RE: Caterham's Superlight returns

RE: Caterham's Superlight returns

Friday 26th August 2005

Caterham's Superlight returns

Light, fast, and still pin-sharp


none
Get your motor running...
Get your motor running...

Caterham has confirmed the launch of a new model in its Superlight range. Ten years after the original first appeared, the original Superlight is back in production, starting later this year.

The back-to-basics, hear-it-before-you-see-it, Superlight that will get you to 60mph in under five seconds is back. It combines the lightweight 1.8 litre X-Power K-series engine with pin-sharp handling and a race-bred legacy of stripping all but the essentials -- windscreen, heater and carpets are all options.

Like its predecessors, the new Superlight delivers telepathic steering, high revving performance, slick gear changes and frenetic acceleration, packaged in a vehicle that is entirely focused on the driving and handling.

The Superlight delivers a maximum 124lb-ft of torque at 5,000rpm and packs the same power to weight ratio as the Ferrari 360 Spider.

Standard equipment centres on handling and performance. Thirteen-inch motorsport wheels with Avon’s CR500 tyres, as used in the Caterham Roadsport race series, are coupled to adjustable suspension and uprated brakes. The driver sits in a race seat, held securely in place by a four-point harness and controlling the car through a Momo steering wheel and shifting via Caterham’s bespoke 6-speed gearbox.

The options list is long and includes windscreen, heater and weather gear for the road orientated owner, or dry sump, track day roll-over bar and fire extinguisher, for those who spend more time at the circuit. Caterham lists its options by price and, in line with the weight-saving ethos, also by weight.

Priced at £19,995 in partial built form, or £22,450 fully built, deliveries of the new Caterham Superlight will begin from October 2005.

Author
Discussion

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

59 months

Friday 26th August 2005
quotequote all
> It combines the lightweight 1.8 litre X-Power K-series engine

Getting rid of old stock while they still can?

summit7

684 posts

234 months

Friday 26th August 2005
quotequote all
Is the pricing stated here right, Caterham have not changed their website in line with this story. If they are chopping £2.5k off the R300 watch the already low superlight prices get pushed down further. If (and its a big if IMO) you can buy and build a new R300/Superlight for £20k who is going to pay more than £15k for a used one.

bertie

8,565 posts

289 months

Friday 26th August 2005
quotequote all
summit7 said:
Is the pricing stated here right, Caterham have not changed their website in line with this story. If they are chopping £2.5k off the R300 watch the already low superlight prices get pushed down further. If (and its a big if IMO) you can buy and build a new R300/Superlight for £20k who is going to pay more than £15k for a used one.


It's not an R300, its more like a 1.8 roadsport, ie 140bhp Vs 165bhp and a load of other stuff.

summit7

684 posts

234 months

Saturday 27th August 2005
quotequote all
If its a 140bhp 1.8 give me an 1.6k series instead please. They are just smoother in the higher revs and you have that little less weight in the nose. Can't really see the point of a new 140bhp superlight when so many more powerful 7's are out there now - but then Caterham don't want anything performance wise too close to the CSR. I know the CSR is stiffer with better suspension for bumpy tarmac but I just don't want one being 100kg heavier than an R500.

L100NYY

35,444 posts

248 months

Saturday 27th August 2005
quotequote all
summit7 said:
If its a 140bhp 1.8 give me an 1.6k series instead please. They are just smoother in the higher revs and you have that little less weight in the nose. Can't really see the point of a new 140bhp superlight when so many more powerful 7's are out there now - but then Caterham don't want anything performance wise too close to the CSR. I know the CSR is stiffer with better suspension for bumpy tarmac but I just don't want one being 100kg heavier than an R500.


Is the 1.8 actually any heavier than the 1.6? If it's the same engine (which it is) then a bored out engine won't be any heavier than the 'standard one. oR AM i missing something here?

Murph7355

38,561 posts

261 months

Saturday 27th August 2005
quotequote all
L100NYY said:

Is the 1.8 actually any heavier than the 1.6? If it's the same engine (which it is) then a bored out engine won't be any heavier than the 'standard one. oR AM i missing something here?

I was thinking the same. Any differences would be so marginal as to not be noticeable.

I guess the key for an "SL" (any 7!) is lack of weight. Power was never the be all and end all.

Though I did think they released the R300 (is that still available?) to effectively replace the SL, and bring some order to their naming conventions again.

I wish they'd stop buggering about like this. They should be listening to comments like jackal's and improving the design of the weak spots. Coming up with alternatives for the crappy rear light clusters, think out of the box with the roof (though I never have hassles with mine) etc.

And then they should take a more measured view for the line up, rather than try to dredge up names from the past unnecessarily.

They have the 260bhp model at the top (where's the power to weight nomenclature gone there? Weight's everything after all!), I think they do a Duratec around 200bhp. Have an additional one around the 150-160 mark.

Do all of them in a lightweight and "comfort" version and then have a proper entry level model to encourage new people into them. Something under 1400cc to keep the tax low, 100-120bhp so the trouble you can get into isn't that great etc. Something nice and revvy, light as you can make it etc (Fiat engine maybe? Or perhaps something else from Ford).

The options list is big enough to allow the gaps to be filled. And maybe they should do a SUPER 7 that's totally mental. Perhaps something designed more to take back the records they used to be so keen on (0-100-0, the 'Ring etc). Whilst these are somewhat pointless in many respects, they gave instant advertising capital of the highest order.

LRdriver II

1,936 posts

254 months

Saturday 27th August 2005
quotequote all
If you download the latest pricelist/options pdf, the R300SV is a listed model. No mention of that anywhere on the website

fast westfield

412 posts

276 months

Monday 29th August 2005
quotequote all
Badge engineering

SL = R300
SLR = R400
R500
New engined CRS Ford Duratec

All the chassies are the same in shape except he Duratec CRS car [the R500 used CDS tubing against EWS as used by all the others]

Like has been said they are getting ride of the old bits and bobbs while they can still sell it on the old badge

dannylt

1,906 posts

289 months

Monday 29th August 2005
quotequote all
L100NYY said:
Is the 1.8 actually any heavier than the 1.6? If it's the same engine (which it is) then a bored out engine won't be any heavier than the 'standard one. oR AM i missing something here?
The 1.8 is a stroked version of the 1.6, so unless anything has been made stronger (I doubt it) it will weight the same.

L100NYY

35,444 posts

248 months

Tuesday 30th August 2005
quotequote all
dannylt said:

L100NYY said:
Is the 1.8 actually any heavier than the 1.6? If it's the same engine (which it is) then a bored out engine won't be any heavier than the 'standard one. oR AM i missing something here?

The 1.8 is a stroked version of the 1.6, so unless anything has been made stronger (I doubt it) it will weight the same.


Thought so, having owned most variations of Caterhams over the years I thought that perhaps I'd missed something, phew!

MikeE

1,847 posts

289 months

Tuesday 30th August 2005
quotequote all
but stroking an engine should make it heavier!

with the 2.3l Duratec the block is higher so is heavier and the crank has a longer through (longer stroke) so that's heavier too.

With the K-series I suspect the block is the same but the crank will still weigh more?

dannylt

1,906 posts

289 months

Wednesday 31st August 2005
quotequote all
I doubt whether slightly longer throws on the crank make it significantly heavier - surely not even a kg! As for the 2.3, well, that's just a truck engine innit :-p