When we compare one car with another, we usually like to save the verdict for the end. It gives you something to read and us something to say. But there really doesn’t seem much point here.
So if you’re ready, I’ll give it to you straight: a Caterham Seven 620R is more exciting to drive than the new Caterham Seven 160. Not much of a revelation, is it? One is powered by a 660cc engine from a Suzuki microvan; the other has the power-to-weight ratio of a McLaren P1. One would need to try hard to drop a Renaultsport Clio down a quick road; the other would make a Bugatti Veyron driver wonder which way it went.
So what are they doing here? We rarely compare cars from the same manufacturer, let alone the same model line, and given that the 620R has almost four times the power of the 160 and costs over three times as much, it is not as if anyone is ever going to agonise over which one to choose.
The method in this apparent madness comes from a gut feeling – my gut feeling, as you’re asking – that too often the concepts of fast and fun are assumed to have a far closer relationship than they actually do. There is a misguided notion that they are somehow inextricably linked by a length of elastic, so although there is some stretch between the two scales, broadly speaking the more you have of one, the more there’ll be of the other. And I just don’t believe it to be true.
We’ll start with the junior of the pair, Caterham’s three-cylinder 160 with its headline-grabbing sub-£15k price. It may be the latest Seven, but in its modest 80bhp output, ultra-light weight and live rear axle, it’s far closer in concept to Colin Chapman’s original ideas for the Lotus Seven than any Caterham of the past 30 years.
Its appeal extends far beyond that list price, which turns out to be somewhat less attractive once you’ve forked out a further £2000 to get it built and £1150 for it to be painted.
Its real unique selling point is that this is probably the most usable Caterham of all, the one you’re most likely to drive for reasons other than seeing how fast you can get around a track or from point A to point B on a great country road. Thanks to its shortage of power and the corresponding reduction in grip brought by hard, skinny tyres and live rear end, you don’t need to be on a circuit or up a mountain before it starts doing all those things we love Caterhams to do.
Join the debate
Add your comment
The 160 is Super-Cool - I LOVE the Wheels!
Bit c'mon, the 620 is the motoring definition of EPIC.
The 160 for sure.
My very first car was a 750 special with a warmed up Austin 7 engine. It was a blast to drive around English lanes with the occasional run into town when I'd missed the bus. It was also my introduction to racing, being used for 750MC events including the Birkett 6 Hour Relay.
My second car was a Ford Anglia 100E. That was also modded until it started breaking con rods with regularity. It was my commuter on weekdays and racer at weekends.
Then it started to get serious. Bigger engines, fancy suspensions and transmissions, more expense, more problems.
Ah, for the simple life again. My smart serves me well for daily fun, wound up to maximum revs in every gear, but I would be even happier in a reasonably priced 160. I suppose I'm just going to have to build my own, a la LoCost format. I have my plasma cutter, MIG welder and a supply of steel tubing but what can I use for an engine transmission. Bike engines are nice but reverse ends up being somewhat Heath Robinson to arrange. Putting a smart power train in the back might work but the US models have the stupid huge gap between 1st and 2nd gears that FU the concept.
The 160 will be sold here without the Suzuki drive line as it's not available in the US and will still cost far to much to be a viable inexpensive fun car. Dammit.
The 620R is just too fast for