Just test drove 160
Discussion
)? It's a product that doesn't fit your needs so you'll buy something else <shrug>
Have to agree thats a lot of money for new Caterham say cf a new MX5 -or indeed cf used higher spec caterham
I mean if it say 16k fully built ,it would make sense as an entry level 7
Be interested to see how residuals stack up in a couple of years when used examples start to come on the market as folk trade up to a more powerful 7 -which lets be honest is bound to happen
Having said that it has a similar power to weight ratio cf a lot of Morgans out there ,which are a lot more expensive either new or second hand
Still i think its neat idea and if the speed doesn't bother you and its just for weekend blats ,then why not
I mean if it say 16k fully built ,it would make sense as an entry level 7
Be interested to see how residuals stack up in a couple of years when used examples start to come on the market as folk trade up to a more powerful 7 -which lets be honest is bound to happen
Having said that it has a similar power to weight ratio cf a lot of Morgans out there ,which are a lot more expensive either new or second hand
Still i think its neat idea and if the speed doesn't bother you and its just for weekend blats ,then why not
rotorwings said:
£18,500 on the road, with no windscreen, no paint, and drum brakes! I don't get it.
It's not really aimed at the UK market as there are plenty of other options here. It's more aimed at markets where previous 7s are unavailable or with ridiculously strict emissions/personal import laws.I recently drove a Caterham 165 (continental European version) on a slalom track. It was a hoot to drive, the lap times compared well with what I achieved with my '96 1.6 K-series, and other Seven (R400, R300) drivers who had a go on the same day commented equally favourably.
It's a thoroughbred Seven, in the true spirit of Colin Chapman and Graham Nearn, and a great ride for a blat around the countryside. I can only imagine that it would be lacking in power when it comes to long distance touring.
I would even venture that he who cannot appreciate its qualities might not appreciate a Seven at all, and should go looking for a Z4, Boxster or Elise in order not to become disappointed.
This car gets a lot of unjustified flak, mostly from people who have never driven one, even though Caterham has built similar Sevens before:
- the (Ford) 1600GT (84 hp, 550 kg, 1975-1992)
- the Seven Classic (84 hp, 625 kg, 1992-1998)
It's a thoroughbred Seven, in the true spirit of Colin Chapman and Graham Nearn, and a great ride for a blat around the countryside. I can only imagine that it would be lacking in power when it comes to long distance touring.
I would even venture that he who cannot appreciate its qualities might not appreciate a Seven at all, and should go looking for a Z4, Boxster or Elise in order not to become disappointed.
This car gets a lot of unjustified flak, mostly from people who have never driven one, even though Caterham has built similar Sevens before:
- the (Ford) 1600GT (84 hp, 550 kg, 1975-1992)
- the Seven Classic (84 hp, 625 kg, 1992-1998)
Well then Ken-my first 7 was an old school lotus twin cam on dellortos with a live axle bench seats -not dissimilar to to the 160 -and it was great fun at a price - but after a while i craved more power and moved to a BDR which was epic .Thats not to say you cant have fun in lower powered 7 .
RegMolehusband said:
I really hope they don't sell many in the UK. It's devaluing the Caterham brand and image in my opinion.
Eh ? Nobody I know in the Seven world(and I know a fair few ) has had a bad word to say about the 160, including those who have driven the car. As said . many earlier iterations of Sevens have had less power, and the much vaunted Morgan 3 wheeler has similar performance. As for the comment about the drum brakes...they work and whilst they may not be Carlos Fandango carbon ceramic techno marvels like on an SLS or whatever the Seven weighs less than a typical supercar owner's wallet. If the 160 devalues the brand then I suggest that is in the eyes of people who cannot see beyond the loonytunes performance of the more powerful cars- one of which I own and whilst I love it dearly a recent drive in a Seven with almost half the power was almost as much fun. Sevens are about driving ,whether slowly or quickly - that's the ACBC DNA and the 160 has got it
djo7 said:
I've just test drove a 160. Seriously under powered, even for road use. Looks as if I'm going to have to get a Supersport instead. What a shame.
Have you driven a 7 before to compare?I can't believe you test drove a new car and only had one sentence to say about it.... (dare I say that this is just a troll?)
I'm not sure how a car can be "underpowered for road use" that's nonsense! My 2ton van has 80hp and can keep up with traffic, its not fast or fun and it is certainly the definition for "underpowered" but it is fit to use on the road.
I haven't driven the 160, (I would love to try it though) I imagine it needs to be driven like my van- like you stole it! :-)
I imagine if you drive it like a normal car (for example a torque-rich TDi) it'll feel very slow. From the reviews I've read you need to work quite hard to keep it on the boil but are rewarded for your efforts with great involvement and feedback.
As for devaluing the brand - to me it adds value to the brand by ignoring the "more power is better" philosophy and focusing instead on lightweight, purity and simplicity.
As for devaluing the brand - to me it adds value to the brand by ignoring the "more power is better" philosophy and focusing instead on lightweight, purity and simplicity.
Interesting comparison between 160 and 620R here: http://m.autocar.co.uk/car-news/anything-goes/cate...
scubadude said:
Have you driven a 7 before to compare?
I can't believe you test drove a new car and only had one sentence to say about it.... (dare I say that this is just a troll?)
I'm not sure how a car can be "underpowered for road use" that's nonsense! My 2ton van has 80hp and can keep up with traffic, its not fast or fun and it is certainly the definition for "underpowered" but it is fit to use on the road.
To answer your question I have driven a 7 before. I have owned a csr260. I am looking to get back into owning a seven. I test drove the 160 and was hoping it would be more like a faster seven and less like my defender. I can't believe you test drove a new car and only had one sentence to say about it.... (dare I say that this is just a troll?)
I'm not sure how a car can be "underpowered for road use" that's nonsense! My 2ton van has 80hp and can keep up with traffic, its not fast or fun and it is certainly the definition for "underpowered" but it is fit to use on the road.
What is meant by Troll?
What's wrong with one liners?
djo7 said:
To answer your question I have driven a 7 before. I have owned a csr260. I am looking to get back into owning a seven. I test drove the 160 and was hoping it would be more like a faster seven and less like my defender.
What is meant by Troll?
What's wrong with one liners?
(No offence, normally online when someone drops a single line bombshell its trolling- fishing term for trying to getting a bite in simple terms.)What is meant by Troll?
What's wrong with one liners?
Your review is more interesting now I suppose, did you find you needed to rev the nuts off it to make progress, the other reviews don't seem to suggest the engine change has transformed it as much as you experienced?
Which 7 did you think it might compare favorably too? The original 34hp job- just curious.
coppice said:
Eh ? Nobody I know in the Seven world(and I know a fair few ) has had a bad word to say about the 160, including those who have driven the car.
I did. I quoted the appalling braking figures in the Autocar road test; not due to the rear drum brakes (fitted to many a live-axled Caterham) I think, but to the narrow "Eco" tyres fitted to this model and a damp test track. Unfortunately I don't think there are any decent tyres available in this size. The braking figures were the worst of any car tested by Autocar.CanAm said:
coppice said:
Eh ? Nobody I know in the Seven world(and I know a fair few ) has had a bad word to say about the 160, including those who have driven the car.
I did. I quoted the appalling braking figures in the Autocar road test; not due to the rear drum brakes (fitted to many a live-axled Caterham) I think, but to the narrow "Eco" tyres fitted to this model and a damp test track. Unfortunately I don't think there are any decent tyres available in this size. The braking figures were the worst of any car tested by Autocar.I recall doing a steady sixty along a B road in my SuperlightR when somebody didn't see me and pulled out of a T junction barely 15 metres ahead of me. It was only as a result of the dynamics of the car (and my superhuman reactions of course) that I managed a dab of the brakes and a huge swerve around the back of the car the closeness of which really shook me up. In the 160 with those tyres it would have resulted in a very unpleasant collision.
Edited by RegMolehusband on Friday 27th June 19:11
Gassing Station | Caterham | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff