Forum menu
MY FIL has a Westfield (same chassis design as the Caterham/Lotus 7) with a 1.7 Puma engine, modded engine map, modded manifolds and exhaust (obviously).
'Only' develops about 180bhp (normally 120 from that block) but it weighs nothing and is geared specifically for hill-climbing. It does 0-60 in around 3 seconds. It does only have a top speed of about 105 though LOL.
You could always ask someone who has owned and driven both. Like me for example. Modern hot hatches have a lot of grip and very sorted, forgiving handling. So on B roads you can bundle them about, jump into the side of the road when you need to, rely on the abs, use the chassis to tighten your line by lifting off etc etc. In the real world it was probably faster more of the time. Mind you, my Caterham wasn't an R500 or anything - still a very fast car though.I doubt a 106gti could ever be faster than a Caterham!!!
Either way, I'd take the car that [i]felt[/i] faster over the car that actually was faster, even if the difference was quite big.
I doubt a 106gti could ever be faster than a Caterham!!!
120bhp in a 900kg tin can.
zoom zoom, what fun 😀
You could always ask someone who has owned and driven both.
Or you could listen to the opinion who spends his summer weekends watching his father in law doing hill climbs in his Westfield. On those days there are many different classes such as unmodified road cars racing alongside Lotus 7-based cars - a Westfield/Lotus/Caterham/Stryker will invariably beat most road cars, never mind a 106gti.
Can't find last year's results, but here are the results for the first race of this season. Pay particular attention to classes 1b and 2a (and note course records too)
[url= http://www.harewoodhill.com/downloads/pdf/eventResults/provisional_results_april_0410.pdf ]Harewood Hill Climb results[/url]
🙄
'7' type cars are fast in a corner due to the low weight, but pants in a straight line, hence why they are often fodder for motorbike engines. They have the aerodynamics of a brick!
Lotus realised this and made the 11, and most kit car manufacturers make a faired in verion of their 7 inspired cars.
Beware of the cheeper kit cars, some try to hard to recycle bits and end up being a little pants. The 2B for example uses a siera, including the rear axel, even with the best will in the world you cant make a suspension system designed for a 1500kg saloon work well in a 900kg sports car.
No doubt an Elise is faster point to point than almost anything for the money. My point is that when you think of what goes into developing a hot hatch, it's a hell of a lot compared to using the same honeycomb tub for years and sticking Rover / Toyota engines into it.
this is fair - but it should be noticed that VW sell nearly 1,000,000 golfs per year - or approximately 5,000,000 per 'mark'
Lotus, by comparison, sold 20,000 elises in the first two generations
even if you count these as similar enough to be one 'mark', that's a 250:1 ratio of cars sold. I expect that alone makes up for 90% of the percieved differences in value?
Nowt the matter with an Elise. Lots of trouble usually serious - tosh! Owned mine from new 6 years ago and not a single problem (kiss of death time...). Regular track days and good maintenance and it's fine. It's also practical - before I had to start weekly commuting I used to have the child seat in the passenger seat so it is a family car! And I can fit the hard tail in the passenger side as well if I take the wheels off...
The new one is slower than a standard Elise - 6.5 against 5.6 0-60. It's also overpriced - 30+k for a Touring equipped version - I paid 24.5 for an S2 Tourer with the same kit! But Colin Chapman would be spinning in his grave if you consider his mantra - perfromance through lightweight...
An Elise wouldn't be faster than pretty much anything on the roads in a point to point unless it was twisty B roads that the car's designed for. Now an Exige S on the other hand...
mastiles_fanylion - you forget one thing - yes a CaterField is quick up a hill climb - but in real world B road blatting - theres one thing that can help make the 106 quicker than a 7 - ground clearance (some of the roads round here the 7s have to back off for fear of banging the sump on the bumpy/yumpy roads
[i]I reckon they make a lot of sense as you'll have none of the corrosion issues with the chassis or body[/i]
Except the electolytic corrosion between steel suspension and aluminium chassis! :-O
Anyone remember when they had Metal Matrix Composite brakes? I used them in my disseration for my MatEng degree. Spoke to Lotus and everything. Also did a bit of the B5 RS4 wheels that kept collapsing.
Mossimus - LOL - I did the same whilst watching the Youtube Vid. Maybe the guy had races with [url= http://motoprofi.com/motospecspictures/honda/cb_500-2001.html ]CB500s[/url]?
Through the twisties is something else but in a straight line you need a lot of car before you are troubling any bike.
Shall I get the road legal car stats for you?
Lord Summerisle - Member
mastiles_fanylion - you forget one thing - yes a CaterField is quick up a hill climb - but in real world B road blatting - theres one thing that can help make the 106 quicker than a 7 - ground clearance (some of the roads round here the 7s have to back off for fear of banging the sump on the bumpy/yumpy roads
POSTED 1 HOUR AGO # REPORT-POST
so a 106 is quicker on crap roads then? I bet a Landy is quicker on even bumpier roads...
Except the electolytic corrosion between steel suspension and aluminium chassis! :-O
Which doesn't happen if put together properly with durlec (sp?).
m_f Why are you citing the example of racing? Who said anything about racing?
For all the reasons I stated, if you are able to read them, a hot hatch is probably faster on normal public B roads because ( to repeat the reasons I already gave) it is more forgiving and safe.
My two cars had similar power but the Caterham was probably close to half the weight. The Caterham is quicker to accelerate, much quicker to brake, turns more sharply and probably carries similar corner speed. However - the little GTi has excellent traction, abs for more confidence on the brakes, encourages a sort of chuckable confidence (where the Caterham only really worked under fingertip control) and for more of the time is at least as fast. Whilst at the same time feeling half as fast!
Without doubt the Caterham would be faster on the track. But that is changing the subject.
Without doubt the Caterham would be faster on the track. But that is changing the subject.
No it isn't changing the subject. A standard Caterham is quicker than a standard 106gti. A standard 106 could not go quicker than a standard Caterham on a track or on a B road if driven by the same driver. I can't possibly prove though statistics B road times, but I can prove track times.
Oi 106gti fanboy, road car in better road car manners shocker. the question was is the Caterham the quicker car, which it undoubtably is.
hora, that ferrari will do 90mph in 2nd, by which time your ears will be bleeding. You'll have a smile on your face at the time though.
Here's my original remark
for every day driving the 106 was probably faster
Not sure how much more clearly it could be spelt out for the benefit of the hard of understanding.
Since I owned a 106GTi for a year and then had a Caterham for two years, and lived in the same place and drove the same roads all the while I think I am ideally qualified to comment on the relative performance of those to cars around B roads. Why you persist in arguing about it is difficult to understand. You can't really go near the edge of the performance of the Caterham on a public raod, because it will bite you or break, whereas a nippy hot hatch is very easy to be a bit wilder with and remain safe - hence it is the faster car more of the time, if you're in to that sort of thing.
*holds hands up*
Apologies, wrong end of the stick there.
But you wouldn't need to go near the edge of the performance of the Caterham! As you have said yourself [i]the Caterham is quicker to accelerate, much quicker to brake, turns more sharply and probably carries similar corner speed[/i]. So at what point does the 106gti become quicker?
(By the way, if you are ever in the area, go to Harewood Hill Climb and you will see that the climb has very much in common with a B road - narrow, twisty, hairpins etc).
Ohh, and I don't think I have seen any more Caterhams/Westfields etc come off compared to road cars at that hill climb when they are all on the ragged edge BTW.
EDIT: Thinking about what you are saying, I am getting to understand what you are saying is that the 106 gives you more confidence to drive more quickly than you dared in the Caterham????
Normal B roads are radically different - they have other people coming the other way, going the same way, cyclists, horses, horse crap, oil, potholes, mud, the unexpected.
I'd still take a Caterham for enjoyment though, because the sensations are in another league. To go faster in it though, [b]I know from personal experience[/b], would not be acceptable on a public road most of the time. It would [i]feel[/i] faster all of the time.
Normal B roads are radically different - they have other people coming the other way, going the same way, cyclists, horses, horse crap, oil, potholes, mud, the unexpected.I'd still take a Caterham for enjoyment though, because the sensations are in another league. To go faster in it though, I know from personal experience, would not be acceptable on a public road most of the time. It would feel faster all of the time.
Fair enough, point taken.
I think I'm as fast in a hired Transit as I am in a low slung sports car.
I'd take an Elise over a Transit any day though 🙂
you'd probably be safer in a Caterham than a 106 and thats saying something 😉
mossimus - Member
Kingkongsfinger: From that video I make 0-60 in 5 seconds and a further 13 to 120.Guess your mate only raced slow motorbikes?
It was wet but in the dry quite a bit quicker.
Not many motorbikers have the ability or have the gonads to get a mega standing start on a fast road bike and keep it on "cam" 😕
Still a impressive car for acceleration when your a few inches off the deck.