sort of heritage that acknowledges a demographic that enjoys driving but would like this level of fuel consumption and emissions, and is happy to exploit it at legal speeds.
Good points Seems to me the 160 is an expression of choice.
First - where I'm coming from: Wanted a 7 for 30 years since owning a Dutton phaeton in my late 20s (1600GT cortina engine). In the meantime I've completely rebuilt a spitfire and (almost) a herald, and taken my bike test since I couldn't afford a caterham going on to own 4 motorbikes. I say that to support my claim that I am a motoring enthusiast. But I also work in hospital picking up pieces when things go pear shaped and am recently a grandad. I disagree with sceptics regarding global warming and in any case there is clearly only a limited supply of oil so my grandchildren may need some! For that reason I do my local journeys by bicycle but still regard driving as a gift. Sadly, I have never troubled the world of motorsport! On the green side, I have little problem with motorsport and sports cars - where possible, less cars on the school run and commuting would be a much bigger priority!
To my points:
1) Cost - What price do we expect to pay for a hand build British sports car from a manufacturer with a comparable heritage?
2) Performance - If we do want high performance, low cost and even independent rear suspension, we can always get a motorcycle! The original recipe for the 7 involved much lower power than even the 160, but my none of my bikes felt as fast as sitting that low in a 7 does on a country lane.
3) Turbo - With the turbo this car can be both genuinely sporting in the classic sense while sipping fuel almost as lightly as any current petrol car, so it can be great fun and at the same time not 'cost the earth'. A compromise?
4) Safety - Loss of control of motorcycles is usually down to the rider - people come off at combinations of bends and speeds that the bike can handle but the rider 'bottles out' - high tech cars still wind up in smashes. If my 160 crashes, skinny tyres and live axle or not, it will probably be my fault, not the car's!
Someone mentioned the 160 appealing to a particular demographic. Caterham produce a range of cars including some that probably go beyond most drivers abilities. The sheer simplicity of this car is appealing in itself (turbo notwithstanding). But no other manufacturer produces a real sports / drivers car with that sort of heritage that acknowledges a demographic that enjoys driving but would like this level of fuel consumption and emissions, and is happy to exploit it at legal speeds.
Edited by SP160 on Wednesday 7th January 22:32
Just so you know my point of view, I currently own a 125 Roadsport and I'm really happy with it.
I can see why people are buying the 160 model, and have read the road tests.
The low power, less grippy tyres approach makes a lot of sense for mainly road use, also reduced fuel consumption and the raod tax being a lot less than the £225 I will have to pay this year.
The only two problems I have with the 160 are:
1. I suspect that over taking opportunities will be limited on A roads due to aerodynamics v low power
2. The gearbox ratios are apparently far from ideal with 2nd too low and 3rd too high (admittedly they aren't great on my type 9 box as 5th is overdrive and 1st far too low
)One real selling point is the narrow wings make the 160 the best looking Seven since the S2 Lotus
Gassing Station | Caterham | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff