2002 my a#@

Discussion in '2002 Caterham Seven Superlight R300' started by 944turb0, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. Re: 2002 my a#@

    its cool<!-- Signature -->
     
  2. It has a 6 speed and it only go's 130mph.<!-- Signature -->
     
  3. Re: 2002 my a#@

    It only has 160bhp and isnt very aerodynamic.<!-- Signature -->
     
  4. Re: 2002 my a#@

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from GT40 2</i>
    <b>It has a 6 speed and it only go's 130mph.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Its also geared to accelerate fast, not have a huge Top Speed.<!-- Signature -->
     
  5. Re: 2002 my a#@

    Dang...that thing is weird...oh well
    Looks old too!
    <!-- Signature -->
     
  6. Re: 2002 my a#@

    It looks old because it is based off of the Lotus Super Seven, that was built way back when.
     
  7. Re: 2002 my a#@

    better than ford mustang, tbird, and well any other fords<!-- Signature -->
     
  8. Re: 2002 my a#@

    It looks awesome. This is the kind of car they should take to mars.<!-- Signature -->
     
  9. Re: 2002 my a#@

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from GT40 2</i>
    <b>It has a 6 speed and it only go's 130mph.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    It's a racing car - those gears are all spaced close together. This car is not about straight-line speed, it's about going round a windy-twisty race track at high speed.
     
  10. Re: 2002 my a#@

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from TVRTuscanS</i>
    <b>It only has 160bhp and isnt very aerodynamic.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    What do you mean "only" 160bhp ?!?!? You obviously don't understand power / weight ratios. It has 300 hp/ton - more than lots of sports cars. The R500 variant has 500 hp/ton.
     
  11. Re: 2002 my a#@

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from SlartyB</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from TVRTuscanS</i>
    <b>It only has 160bhp and isnt very aerodynamic.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    What do you mean "only" 160bhp ?!?!? You obviously don't understand power / weight ratios. It has 300 hp/ton - more than lots of sports cars. The R500 variant has 500 hp/ton.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I know about power/ weight ratios very well. I just forgot to put the ONLY word in close quotations.

    Btw, one can't really get the exact power/ weight ratio of any car. Those figures go down with the added weight of the driver. Its even more significant in Caterhams and other kit cars.<!-- Signature -->
     
  12. Re: 2002 my a#@

    It's common sense that the less a car weighs, then the more the driver and/or passenger weight matters. In an Aston Martin V12 Vanquish, it really doesn't matter how much the driver and/or passenger weighs, but in a racing go-cart (about 200 lbs.), 3 pounds matters.
     
  13. Re: 2002 my a#@

    id drive it........into a ditch, they should have put a little more effort into the styling, its kinda weird, and i wouldnt want to hace no windshield at 70mph muchless 130 whats up with that<!-- Signature -->
     
  14. Re: 2002 my a#@

    Who cares what year it is? just because is doesnt look new doesnt mean it isnt. my boss has a 99 prowler with aluminum block. from a picture it would look like the old-skool prowlers, but its nowhere near.
     
  15. Re: 2002 my a#@

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from ride_the_lightning</i>
    <b>id drive it........into a ditch, they should have put a little more effort into the styling, its kinda weird, and i wouldnt want to hace no windshield at 70mph muchless 130 whats up with that</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Oh good grief ....

    It's a *classic*. It was designed in the 1950's and the styling hasn't changed much since then (thank God). It has a lot more character than your average "Jelly mould" that people drive today.

    As for the lack of windshield - IT'S A RACING CAR !! You are supposed to drive it with a helmet on.
     
  16. Re: 2002 my a#@

    this car is a piece oh [email protected]!, 160 hp, thats sad. it shouldnt even be on a website for SUPERcars. Not only does the output suck so does the design.
     
  17. Re: 2002 my a#@

    Alright. Some of you are having questions on this car. Lets look at some of the new cars rolling off the line. People are taking Older budy styles and remaking them. Some examples: Ford Thunderbird, Nissan 350Z (by the way I just saw that thing on the road and DAMN it looks good!!!), Mercury Maruder, Ford Mustang (on the Mach 3 they have that Shaker hood thing, It looks pretty good), and some others I can't quite name right now.
     
  18. Re: 2002 my a#@

    Supercars? Oh...then the only yank car that SHOULD be on here is the Saleen S7.
    You fuggin retard, the car will out handle almost all god damned "supercar" in production. It accelerates to 60 with plenty sports cars that have what...3-4 times it's horsepower...oh, and what's this? It is rated the #1 Trackay Car Of The Year by Evo mag of England.
    This TCOTY this included:
    Honda Civic Type R (UK Spec) [lap time: 1:24:00]
    I4; 197Hp @7400 rpm; 145ft/lbs @ 5900 rpm; 0-60 in 6.8sec; top speed = 146mph; weight 1204 kg

    TVR Tamora [1.20.79]
    I6; 350hp @ 7200; 290ft/lbs @ 5500; 0-60 in 4.5; TS = 160 mph; 1100kg

    Mitsubishi Lancer Evo VII RS Sprint [1.20.40]
    I4; 320hp @ 6500; 327ft/lbs @ 6200; 0-60 in 4.4; TS = 150 mph; 1260kg

    BMW M3 Trackmeister [1.19.00]
    I6; 340hp @ 7500; 265ft/lbs @ 4500; 0-60 in 4.9; TS = 150 mph; 1460kg

    Ariel Atom [1.18.25]
    I4; 190hp @ 7500; 140ft/lbs @ 6000; 0-60 in 4.5; TS = 135 mph; 500kg

    Lotus Exige TT260 [1.17.15]
    I4; 270hp @ 7400; 207ft/lbs @ 6400; 0-60 in 4.3; TS = +140 mph; 780kg

    Honda Fireblade* [1.14.00]
    I4; 148hp @ 11,250; 77ft/lbs @ 9500; 0-60 in 3; TS = 168 mph; 168kg

    Radical SR3 [1.10.90]
    I4; 252hp @ 9500; 158ft/lbs @ 7000; 0-60 in 3; TS = 160 mph; 500kg

    *Honda Fireblade is the chosen bike, Evo always runs a bike now in such a group testing it seems.

    Now I hear you bitching that there is no true "Super car" there, but just note this: The Radical SR3 was lapping the track as FAST as Formula 3000 RACE CARS...and the Radical is -completely- street legal. The Radical would simply SLAUGHTER any...and ALL Supercars to show at a race course...simple as that.

    The reason the Caterham won, was because it was extremely satisfying to drive. It was the most exhilerating car there, and this is from people who have driven every one of the supercars out there.
    Just because it doesn't go fast, or have luxury, does not mean it isn't worthy of being a super car.
    So shut up, open your mind, and for christ's sakes boy, get a sense of -STYLE-
     
  19. Re: 2002 my a#@

    Of course the design isn't 2002...

    Little of you guys seem to know that caterham have bought the production rights from Lotus, in order to produce cars that look almost the same as a Lotus Seven S3.

    For the record, the Seven S3 was produced between 1962 and 1965. That's when the design was made. I don't hear any of you here complaining that a 911 nowadays looks "none 2002"... IIRC the design for the first Carrera was made way back in the sixties as well. And next to the Porsche, there's only one car (except for the Cat's then), that has a design that's "older" than 25 years... The Lotus Esprit.
     
  20. Re: 2002 my a#@

    you said it all, except 1 thing. Another reason why EVO chose it TCOTY Is beaucause it's so damn cheap to drive. It wears almost no tyres and brake pads.
     
  21. Re: 2002 my a#@

    how about one with a GEN 3 V8 in one and Still street legal
     
  22. Re: 2002 my a#@

    how 'bout you have no idea what your talking about !!

     
  23. Re: 2002 my a#@

    Anyone have any pictures of these things in crash tests If you do please post them it would make my day. I think it would be a pretty cool car to street race people in the 50's they wouldnt know what hit them. And think of how funny it would be to pull up next to a mustang or vette in one of these and rev the engine they wuold laugh at you but when the light turned green you would be right beside them :D If i had tons of money i would but one of these just because they look so slow and arnt that bad
     
  24. Re: 2002 my a#@

    Quit making gay posts ignorant fool.
     
  25. Re: 2002 my a#@

    my dream.............seeing one of these in my drive way opening up the hood and what do i see nothing but a LS-6 350 sittin under the hood this thing would either 1.be so fast you couldn't drive it 2.flip over on hard accel oooo what a dream
     

Share This Page