JohnCh

I made some progress today, and as expected, ran into some minor issues. Most of them are known and well documented in other build threads and blogs. So instead, I'll focus on things I haven't seen elsewhere and will simply confirm that, yes, getting the washers to fit the lower front control arms is frustrating, and it's annoying that bolt placement for both the upper front shock mount and upper forward front control arm try to occupy the same space as the painted side skin. Unfortunately, in my initial inventory I missed the fact that the fastener pack for the steering rack and column assembly is still at the factory. This required a trip to the hardware store. They didn't have exactly what I needed, so temporary fasteners are holding the steering rack in place for now. As noted earlier, I'm using CORE dampers from Meteor Motorsport in lieu of the factory Bilsteins. The CORE's bolt spacers are 0.6 mm narrower than the Bilsteins. When coupled with factory tolerances for the mounting brackets, this resulted in gaps ranging from about 0.8mm to 1.2mm. That meant another trip to the hardware store to buy washers, then some time with a file turning them into proper width spacers. This would have been a far more tolerable tasks with a Guinness, but alas it wasn't 5pm anywhere, let alone Seattle. Next, the nut that holds the bottom of the upright to the lower wishbone, doesn't fit as expected. I'm not sure if I screwed up somewhere, if the nut is wrong and too thick, or some bigger issue is afoot. The instructions state that for the R-pack cars, you need to bookend the lower wishbone's spherical bearing with two different spacers. Those are both fully seated, but with the nut torqued, the threads of the stud aren't protruding from the bottom of the nut. Pics below show the spacers, the correctly(?) seated spacers, and the bottom of the nut. A thinner nut, as provided for the wing stays (same thread size) would resolve the issue. I'm hoping that's the answer rather than something more annoying. Anyone know? Before calling it a day, I attempted to install the driver's side wing stay only to discover, there isn't sufficient room to install it with the CORE dampers in place. Unlike the Bilsteins, there are fitted upside down and have larger diameter coils, which conspire to leave insufficient space to slide the wing stay onto the upright. It's a simply fix -- remove the lower damper mounting bolt and rotate the damper inward -- but by this time I had already exceeded time allotted for the build today and will need to pick it up in the morning. -John

Caterham is not the only company that has morphed away from their original model designation convention. The last two digits in a BMW model used to indicate the engine capacity in liters: 320i was a 2.0L, 325i was a 2.5L, but then things changed and sometimes a 328i was a 2.8L and sometimes it was a 2.0L turbo. Then there is Porsche. The turbo designation meant it was, well the version with a turbo. But now it just means it's the highest performing model. The base 911 has two turbos as does the 911 Turbo, then there is the Taycan Turbo that doesn't even use an ICE. Marketers never let the truth get in the way of a good name... -John

Thanks John. Guinness is always a good call BTW the naming convention you mention was correct in the past, but Caterham changed that when they went with the 360 and 420. Caterham lists the starting weights for the 360 and 420 at 560kg, and the 620 at 610kg. Their respective horsepower ratings are 180hp, 210hp, and 310hp (half the model name). For the names to follow the HP/Tonne formula, they would each need to weigh 500kg. Using the old formula names and the published weight and power on their website, the model names would be 321, 375, and 508 -- although I'm sure the marketing people would round up the first and last models to 325 and 510 Cheers, John

Thanks, that's the only car I've ever purchased which has appreciated. Typically, the market for a car plummets as soon as I buy one. Yesterday after work, I attempted to do a preliminary inventory. Based on things I have read elsewhere, I figured a Guinness would help the process. Surprisingly I haven't yet found any obviously missing parts, but Caterham hasn't made it particularly easy. There is a half-hearted attempt to group things in sealed bags or labeled boxes, but unfortunately it doesn't appear the people doing the packing are very good at the childhood game "which of these things is not like the others?" For example, one wing stay was in the front suspension parts box, while the other was in the box with the half shafts and exhaust manifold. There was sufficient room for both stays to have been in either box. The sealed bag that contained the tie rod ends and steering rack brackets also had one additional item: the dry sump dipstick/cap. Interestingly, a second dry sump dipstick was screwed into the dry sump tank. If you're kit was missing one of these, it appears I have it. Hopefully I'll have time later this week to make actual build progress. -John

The TC has 4 user-definable settings, one of which will be fully off. With the amount of torque this engine will produce, I want to ensure I can put it down on a narrow bumpy road when passing someone without going sideways in a straight line. This "should" give me options. We'll see how well it works. -John

The color is Roulette Green which was a factory color several years ago. As a pearl paint, the color morphs a bit under different lighting conditions, which makes it difficult to accurately capture in photos -- particularly when I'm taking them. In person, there is a hint of gold that isn't visible above. -John

One year, five months, 6 days and 14 hours after placing my order, the crates have arrived. Not that I've been counting... Despite the order sheet identifying the car as a 420R SV, it won't reach the road in that state of tune. The engine, built around an Esslinger 2.4L short block (thread here), should be good for around 260hp -- probably a little under while still using the 420 exhaust and little over when replaced with something larger. Given the engine is so different, calling the car a 420R doesn't make much sense to me, so I've applied Caterham's naming convention which doubles the stated horsepower to arrive at the model name and dubbed this the 520R. For the purists among you who don't like my rename, you'll like my planned modifications even less 🙂 Those deviations from stock are listed below. Some are pretty straightforward, but others will add to the timetable as I attempt to figure out the best approach and likely ponder why I didn't take the simpler, factory route. i.e. this is gonna take a while. 2.4L Duratec Emerald K6+ ECU External fuel pump with return-style plumbing and Holley Hydramat Traction control Cold air intake (likely via the intercooler duct in the 620R nosecone) Blank carbon fiber dash (from Westermann) Aim MXS 1.2 Strada display Freewheel programmable steering wheel mounted controls for horn, turn signals/hazards, high/low beam, and possibly single wipe function 620R toggles for the remaining switching needs CORE single adjustable dampers (Front: digressive valving w/linear springs; Rear: normal valving in rear w/ progressive springs) Removable scuttle Relocated WB O2 bung Assorted other customizations I'm still pondering Next step is to go through the parts to see if anything obvious is missing -John

Not to depress anyone whose been thinking about ordering a new Caterham, but they just updated their configurator with new prices as per the table below. I'm not sure if there are changes to the 360 and 420 that warrant the much larger increase for the 360 or if that's simply an intentional adjustment to alter the sales mix between the two models. I suspect the £2,300 upcharge for more power and a dry sump will be a lot easier for many people to justify than the old £4,000 upcharge. Old New Increase 360 £31,990 £35,990 £4,000 420 £35,990 £38,290 £2,300 620 £51,990 £54,990 £3,000 -John

The 420 cams' lift is at the clearance limit for the stock pistons. Although you could theoretically remove and pocket the pistons, the more common approach when installing more aggressive cams is to upgrade rods and pistons, refresh the bearings, balance the bottom end, install ARP fasteners, etc. Been there, done that with cams that are not quite as aggressive as the R500 cams and love the results, but yes, it was major work. -John

@BlakeJ did you get the 420 upgrade parts through Caterham? If so, were the valve springs part of the package? How about ARP rod bolts? I've read that the R400D (precursor to 420R) initially used those, but at some point, Caterham stopped that particular upgrade. Not sure if that's true or just speculation. Thanks, John

No, just sharing information to consider. It's not just a cost decision. The 4 pots with their much heavier discs add a lot of unsprung weight which is not a good thing, particularly in such a light car. Over the years I've seen a number of people report the 2 pots with good pads work fine for them on track. I've also seen some people complain of fade. It comes down to a combination of the car's power, the tracks driven, and the driver's speed. Engine wise it's the cams, ECU tune, and dry sump. The cam manufacturer recommends HD valve springs, which I'm assuming Caterham include, but I've never read confirmation of that addition. I'm not aware of other differences between the two models, but others here may know if they exist. -John

I wouldn't blame the dry sump for over cooling. Yes, the large thermal mass of oil that is separate from the block does affect temps, but the car has a large oil cooler with no thermostat. Some block this off for street use, some fit a thermostat, and some bypass it with a water-based oil cooler like a Mocal. I've run both the stock cams as fitted to the 360, and the Kent Dtec10 which are a near match for the cams used in the 420. In my experience, there was no downside to the cam upgrade as these still have a mild profile. Power was marginally lower below 2000rpm (although still plentiful) but stronger over 3000rpm with a lot more eagerness at high rpm. I was on the fence with respect to the brake upgrade. I hate the additional unsprung weight and question the need vs. dedicated pads for track work, but ultimately went with them given the power increase I'll have from stock. A part of me still regrets that decision. 13" wheels. Yes. Every time. I could feel the difference when switching from 14" wheels. -John

That's great news! Not sure if your experience will be different, but looking at my car's recent timetable, factory pickup supposedly happened on 8/25 and the ship left port on 9/8. Add 2 weeks to reach Charlotte plus the unloading process and you may have your car the second week of November. -John

@RGTorque It's because you are at 260% of your inbox capacity and need to either delete messages to get below the 50 message limit or upgrade to paid club membership which has a 500 message limit. It looks like you haven't sent a message for 3 years when we were still on the old platform so you haven't run into this before. See this Help Guide for more information on messaging and where you can see your inbox capacity. You can reach me via the Contact Us link at the bottom of the page if you need help with this. -John

If someone hired me to choose your car based on everything you've written thus far plus my own experience over the past 20 years of se7en ownership with power levels ranging from 120hp-225hp and having driven cars with 265hp and 275hp, I'd order you a 420R with the swappable windscreen/aeroscreen option. You'd have the Miata 5-speed, plenty of power (0-60mph is claimed under 4 seconds), it's easy to drive around town and is still a weapon on track. More power is also available down the road. RB or ITBs reportedly add about 10hp, and if you open up the engine, changing rods, pistons, cams, plus head work or a head swap can increase that by an additional 20-40hp. We need to find you a passenger ride in a 420 so you can experience that power level yourself to determine how it compares to your expectations. You might be underwhelmed...or you might be a little frightened -John

There is a significant performance gap between the 420 and 620 models. Whereas the 420 has a noticeable 17% power increase over the 360, the 620 has 48% more power than the 420. That's not exactly a step change, and as @KnifeySpoony noted, the 420 is already something that needs to be treated with respect in a corner, while the 620 is...well, on another level. As a 620 owner recently said to me "it's always trying to kill you." Only you know your experience levels with very high horsepower RWD cars and how much you like a car that has the power to bite quickly. This may be exactly what you want. Or it may not. Other things to consider about the 620: the supercharger adds weight, complexity, under bonnet heat, has a well-documented overcooling issue that requires an aftermarket solution to fix, there is no self-build option, it's a lot more expensive, and is RHD. Again, these may all be non-issues for you given the power increase and your preferences. Or they may not. S vs. R. To me this isn't a do you/don't you want to track it decision, but more about what you want in the driving experience. I don't track mine, but I like a very, very visceral experience when I take the car out to play and am happy to make compromises most people think are nuts. So for me, things like the more stripped out interior, composite seats that lock you in place, updated brake MC with improved feel, lighter flywheel, and LSD all take the experience in my preferred direction. How far down that visceral and less compromising path do you wish to travel? Bottom line all the cars are great, but absent the ability to drive all the variations back-to-back you need to rely on your ability to ask yourself the right questions and provide honest answers. This thread and your desire to have conversations with owners is a great approach to uncovering those answers. -John

@Vovchandr see this help topic for the upside down photo issue. We do have the EXIF extension enabled in PHP which normally takes care of it, but there are random images that don't respond. I've read that sometimes this is due to someone changing the orientation of their phone then immediately taking the photo and not allowing the phone to reorient itself (I need to update the help topic with that nugget). This could be the case here. It could also be a recent software change on Apple's end creating an incompatibility, or an issue with the PHP on the server. I need to update that over the next couple of weeks, and a forum software update was also just released. Once those are both done, and if the issue continues for your photos, I can open a support ticket. Now back to the latest instalment of "Vlad's car is cursed!" -John

The best way from a usability perspective is to upload it to YouTube or Vimeo then paste the link in the post and it will embed the video. Second question in this FAQ has a little more information about embedding. You can also upload the video as an attachment, but that requires someone to download it first and you may need to resize it first to get under the size threshold. -John

Just posted as part of this auction listing on Bring a Trailer, but worth memorializing here. When someone looks at our funny little cars with no doors, suspect tops, and nothing that any reasonable person could confuse for a creature comfort and asks "Why?" this video provides a great response. -John

Good to know that's feasible. I already have a set of the JAL LEDs with lenses ready to go on the car (just need the mounting blocks). It will be interesting to compare the two with that wiring change in place. The priority for me is brightness, including from off axis.

It left the initial port on the 8th, hung around the UK for a few more days, then landed about 3:30am this morning local time.

That's great news! Coincidentally, the ship carrying my car just made port in your state this morning (Charleston). It's only a 2 week port-to-port crossing so you might have your car soon. -John

My understanding is that starting sometime this Spring, all new cars are built with the LED lights as standard so this may not be a decision you need to make. It might be worth asking your dealer to confirm if this is accurate. I've been behind a Caterham with these new lights installed. Although I don't care for them in the photos, they were a lot less objectionable to me in person, but YMMV. However, I was unimpressed with the brake light output. Strangely, very few of the LEDs are dedicated to the brakes vs. running lights and they really didn't jump out in traffic on a sunny day. To be fair, this was on a red car which doesn't help, but if my car shows up with them, I plan to switch to the JAL LEDs. John

She may be taking the whole add lightness thing a little too far...

Hi @Christopher smith, I removed your phone number and email address from your post above. Spammers screen scrape forums like this so publishing that information here is a recipe to increase robocalls and spam emails. @Henry VII if you want to take up Christopher's offer to talk, please send him a PM and he can provide the email and phone number I deleted. Thanks, John Trying to keep the community safe since 2010