Agreed. The Rover engineers did a fantastic job pushing the engine past
Honda VTEC levels of power/litre, and still maintaining some
driveability. The Caterham is a beast, easily breaking traction in all
five gears. However, at 30,000 pounds (50,000 USD) it is not a bargain,
but like you said, about half the cost of the GT3. Since both are
designed primarily for a one-marque race series, I give the emotional edge
to the Cat for staying truer to the concept (I also like the Elise for
this reason - get rid of weight rather than add power).
Stephen
:>
: ...The
:>Caterham R500 superlight is a minimalist, no compromise car. Nothing
:>wrong with that, as I imagine the driving experience is fabulous. The GT3
:>Porsche retains a certain amount of civility from the normal 911. I
:>believe it might even have AC and electric window lifts. At least it has
:>a windshield, something the Cat doesn't (you have to wear a crash helmet).
: The thing I find amazing (and uplifting) about this is that the Caterham is
: the product of a tiny little company working in a garden shed (not
: literally, but, compared with the Porsche competion department...), powered
: by a development of a motor that normally pulls a shopping trolley hatchback
: around (OK, so the Caterham uses a development of the VVC variant, which
: also goes in the Lotus Elise and MG-F, but the basic "K-Series" motor is
: moire commonly found under the bonnets of Rovers100/200/400 series family
: saloons), is a direct, lineal descendant of a car Colin Chapman designed
: about 35 years ago, and you could probably buy about three of 'em and race
: them for a year for less than the price of the GT3, let alone the 959. I
: think the fact that you can credibly mention the Caterham and the Porsche in
: the same sentence is a tremendous achievement :-)
: --
: JG