Caterham Seven 160: Review

Discussion in 'European Cars' started by Veyronman, Oct 28, 2013.

  1. LOL
  2. It doesnt look like a prowler in any way
  3. I hate you because it's true
  4. #29 sixspeedfirebird, Oct 30, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    I like that song.
  5. um
  6. Exactly. It doesn't have to go 150 to be fun. A 1000kg MGA with 80 horsepower is fun. This weights half that, and with real suspension and steering. It will be a blast on back roads.
  7. oh my god bike motor would be great
    i like bike motor cars so much

    turrrbooooo hiyaboooossssa
  8. Yep. Something like a 620R would be nice to have as a trackday toy. This 160 isn't bad for road use because it's softer and less ridiculously powerful. I'd pee myself if I drove an RWD car with slick tyres and a power-to-weight ratio like that at 9/10 on a typical twisting country road here with limited visibility, crests and bumps and often less-than-ideal grip conditions.

    The point of cars like this is that you can max them out without going 700km/h. My favourite road in Sipoo has a 60 km/h limit and the absolute maximum I have gone there on a sport bike is 140-ish. Was scary as hell and not very pleasant knowing that if some boy racer comes from the opposite direction sideways with his 3-series or if there's some sand or a pothole in the blind corner, bam, wheelchair or choking on your own blood in the bushes. 80 bhp propelling 500 kg on a road like that is enough imo.

    The reason why this car has a turbo is efficiency and reliability. Sure, a bike engine would be entertaining but it would drink at least 50% more and develop mechanical problems earlier. Most sports bike engines have a very short stroke, lightweight construction and are meant to propel something less heavy than 500kg+driver around. And even my dog understands that something that revs to 16k isn't going to last as long as something where the limiter kicks in at 8k.

    I wonder how this car would behave on snowy/icy roads on winter tyres.
  9. cool this car
  11. hi revs=hi tek=better
  12. whats wrong teemu
  13. Cballer's comment, Yvette
  14. Also, hp/L
  15. This has 121hp/l. Almost 20hp/l more than a McLaren F1
  16. This has 121hp/l. Almost 20hp/l more than a McLaren F1.
  17. Lol you keep replying to my comments as if I either am limited cognitively or lack technical knowledge.

    I completely understand this car, I would just go for the faster Caterhams given the option. You should trust me because I raced a 10hp (on a good day) 4 stroke kart for 6 years... I know exactly what momentum vehicles are about and having honed my race craft in 4 strokes as opposed to 30hp or 50hp 2 strokes I can drive and appreciate them accordingly.

    Two of the best drives of my life were in Formula 2000 cars. One being an outdated Reynard from 1985 with a modified Ford Pinto engine that probably never saw 100hp. The other was a Van Diemen F2000 with a Mazda 2L that made maybe 180hp. Weighing 1200lb with me in it, the performance was mind blowing. But once I got a hold of it after a few sessions I wanted more power and proper slicks, more downforce. That's just personal preference. You don't have to take me for another supercarnerd goon who just wants 800hp and 3000 kilos of downforce.

    So yeah you can stop doubting me and or trying to correct me now that you know the reasoning behind my opinion. Cya
  18. These carts and F2000 cars... were they by any chance driven on track?
  19. No I drove full race cars on the road.... Why, are you looking to explain to me that the road and track are two diametrically opposed driving scenarios? Do yourself a favour and just accept that not everyone wants to drive or own an underpowered tiny car. I think that any Caterham is a fantastic platform for a driver's car, they are probably the most accessible driver's cars available today. All I'm saying is that I get the idea of the 160 and other small Caterhams and light cars for that matter, I WOULD JUST GO FOR A BIGGER ONE.
  20. That's what she said.

Share This Page