the E10 looks so good in the flesh, the aero looks even
worse in the flesh! The 160 will sell simply because its got Caterham on the front...we all know you can get more bang for your buck but your average Caterham owner will never join us here.
Watched Top Gear last night which had this little car on - from looking at the specs it has a live-axle.
Does anyone know what axle it is?
In the road-test the Stig seemed to be doing some very solid drifts with it - I know he's "the stig" and I know it had skinny tyres but
I'm just really impressed that with, what I assume is an open-diff, he could get such good control of the car.
Suzuki Jimny
http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=28697
The idea I had for my Locost a couple of years ago!!, small lightweight economical car engine , but i couldn't think of one except the little
Suzuki van.
Where can I get an adaptor for a type 9? :-))
I think the ideal is somewhere right between the 620 and 160...pretty much where Caterham's main products are.
The 160 would soon leave you just wanting more, although it could be ideal for a 1 make junior race series. The 620 would most likely just leave you
in a hedge somewhere.
That 160 has only a little less performance than my car... mine's just under 100BHP and has relatively skinny tyres. Theirs has a hell of a lot
less weight though (mine's got a x-flow).
My experience supports what James May said - heaps of fun, totally predictable handling, but with the capability for pootling along enjoying the
sunshine if that's what you fancy. I can easily hang the tail out if I'm in the mood, and it's easy to recover if things get too
exciting. I don't get any unexpected surprises with the tail suddenly letting go either... bloody awful on a greasy wet road, but I think that
goes for just about any 7-style car!
Didn't like that Caterham concept car though...
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
Didn't like that Caterham concept car though...
The trouble with the 160 is that, whilst it offers no thrills fun, it doesnt do it for no thrills price, £17k! - for that money you could buy countless fun cars of varying configurations and have a lot more practicality. IMO it just wont sell, no one who has £17k spare to buy a fun car will consider something so raw, for so much, that gives so little.
quote:
Originally posted by nick205
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
Didn't like that Caterham concept car though...
Nor me, looked bloody awful IMHO.
I quite like the aero 7.
Is £17k really that much for a new car? It would be alot of money to spend on a toy but I think most of it's competitors (As in the non kit
variety) would be simillar money or more. without looking it up I'd guess there isn't a cheaper RWD sports car available from a mainstream
manufacturer.
I think it will sell well for a caterham.
Having seen the areo 7 and the Zenos E10 then I can't see any future for the aero 7 the E10 looks so good in the flesh, the aero looks even
worse in the flesh!
The 160 will sell simply because its got Caterham on the front...we all know you can get more bang for your buck but your average Caterham owner will
never join us here.
Hello
Average Caterham owner here!!
£17k still a lot for me, but there is something appealing about it, could make a nice S2 replica.
I think James Hunts favourite car was the Austin van, you could drive it on the limit without silly speeds, in fact you were on the limit just keeping
up with modern cars. Something similar with the 160!
Cheers
Ian