Think the Caterham Seven couldn’t get any smaller? Think again.
Not long after Caterham announced it was under the new management of Japan-based VT Holdings, the carmaker has introduced a new model of the Seven to its lineup: the 170.
Powered by a turbocharged, 660cc inline-three engine sourced from Suzuki and good for 84 horsepower, the 170 also claims the …
Is the width taken out of the track? I can't imagine the interior being any smaller.
If cheap enough, I'd be all over that. The smaller the better.
I looked around. ~$30k in the UK, apparently.
That seems to me like a Japan only model - they are the ones into microcars and small engines.
OTOH, I could certainly see something as light as a 7 being powered by an engine like the new GM turbo 3 cylinder L3T they are going to use in the new Trailblazer and Encore.perhaps. Should be around 156 horsepower and 174 pound-feet of torque
Seems like a great idea. How was this not a thing sooner?
I really like this. On my list of projects is building something similar. I even have the Geo Metro 1.0L. I would maybe do Mid engined though.
Driven5 said:Seems like a great idea. How was this not a thing sooner?
Even pathological types like me rarely look at a Seven and have ever thought "You know, this car is just too darn big."
I wonder if there will be some actions taken from the Mahandra Roxor playbook (minus the legal wranglings with Jeep.)
But, the Roxor was sold into the US as a slow vehicle somewhere between a golf cart and a Side by Side Ute. This keeps the highway safety eyes off the product. But, some communities allow golf carts on the road so some Roxors are road driven.
If the Seven was sold into this "golf cart" range some slow versions could be put on the road. Simultaneously, Seven could sell "accessories" that make these into "track only" vehicles. These "accessories" could be turbo kits with speed governors removed. Could also be wider rear axles/tires. It could then be the responsibility of the owner to not mix these uses. The vehicles approved for the road shouldn't have the "accessories" intended for track only. Wink, wink; nudge, nudge.
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
I'm talking less about the 'smaller 7' aspect, and more about the '7 as the basis for a Kei car' aspect. It seems like a practically-perfect match that, in retrospect, should have been completely obvious.
SkinnyG (Forum Supporter) said:Is the width taken out of the track? I can't imagine the interior being any smaller.
Look at that wheel offset.
As noted, they only had to lose 105mm overall compared to a non-SV car. That's just tire/wheel choice and a bit of a fender trim.
Someone at Caterham is brilliant. The original Lotus Seven was available as a kit car primarily as a tax dodge, so it's going back to its roots :)
Don't forget, the Seven 160 was introduced in 2013ish with the 660cc turbo three also, just not the Kei car outside dimensions. I've always thought this was a perfect powerplant for the spirit of the Lotus 7.
SkinnyG (Forum Supporter) said:Is the width taken out of the track? I can't imagine the interior being any smaller.
Yeah I would not fit in that having been in a 7 before.
I think it's really unlikely the interior was touched, as that would affect everything from the windscreen to the bonnet to the dashboard to the seats. I think it's all in those rear wheels.
SkinnyG (Forum Supporter) said:Is the width taken out of the track? I can't imagine the interior being any smaller.
Skinnier rear tires.
Hmmmm... (starts searching bike ads for Hayabusa motors...)
Page 7 of GRM Projects, way less than $30k.
That's a 17 year old article. Give Champion Motor Cars a call and see who answers :) And see if you can guess how long the rear diff stayed in place. I've got a lot of experience with a sister car to that one.
A homebrew is going to be cheaper than a Caterham, but won't command the same resale and involves a little more work. I can tell you that the Caterham is more of a jewel in how it's designed, built and detailed. There's certainly room in the market for both, and the existence of one does not invalidate the other.
These are one of car's that had been on my bucket list and getting to drive one did not disappoint. I have to add that at not quite 5'10", it helps.
The car I drove was built to the extreme. Again, they are raw at best. Well worth getting tossed around in. Like driving a shifter kart, you will be shaken not stirred.
Yes, it's a Turbo charged rotary and it leaves a permanent smile on the driver.
Awesome. I can see something like this as being the real future of 'Se7en' type vehicles. I love it. Far more interesting to me than the recent offerings from Caterham with more and more power and more hard core track focus dynamicss. I honestly think the sweet spot for a road car is something that can do the 1/4 mile in the high 13 to mid 14 second range and I'll bet this is pretty close to that weighing in at only 970 lb's with 84/86 hp/tq. That's quick enough for me to have fun ringing it out on the street without instantly becoming an attention whore hooligan. Faster than that and you have to let off as soon as you hit the gas.
I've often wondered what the side by side rules are in each state that allows things like the Mahindra Roxor to be registered are. Something like this would be awesome if it could be sold here under those same rules. I'd be happy with the restrictions of no freeway etc. If it could be sold here for $30K turn key I can see a much bigger market for it than other more recent powerful and holy E36 M3 expensive Caterhams with larger engines.
To the inevitable 'I can build a faster Locost for pocket change and lint' crowed. Good for you, go for it. I bet there are literally tens of finished Locosts that can outperform any Caterham product at any price. But I've never seen a Locost type vehicle, other than those that have gone a long way down the Lotus/Caterham copy path, that looks anything but crap. That's a personal opinion and not meant as an insult to the people who've spent thousands of hours building one, but they all tend to have strange proportions and look home made and half finished. This thing, like all Caterhams, is a thing of beauty especially the baby blue one with full windscreen even if it is a rendering.
The difference between the Locost and the Caterham styling is the scuttle location. Took me a while to spot it, but the forward scuttle means a shorter bonnet and a narrower windscreen. It's also why the shifter isn't buried underneath the dashboard and the steering wheel actually has some space behind it.
Had I continued with mine, the eventual plan was to move the scuttle back to counteract this. It would be an easy thing to sort out during the build if you were aware of it.
As for fun on the street - they're always in your face. Even if you're just tootling around, it's not a relaxing drive. That's why I sold mine, it just wasn't getting driven. I do miss it occasionally but not as often as you'd think.
As for the model range, I think Caterham is just responding to what people buy. I remember talking to the importer years ago and the market wasn't asking for the wings anymore, it was all about performance and not cosplay. So Caterham built what people were buying.
Keith Tanner said:As for fun on the street - they're always in your face. Even if you're just tootling around, it's not a relaxing drive. That's why I sold mine, it just wasn't getting driven. I do miss it occasionally but not as often as you'd think.
I'm coming to the same conclusion with my Exocet, but haven't pulled the trigger on selling it. Yet.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
It was seeing the awkwardly large amount of the driver, typically past their knees, on typical Locosts that first drew my attention to this. I believe the scuttle and windshield location relative to the driver also plays some role in the amount of buffeting hits the occupants. One of the Locosters move their scuttle (and windshield) back to a more Caterham-like location, and noted a distinct reduction in abuse from the wind. Most Locosts also don't place the upper frame tube next to the driver at an angle, nor angle the boot lid. The devil is in the details when it comes the visual appeal of a Caterham over a typical Locost.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
In reply to Driven5 :
I totally agree with everything both of you are saying. In addition to the scuttle, cockpit sides, trunk shape there are lot's of other things that don't look right on many Locosts. Especially when you see the noses that are 2-4" wider and taller than standard. You end up with a ungainly fat square sausage with little wheels sicking out etc. Anyway, I didn't mean this to be bashing the millions of hours and thousands of dollars that many happy builders have spent in their garage. Hat's off to them, they have the time, skill and dedication I am so obviously lacking. It was more to say that despite the normal 'I can make it cheaper' crowed that the majority of Locost builds are no more comparable to a turn key production Caterham than a Kelmark GT was to a 246GT Dino. Not that they aren't necessarily great fun cars, but the two are not equal in looks, performance, fit, finish, usability, or heck even safety.
MAybe I should start another thread, but it's a serious question, what are the basic rules that allow side by sides, UTV's, ATV's etc to be used on the street? Are they Sate by State or Federal, I have no idea. While most side by sides like CanAm's, Gators, Polaris' etc are off road based vehicles, is there any reason why Kei type vehicles couldn't be built/imported/registered in the same way?
The over size "442" Locosts do look a little weird, but the "book" size has a good shape to the nose. Caterham's own SV has a bit of a weird look to the nose as well due to the wider frame.
Car and Driver did an article on four different Locosts, showing how much four similar cars can vary.
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15150678/the-homemades-feature/
UTV street use is at the state level. You can't do it here, and it's only legal in certain areas in UT IIRC.
You'll need to log in to post.
