MoPho

But he did ask why some would feel a turbo wouldn't suit a Seven well, and he got an answer. Seeing how he doesn't own one and only shows up here talking about 700hp Focus's when the discussion of Turbos or more power comes up, I got the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that he doesn't quite understand what these cars are truly about :cheers: .

What's there to be shocked about? Anyone can throw money at their car to make it go faster, learning to drive a slower car fast, that is impressive. HP is a crutch And there will always be someone who spent more money and is faster down the straight, so what does that prove besides you have more money to blow? When I was at Car and Driver, one of the test drivers kicked my ass hard while I was driving a Porsche GT3RS and he was in a Volvo C30. Another time he beat me while I was in a 300hp STI and he was in a 75hp Westfield 11 (which by the way, with a mere 75hp, was one of the most fun cars I've ever driven on the track). A lot of good the power did for me And having driven many of these high end cars, they may be able to go faster down the straight, but they are no where near as exhilarating to drive as a 7, regardless of speed How do you know those cars didn't have proper tires? Were there proper tires on the Caterham? And while you can argue that they are scared of scratching their cars, we have to worry about killing ourselves as a 7 has very little crash protection Again, what competition? Most here are using their cars on the road with occasional track days. Track days aren't about beating people (well maybe in one owns mind and on the internet) And you kind of prove my point that hp isn't going to make you faster , My car makes 175hp to the wheels http://www.websmileys.com/sm/sad/533.gif If you have to turn it down all the time, what's the point? There is a guy here with a 700hp Lotus Exige, it is both turbocharged and Supercharged, it is very neat and insanely fast, but he has posted videos of him driving that have data overlays and he barely ever goes over half throttle. He just can't use all the power. So the only thing it is good for is bragging on the internet about it (which he is famous for, and not in a good way) To add, with all that power, he has had to put huge wheels and tires on it, widen the car,big brakes, a giant wing, etc, he also had to spend a bunch of money to cut back all the extra weight he added to the car. And then stuff started breaking, engines, transmissions, etc. it has been endless I also know a guy here with an Ariel Atom that has 550hp, it also breaks a lot and he described it as a complete handful A Caterham was never designed to have big horsepower and it is a slippery slope, if you start having to add bigger tires, etc to cope with the power, you are spoiling the handling and balance What about on the road? I had a WRX that was tuned and boost came on at about 2800 and it would step on its dick around tight corners, and then finally it would spool up and power would come on hard. While the power delivery was fun on freeways and from stop lights, it wasn't fun at all on the roads I drive the Caterham on. On a 1200lb car, I feel that kind of power delivery is just going to light up the tires and go fishtailing down the road. Heck, I can already light up the tires around corners with a mere NA 175whp And with the Duratec, you don't need a turbo to get that kind of power If you spend some time on the UK forums for the Caterham you will discover that while there will always be some folks who think too much power is just enough, the general consensus is that 200hp (R400) is the perfect balance. And many will say even that is too much, especially for road use. No, but you do come across like you are trying to promote your business I am sure you do great work, and it is certainly interesting to hear your opinion and knowledge about the motors, so don't stop, but you have to realize that a Focus is a completely different animal .

None are more desirable than the other, just different options that come down to personal choice The R400/500 have the wide track front suspension Other than dimension and a few pounds the S3 and SV are going to provide similar experiences, though the smaller S3 may give the impression of being more nimble because it is more compact and as Tom mentions it fits like a glove so you become a part of it The CSR has the independent rear suspension and is built upon the bigger SV chassis. The IRS will help the car over bumpy surfaces and keep it more planted, but some say it drives more like a regular car and the 7 experience is dulled, others say it is better and faster. I kind of feel that the "liveliness" of the DeDion/live axle is part of what makes a Caterham so much fun and challenging to drive. I am 5'9" 170lbs and fit in my S3 with Tillet seats just fine (even when I was 185lbs) so you will have no problem While the ride is firm, it is not back breaking stiff or jarring, that is the beauty of lightweight cars (and Lotus designs), they don't need to be set up super stiff. .

Track days are not a race, so why do you need to blow by GT3's on the straight? What does that prove? Make them give you a point by in the corners, that is much more impressive Driver > hp/money NA duratec Superlight beating Lamborghini Gallardo Caterham Superlight versus Lamborghini Gallardo NA duratec R500 w/265hp beating Porsche GT2 175hp NA R300 blowing past GT3's, Corvettes, etc :driving: .

I've driven my share of big horsepower cars, and sure the acceleration is fun but you spend more time and effort trying to stay out of the power than actually using it

Because a Caterham only weighs 1200lbs and doesn't need that much horsepower. A Caterham is about the balance of power, cornering, and braking, not drag racing or top speed. An appropriate amount of power can be found without the complication and power delivery of forced induction If you need big horsepower in a Caterham you are doing it wrong and need to find better suited roads/track .

It wasn't produced by Caterham though, RS Performance built it. It also used a V8 that was basically two motorcycle engines grafted together, so it didn't have a lot of low end torque (300ft/lbs @ 8500rpm). It isn't that much faster than an R500 either (at least on paper) Yes, but the turbo motor tends to put the torque peaks down low which on a low weight car, especially one with little weight on the back of the car, isn't necessarily ideal. A car like the Ariel Atom with it's engine in the back seems better suited to forced induction. A friend here in LA supercharged his Zetec 7 and ended up ditching it in favor of a NA Duratec motor, besides not liking the power delivery it also added something like 50-60lbs to the front of the car which he said had a negatively affected the steering and handling I don't agree, if you have to spend most of your efforts pussyfooting around your horsepower than it is too much. I've driven cars like that and it is not fun and a waste Maybe if all you have is straight roads (not what a 7 is for anyway) than maybe, but I can barely use all 200 horsepowers on the roads I drive, the straights are too short and the corners too tight, i.e. perfect 7 roads Personally, I don't think turbos are in the spirit of the car, but to each their own http://www.websmileys.com/sm/sad/533.gif

This has been my experience .

I am also in need of CR500's they are the only ones that fit my car. I'd really like to get the Toyo's as I've heard great things about them and they are a lot cheaper and easier to get, but I had to bend the stanchions to keep the wings from rubbing the 195/45 CR500's, there is no way a 195/50 is going to fit

Best viewed in HD and with external speakers .

As I mentioned I had one a while back for a couple of days for a magazine test. It was horrible, the steering was mush, and it was the scariest handling car I've ever driven. It would go from heavy understeer to snap oversteer in a blink of an eye. The magazine tester said it was the only car he ever spun straight line testing. As something to cruise in it is fine perhaps, it did get a lot more looks than the 7 does that is for sure

Well I think the X-Bow is ugly, big and heavy so it doesn't have my interest, but had they used the very modern BAC Mono that supposedly broke I would have been drooling. Perhaps I am not old enough, but I did the vintage car thing and no thank you to doing it again. I like the Caterham because it is a nice mix of modern and vintage but without the "vintage"

Competitive? It was nearly 23 seconds slower around the short 1.75 mile TG test track* http://www.websmileys.com/sm/sad/533.gif I am sure the Morgan is a blast down a back road and 6/10ths or so, but I don't think it is something I would want to push hard around a track. I have never driven one, but my experience in a 3-wheeled T-Rex was pretty scary and it has a lot more suspension and tire than the Morgan. Think the Mog is very cool though *if you believe anything TG says...... .

Rebuild a Jeep under 4 minutes - YouTube .

I would agree that they should do some work in exchange for the help, but his point was that they should be made to do crappy work that they don't want to do as incentive to go out and get a job instead. Sure, but my point was that when people criticize welfare they neglect to consider the consequences of taking it away from people who are not going to just pull themselves up by the bootstraps and go out and get a job. The good people are on welfare out of desperation of not finding work and the bad people are not going to change, so why make it so they are now homeless, starving, and desperate so that they become more than just a financial problem? There are a lot of different programs in that safety net besides welfare. The OP was complaining about having to pay taxes to "feed a bunch of lazy people". Does it say how many people are lazy in that chart? LOL Well what would you expect when someone starts a thread to incite anger? Did you really go back to old posts to quote me? Really? I don't have a problem with people having different views, I have a problem with people spewing hateful garbage which is exactly what the OP did by starting this thread And I've said it before this community is too small for these kinds of discussions .

That's horrible! http://cascadeclimbers.com/plab/data/516/122waaambulance.jpg :rofl: .

It's naive to think that giving the "lazy" people incentive is going to make them go out and get jobs instead of staying on welfare. And it's naive to think that if we take away their welfare they are somehow not going to be our problem. It would just create bigger social problems (crime) and bigger costs (legal and prison) And again, it absurd to act as if this is the root of the problems in this country or that it actually would make a difference to our economy or our debt .

That's the point, there are no real stats and no way of knowing how much of your money actually goes to the "lazy people", that is why it is such an idiotic (and bigoted) argument by the right to suggest that all the lazy people are the problem. I am sure the amount spent is a drop in the bucket though. I had found this site, but it doesn't breakdown to that much detail and I have never seen anything that does, hence why I suggest it was my best guess http://www.wheredidmytaxdollarsgo.com/ .

Do you even know how much of your tax money went to welfare? And out of everyone that received said money how many of those people were actually "lazy"? Or is it in your mind that anybody who receives welfare or government aid is just lazy? The whole "waaahhhhh, I work so hard to feed a bunch of lazy people" rightwing BS is just a straw-man argument. Something like less than 3% of your income goes to social services and that includes education and many other services besides welfare or food stamps. A quick calculation of how much of my taxes went to welfare and as best as I can tell it was a whopping $153, so I had to work "hard" for 1 hour to feed a bunch of people who may or may not be lazy. BIG FUCKING DEAL!!!!! And here's your food stamp president :flag: .

Yup :cooldude:

Over the mountain and through the woods, To the Superbowl Party I go..... Didn't care about the game, but it was a good excuse to take the long way to my friends house. Took it fairly easy though Watch in HD Need to get a stereo mic .

Touché :rofl:

I have the lcd bacpac on it and assuming that the ext mic would cancel out the built in mic so I was using the standard back door cover which had a couple of vents in it. So I switched to the waterproof housing and covered the built in mic with foam and tape ( I had drilled a hole in the case for the ext mic) and ran the mic on a long extension cord and taped it up under the dashboard. I am going to play with mic position some more, I would like to get a bit more exhaust sound. I also need to find the rattle I am getting when I lift off throttle, I think it might be the clamps for the skid plate.

I think I got it figured out .

To add, the diff noise is cool! (mine sounds like that too )