Dare I suggest...?

[George Elliott]

have recently watched a Caterham R500 dicing with a 996 GT2 at the famous n'ring.

without splitting hairs as to the 996 driver skills v's the R500, - the footage is in car on the R500 and I would say the guy was a handy pilot.

whats all this to do with a 944, - well I just wondered what a Caterham with a tuned 951 engine / torque tube assy / transaxle would be like. OK slightly heavier, but a Caterham with a rear biased extra 100kg and an extra 150bhp to go with it.....

and the t/tube could be lightened, aluminium, carbon fibre??

and the traction would be improved over the original "dagenham - longbridge" parts bin version.

maybe its been done??

[]

George
944t

 

[Copperman05]

Might make it quicker in a straight line, but I'd suspect it wold ruin its superlightweight handling, wouldn't steer as good, stop as good and therefore not worth it?


Edd

 

[PSH]

I agree with Edd, out of interest was there a lap time for either car?

Pete

 

[George Elliott]

Pete, Bridge to gantry, 2 lap average; 7min 37sec. Crate finished first.[8|]

had to look it up again for you lads, (the only time I can remember is 6-11.13 Stefan in 956. AND a longer lap...)

Edd, I agree, but maybe 30% quicker in a s/line and 5% slower on the corners, thats positive in my estimation. If you watch the thing its gutless, but quick because its so light. But put a proper engine in it......

OK, If we call it the R650, you would presumably agree it could be quicker than the R500?

George

944t

 

[Copperman05]

Perhaps but it would still be as unpractical as its always been, the 951 engine is much more useful where it belongs...


Edd

 

[George Elliott]

Couple of other numbers, just approx references / benchmarks:

R26R Megane time 8-15
944T 2.5L time 8-01
911T 996/7 time 7-40
Nissan GTR time 7-40
RUF GTR (Yellowbird) 7-40 - on I think 7 & 8 inch rims[]....and is that a 915 box......?
Radical SR8 time 6-58
porsche 956 time 6-11-13 (25 yrs ago)

Wonder what a Veyron could do - maybe 2 tyre stops/lap, water cooled brakes, long range tanks.......

MacLaren F1 ....?
Mac MP4 12C...?

George
944t

 

[George Elliott]

it would still be as unpractical as its always been, AGREED




the 951 engine is much more useful where it belongs

Hmmmm, but if there was a spare running gear lying around this may be an interesting place for it

...fuchs, brembo's, paint it maritime blue and call it Bluebird

[]

need to find an alternative to the ivor williams rear lights[8|]

 

[Cater_Racer]

The two cars are totally different to drive at the limit.

The Caterham is very nervous but agile, the di-dion rear set-up owes nothing to Longbridge or Dagenham, it's pure Caterham designed, and built by Bruce at Arch (although some of latest CSR's have been sourced elsewhere, and people have played with wishbones and in-bord shocks etc). The diff casing is ex-ford, but that is about it. The balance of the Caterham is not front heavy as suggested but is pretty much 50/50 as per the 944.

There is very little point in upping the power of a Caterham and putting a heavier engine in, you'll just turn it into something it isn't.

The car is super light and the nervous behaviour requires constant attention and adjustment at the limit, with basically crap aerodynamics no weight and lots of power it's great fun and very rewarding but more power does nothing for you, you can spin the rear wheels changing up in any gear up to and including sixth in the dry with R500 on 8" Yoko's, if you don't match the revs. The Caterham will bite you, if you take your eye off the ball.

The 944 is much more forgiving but due to the weight is nowhere near as quick round most circuits, the exceptions being Spa or somewhere with enough flat out fast stretches where the superior aero of the 944 can really pay dividends.

I've raced Caterhams for 20 years, and now 944's (1.5 years), they are both great cars, but coming from two very different directions.

 

[Neil Haughey]

I am sure there was an outfit years ago who built a caterfield type car with cossie 4wd running gear. I don't recall it being that successful a product which sort of proves the point that it ain't a great idea.

Apart from anything else the 944 engines are big ole heavy lumps, I don't even think there that great in a 944 let alone wasting time and money putting em in another car. Best thing about the 944 is the brilliant uber tough body shell, its why I could crash off into armco at 80 mph and walk away without a scratch and a damage level to the car that is repairable.

 

[Cater_Racer]

ORIGINAL: Neil Haughey

I am sure there was an outfit years ago who built a caterfield type car with cossie 4wd running gear. I don't recall it being that successful a product which sort of proves the point that it ain't a great idea.

Apart from anything else the 944 engines are big ole heavy lumps, I don't even think there that great in a 944 let alone wasting time and money putting em in another car. Best thing about the 944 is the brilliant uber tough body shell, its why I could crash off into armco at 80 mph and walk away without a scratch and a damage level to the car that is repairable.

Exactly!

 

[George Elliott]

I've raced Caterhams for 20 years, and now 944's (1.5 years), they are both great cars, but coming from two very different directions.

Gerry, thanks for the benefit of your experience, I have never driven a Caterham, but just watching it in action I though - if only it had another 100 horses, but as you point out its about minimal weight.

The 944 design is typical made in W.Germany 1980's. The aluminium engine, torque tube, transaxle, - is a fine drivetrain for Power, Balance, Endurance.

Keep it all under control []

George
944t

 

[DavidL]

I can add a little here.
My 21 is a little heavier than a 7 - 650kg and runs a 1.6 supersport K series so 138bhp. It is far nippier than the 944t but once you start travelling the 944 would soon overhaul it at 70+mph.
On a flat smooth road the 21 handles extremely well but on normal - read bumpy - A roads the 21 is hampered by its stiff suspension. Its better when I soften the AVOs I ahve on there but then when you push on on a good road you can feel it dive a bit under cornering. Its lack of mass works against it here.
Mine could do with another 50bhp (coming hopefully) and having driven another 21 with a K series closer to 190bhp and that goes well and keeps hauling well into many leptons.
R500s are just nuts. A chap locally has a new sequential boxed R500 (something like £55K!) which he says works best well into 3 figures.

A friend has put a duratec engine in his 21 which gives more power but I gather the weight does have an effect on the front end. I assume the revised geometry from Caterham Cars for the new 7s allows for this but his is set up for a K series.

A much heavier engine would make fine in a straight line but hard work in the corners. I can't imagine what a westfied Seight would be like.

 

[zcacogp]

ORIGINAL: DavidL
I can't imagine what a westfied Seight would be like.

Fast enough to create it's own weather system. I speak from experience.

Neither fish nor fowl - it's a car that is only really about going (and stopping) very quickly indeed in a straight line. They do handle fairly well, but the weight is supposed to dull the delicacy of the chassis. A car that is really only for the hairy-chested, and one of which I think I would get bored fairly quickly.


Oli.

 

[edh]

A mate of mine sprints a ~400hp Westfield GT - it is astonishingly quick, but a bit heavy for its class, and is just about managing to keep up with the SBD duratec westfield, which has less power, but is much lighter. The owner is spending a fortune on custom parts to reduce weight and to improve handling (amazingly the main problem was understeer!).

I've been out in it once - as a passenger on a damp November day at Oulton - on slicks! I don't think we used full throttle much during a lap, but it was very, very quick.

Having driven a 1.6 roadsport at Oulton, I'd be perfectly happy with one of those (or preferably a supersport with the 6 speed box..)

 

[DavidL]

You soon get used to the power of a 1.6 even though it is very quick.
The roadsport models (at least the old K series ones) had between 150 and 175 and that is more than plenty for any sort of road use. On the track it is deceptive and again you would manage. 7s seem to have a lot of owners mainly because it isn't worth upgrading you just sell yours and buy a faster model.

 

[George Elliott]

Any idea what weight Ed?

A mate of mine sprints a ~400hp Westfield GT - it is astonishingly quick, but a bit heavy for its class

 

[edh]

sorry I don't know. will find out though...

 

[George Elliott]

Donkervoort have been thinking along the lines I had in mind here, their new GTO provides 400bhp, weighs in at 700kg and clocks 6.1 seconds to 124mph. (ref Pistonheads)

Thats the sort of thing I had in mind.[]

Our engine may even be superior to the audi 5cylinder in that its more compact and lighter and better balanced. And our transaxle would be very rigid and improve the balance.

George
944t

 

[944 man]

400bhp and 700kgs and over six seconds to sixty? My car has half the power, twice the weight and it still reaches sixty more quickly. I suspect a typo there, with a 700kg car and reasonable power, Id expect it to reach sixty in closer to three seconds than six, even though youll not be able to get it to hook up and use anything like 400bhp off the line.

The Turbo is archaic really, and far from a sparkling performer in modern terms. Its alright when it gets going but the turbo is extremely lag-prone and only good for under 300bhp when its finally spooled up.

A small Mistubishi TD04 will spool in a fraction of the time with barely any felt lag and it can still pump enough air for a good 10% more horsepower. Something as laggy as a KKK26 would be making 500bhp on an Impreza!

 

[Diver944]

ORIGINAL: 944 man

400bhp and 700kgs and over six seconds to sixty?

I thought it said six seconds to 124mph!!!!!!!

Not even MarkKs monster is that quick []