|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glitch
by BobtheTrain - 18/07/25 05:47 PM
|
|
|
Forums34
Topics48,329
Posts812,862
Members9,202
| |
Most Online1,046
Aug 24th, 2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 153
OP
L - Learner Plates On
|
(entry level) Caterham Seven 160
Hi all, What do you think about the (entry level) Caterham Seven 160?  Is the Caterham Seven 160 the right solution to the issue: to have a low buying&maintenance costs and high fun-to drive (second)car? Wondered why not a (entry level) Morgan 3-Wheeler (powered by a mass-production jap engine) or even a (entry level) Morgan 4/4 (powered by the Suzuki engine 3 cil turbo fitted in the Seven 160)?  Regards Claudio _____________ Visit Italy Morgans and other ……. http://www.flickr.com/photos/claudiobardeggiabrandi/sets/72157623861460615/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,015 Likes: 1
Has a lot to Say!
|
|
Has a lot to Say!
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,015 Likes: 1 |
I agree. My brother has a 1.6 8v 100hp live axle'd Se7en Classic from 1999 and he loves it. It was half the cost of the current entry level Suzuki engine version and it is a brilliant road car. But that's what he wanted it for and on skinny 175's with little grip, it's a balanced delight. So much better in my view that the new R620 with Veyron-beating performance - and a £50k price tag. There's no need to have the fastest thing surely - it's not a race is it?
I guess most Morgan owners understand the case for handling balance, character and feedback - be it good or bad - as it's all part of the fun of owning cars like ours. A good friend of mine has a MacLaren 12C and whilst it's terribly nice in a £200k+ kind of way, it's way dull to drive in the UK once you've had a couple of license-threatening blasts to beyond 70mph. My M3W, the entry-level Se7en or I suspect any other Morgans on here give thrills well below 70mph and are the better for it.
Less is so often more!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,723 Likes: 149
Member of the Inner Circle
|
|
Member of the Inner Circle
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,723 Likes: 149 |
The factory built Caterham Seven 160 at £17,995.00 (including tax) makes the M3W look very overpriced. OK it is a smaller motor but it does have 4 wheels, with 2 driven, and probably more bodywork.
As for an entry level Morgan 4 wheeler; I don't see why not. As I suggested in another thread the Ford 1.0 L EcoBoost I-3 engine would make a fantastic entry point model for Morgan.
Peter ![[Linked Image]](http://bradley.it/public_images/drive.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,009
Member of the Inner Circle
|
|
Member of the Inner Circle
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,009 |
The current 4/4 Sport is the entry level Morgan. I very much doubt that the Suzuki engine or the new Ford Ecoboost is cheaper than the Sigma so there would be little cost saving.
I do like the look of the new Caterham though, with the simple steel wheels although the engine doesn't really appeal to me.
Last edited by Jays; 25/11/13 05:36 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,646
Needs to Get Out More!
|
|
Needs to Get Out More!
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,646 |
The obvious ways (and don't shoot me - I know some of them are anathema to Morgan enthusiasts) to cut production costs for a cheep and cheerful entry model four wheeler would be
A composite body tub (maybe even without doors) instead of the ash frame clad in aluminium & so on.
Cycle wings instead of the lovely sweeping ones we all know and love
Brooklands screens & no windscreen (no wipers or heated screen or cracked screen warranty claims, ahem) & hence also no weather equipment.
I concur with you Peter that the 3 cylinder ecoboost would be an excellent power unit.
Giles. Mogless in Paris.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,723 Likes: 149
Member of the Inner Circle
|
|
Member of the Inner Circle
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,723 Likes: 149 |
Interestingly it does not have independent rear suspension. They advertise "Live axle rear suspension" as though it was a benefit.
I agree Jays, the Ford Ecoboost probably does not represent a cost saving but in terms of weight, torque (for acceleration), conformity with emission regulations, and fuel economy it represents a lot of bangs for your bucks.
Perhaps Giles has the right idea with the use of lower cost materials and a simplified construction.
A lot of people question the concept of entry point vehicles aimed at younger customers but look at the number of people who have started with a 4/4 and then over the years have moved up to more expensive models. The Morgan 4/4 was certainly attractive to younger customers and affordable when my father, then 30, considered one in 1948. Even today I don't believe it is only oldies on a nostalgia kick that are interested in real sports cars.
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,392 Likes: 14
Talk Morgan Expert
|
|
Talk Morgan Expert
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,392 Likes: 14 |
How will it pass its MOT in three years' time with the exhaust existing kerbside? And how do Aeros get away with it as well?
1969 4/4
1995 plus 8
2002 Aero S1
2013 M3W
2014 Plus 8
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,009
Member of the Inner Circle
|
|
Member of the Inner Circle
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,009 |
I agree. My brother has a 1.6 8v 100hp live axle'd Se7en Classic from 1999 and he loves it. It was half the cost of the current entry level Suzuki engine version and it is a brilliant road car. But that's what he wanted it for and on skinny 175's with little grip, it's a balanced delight. So much better in my view that the new R620 with Veyron-beating performance - and a £50k price tag. There's no need to have the fastest thing surely - it's not a race is it?
I guess most Morgan owners understand the case for handling balance, character and feedback - be it good or bad - as it's all part of the fun of owning cars like ours. A good friend of mine has a MacLaren 12C and whilst it's terribly nice in a £200k+ kind of way, it's way dull to drive in the UK once you've had a couple of license-threatening blasts to beyond 70mph. My M3W, the entry-level Se7en or I suspect any other Morgans on here give thrills well below 70mph and are the better for it.
Less is so often more! I totally agree with you. Whilst I like my Roadster, I can't thrash it without risking losing my licence. My 4/4 Sport was regularly driven right up through the revs, rear wheels sliding through bends with a huge grin on my face. Those days are gone now apart from my brief forays onto Prescott Hill or Shelsley Walsh. I see my Roadster as just that...a "roadster" whilst the 4/4 was a sports car.
Jays
Former Morgan owner. Gone but hopefully not forgotten!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 5,210
Charter Member
|
|
Charter Member
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 5,210 |
I agree. My brother has a 1.6 8v 100hp live axle'd Se7en Classic from 1999 and he loves it. It was half the cost of the current entry level Suzuki engine version and it is a brilliant road car. But that's what he wanted it for and on skinny 175's with little grip, it's a balanced delight. So much better in my view that the new R620 with Veyron-beating performance - and a £50k price tag. There's no need to have the fastest thing surely - it's not a race is it?
I guess most Morgan owners understand the case for handling balance, character and feedback - be it good or bad - as it's all part of the fun of owning cars like ours. A good friend of mine has a MacLaren 12C and whilst it's terribly nice in a £200k+ kind of way, it's way dull to drive in the UK once you've had a couple of license-threatening blasts to beyond 70mph. My M3W, the entry-level Se7en or I suspect any other Morgans on here give thrills well below 70mph and are the better for it.
Less is so often more! I totally agree with you. Whilst I like my Roadster, I can't thrash it without risking losing my licence. My 4/4 Sport was regularly driven right up through the revs, rear wheels sliding through bends with a huge grin on my face. Those days are gone now apart from my brief forays onto Prescott Hill or Shelsley Walsh. I see my Roadster as just that...a "roadster" whilst the 4/4 was a sports car. I agree with you Jays. I've driven a few different Morgans and find that for the roads we have our 4/4 Sport is great fun. It is great fun through the gears and always puts a smile on my face as it is light weight. The only times I wish it had a bit more grunt are when you're climbing up a steep hill at about 70mph and you need to change down to stop losing speed but that's only minor. Bangs per buck it hits the mark.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,723 Likes: 149
Member of the Inner Circle
|
|
Member of the Inner Circle
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,723 Likes: 149 |
Can't help feeling there is a gap in the Morgan trad range that needs to be filled. The current range goes 110 hp, 145 hp, 280 bhp. What is missing is the gap left by the old Roadster 3 litre at 204 hp.
The 1.6 L EcoBoost Ti-VCT Turbo I4 at 196 bhp 214 lb·ft could probably fill this slot. I see the 2.0L EcoBoost engine at 247 hp 250 lb·ft more as a replacement for the V6 than anything else.
Personally I continue to be taken by the idea of a Duratec 2.5 L. In a mild state of tune it could easily give 200 to 210 hp with loads of torque without the expense and complication of a turbocharger. It has the additional advantage of being fairly easily obtainable.
Last edited by Gambalunga; 26/11/13 08:11 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,424 Likes: 26
Talk Morgan Addict
|
|
Talk Morgan Addict
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,424 Likes: 26 |
Peter,
The only hassle to changing the 2L duratec for a 2.5 is that the Insurance lot would have a canary and the premium would go through the roof as it would then be "modified"!!! I looked at installing throttle bodies and the premium would have almost doubled --- I left well alone!
Cheers from a dry, but cold Ireland!
Robbie
2021 Plus Four -- Helga
211-WX-1433
"Fettlebodge"--A chief of the PaddyMogs
|
|
|
|
|
