SV or not SV ... that is the question

[jcm0791]

I am sure that this question has been asked of the Caterham owners, somewhere, before. If so I am sure that someone will point me to the correct thread.

 

How many Caterham owners opt'ed for the SV .... or not .... any regrets either way? Discuss...

 

Chris

[pksurveyor]

I bought a SV in 2004 because of the extra room and the wide track suspension. The weight difference between the wide body and standard is only 25 kg. You will not notice the difference unless the two cars are side by side. I have driven both versions and it is not that much difference in handling on the road. If you push it hard on the track, you will notice the agility advantage of the standard version. The CSR are SV only.

[xflow7]

I have a standard chassis (with bench seats) purchased a bit before the SV came out. I am not quite 6'1" and 180-185lbs. Though I don't have much extra space, it's not really cramped per se.

 

I've sat in (not driven) an SV and there is a considerable amount more room. This was after I'd had my car for a couple of years, but having sat in the SV I preferred the 'coziness' of the standard chassis. For me, personally, it adds to the experience a little. But this is very dependent on your build and personal preference.

 

Best advice if you can is to sit in and drive both and see what you think.

 

As pk says, it's quite difficult to tell them apart. They did a nice job maintaining the proportions of the car with the SV.

 

Dave

[scannon]

I had to wait until the SV came out to own a Se7en. Besides being of the ah, widebody type myself, I have wide feet and cannot get my right foot past the brake pedal to operate the throttle on the standard versions.

 

I have no regrets with my SV. As xflow7 states above, sit in and drive both and see which is best for you.

 

They are both great looking cars but I do prefer the look of the SV's nose with the wider mouth.

 

Skip

[jcm0791]

Thanks guys, this is exactly the sort of info I am after.

 

I have driven a 60's ish 7 (a tiny bit) and a wide body scratch built (lots). The genuine Lotus was a bit tight with two people with broad shoulders but the scratch built has a fairly wide, tappered, transmission tunnel and therefore has little more hip room and no more foot box room.

 

If I could bring a car into Canada from the USA .... well, I would buy Al N's car .... but as it is not "legal" to bring a kitcar (assembled or in pieces) in that is less that 15 years old ... and I really would prefer a newer, injected car ...well that sort of adds up to ordering a car from super7cars.com.

 

This is not a bad thing except we are a bit limited on choices here.

[yellowss7]

I ordered my series 3 before they came out with the Sumo Version. At 6'1" and 220 it is definately snug, but its more like putting the car on. I've been for rides in the SV and I feel like i slosh around in it, there's so much more room.

 

The wider footwell is nice if you have larger size feet.

 

I think this picture gives a good comparison of the size difference.

 

Tom

http://usa7s.com/aspnetforum/upload/2119328858_sizecomparison.bmp

[Boxologist]

my ideal Caterham would be a CSR body with a Sigma engine. SV size with all the improvements. go realy insane and put the Freestyle front wide suspension on.

[yellowss7]

You know Jon, if you downsized to a series 3, you might be able to complete your spins within the cones and keep going. Tom

[scannon]

http://usa7s.com/aspnetforum/upload/2119328858_sizecomparison.bmp

There is supposed to be a 4" difference in width and a 3" difference in length. This picture makes the difference in length look much larger than 3".

 

Skip

[Boxologist]

You know Jon, if you downsized to a series 3, you might be able to complete your spins within the cones and keep going. Tom

 

if i tap teh cone and it still stays upright in teh box, its not a penalty. thats the goal:jonautox:

[Taber10]

It was years ago that I first sat in a "Classic" and had to get back out--weather equipment installed--and take off my shoes. I wasn't wearing "welt-less" driving shoes at the time. Now, at 200lbs, still 6'3" and still size 12 shoes, I have an "SV" and couldn't be happier with it. Of course, I'm not trying to squeeze it between any cones, etc. Just some spirited, but legal, road driving.

Good luck with getting either one.

[stevet]

I'm 6'1" and around 210 (on a good day...) and have the standard Cat. I kind of like the cosiness, or maybe I'm just used to it after 10 years in the saddle

[James A]

I am 6'-4" with a "generous" shoe size, I drove a standard Caterham and needed more leg room but definately needed the larger foot well. I really don't need the wider seats.

[xflow7]

Thanks guys, this is exactly the sort of info I am after.

 

I have driven a 60's ish 7 (a tiny bit) and a wide body scratch built (lots). The genuine Lotus was a bit tight with two people with broad shoulders but the scratch built has a fairly wide, tappered, transmission tunnel and therefore has little more hip room and no more foot box room.

 

If I could bring a car into Canada from the USA .... well, I would buy Al N's car .... but as it is not "legal" to bring a kitcar (assembled or in pieces) in that is less that 15 years old ... and I really would prefer a newer, injected car ...well that sort of adds up to ordering a car from super7cars.com.

 

This is not a bad thing except we are a bit limited on choices here.

 

Be aware that the standard Caterhams since sometime in the late '70's or early '80's have a cockpit something like 1.5"-2" longer than the original Lotuses through an adjustment of the rear cockpit bulkhead. No meaningful difference in width, though.

[Kitcat]

I am 5'9", 160 lbs. The only part that doesn't fit well in my standard sized '97 Cat is the left side of my upper body. I need about another 1/2". As it is, my upper torso just under my shoulder is jammed against the snap that holds the "door" shut.

 

Not a big deal on short runs, but it gets painful on trips. I can wiggle around it and get comfortable but would love just a bit more room. If I were a bit taller I probably would clear the snap.

[gjslutz]

Move the snap?

 

Gary

[southwind25]

We are very happy at the cockpit size of the birkin/se7en. We test fit both the birkin and a standard caterham, and it seemed the birkin had some fractions of an inch better in the right places. We are going to trial out a couple seats (thanks gary) which we suspect will make the car fantastically comfortable.

point being the bigger caterham would probably be more interior size than needed for us.

 

but it would be wonderful for the big boys and gals who want the expereince.

 

Driver here 5'10" and 190. size 10-1/2 shoe driven with puma indoor soccer shoes.

 

we dont need more room it's 90% perfect for us. better seats will make it 100% comfy.

[Kitcat]

Yes, moving the snap is at the top of my list of things to do someday soon.

[EburgE]

I "thought about" the SV, but opted for the classic because I fit in it. I am 5'11", about 190 lb with size 11 shoes.

 

I was not buying this car for room or comfort. Drive one or ride in one. Definately get the SV if you don't fit in the classic.

[sparecr]

I have an early Caterham (1975 kit registered as a 1978). I find the fit great but I am 5-7 and 140. Caterham in 81 or 82 came up with the long cock pit version which added a few inches to the cockpit without altering the look of the car. This became standard across the line in either 87 or 92 (memory fails me right now). I have never sat in a SV but comparing to a Six or Eleven I like the closeness my car allows. If you can't fit a small car you have no choice but the SV. If you fit both you make the call, I am not sure which is more in demand in the used market.