Blue-Lines Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 Why the hell are Caterham still putting K-series in their cars! They eat head gaskets, a small fortune has to spent on them to get any power and there from a metro! No seriously, surely there are better options? There are loads of engines with 160+ bhp out the box with similar cc and wieght but standard in spec and surely a lot cheaper than a k-series with supersport kit, headwork etc..The mazda ****el produces 200+ from 1.3 litres, Duratecs seem a good choice too or maybe a Honda v-tec engine, the list continues. What about the bike engines. Surely they could have developed what was a niche market into a bigger one with more realistic pricing of the blade run it alongside a more drivable and road focused say duratec powered car for example. What is the point of caterham buying a k-series for say 2k and spending 11k on making it produce 230+bhop when there are engines that can easily achieve such power with out such extensive modifications and £ thrown at them. I only say these words after reading the post "x-flows are rubbish" and thought to myself, yes outdated 8v pusrod etc but no worse than Caterhams of today with crappy k-series in that are outdated and only offer a wieght advantage at best. Surely caterham can offer more performance per £ than they are simply due to the cost of their needlessly fancy metro engines. Perhaps im talking Rubbish, im certainly not having a dig at Caterham cars or anyone else just trying to be objective thinking aloud, wanting the Mark to continue with its success well into the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I reply to every thread Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 Same reason Colin Chapman put French boat engines in his *wink* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Henstock Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 I love my K. Yes I had a head problem but that was because I had the wrong level of Anti Freeze. I've run two crossflows and yes I loved them but the K is the better car. It handles better,goes quicker , stops quicker and apart from the self inclifted problems has need very little work. Its done 24k and after running in has been thrashed every where. Having run with Zetec, Xflows and VX's to Le Mans twice it was also nice to only have to fill up every other stop. All round its top and I would have another Nick h Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe 90 Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 The tie in between Caterham and Powertrain is pretty close, so they aren't really in a position to change. SEP field working, not spotted in 100,590 miles. Some photos here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Barbie Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 The K series in a Caterham is an excellent solution in terms of weight, power and ability to be tuned to widely-varying degrees depending on the power/reliability the owner is comfortable with. There are problems of some kind with all engines and not many are proven in the stressed environment of a Caterham like the K is. Many engines might seem better but few have the pedigree and availability of race quality parts and the skills in the marketplace to make them work. Of course there are also commercial reasons and Caterham need to live in the real world and can't change on a whim. I think 230bhp from an 1800 CC engine is great in terms of bang per litre and what the cars acheive in terms of handling and performance. Caterham don't spend £2k on an engine and then a further £11k making it high-powered - we might but Caterham certainly don't. I could source all the components for a 230bhp K for a hell of a lot less than that - the markup is margin and that's a commercial decision again we make as consumers. The Metro tag is daft, so what if the engine has been used in different applications, hardly a bad thing. What are other manufacturers using that is so much better in similar cars ? Most Westies have Zetecs it seems to me or daft V8s that ruin the handling. Some of the other sevenesque cars seem to run everything from Fiat to Honda to whoever and none match the records Caterham set. If my K breaks there are loads of bits I can buy to make it better next time and loads of knowledge, help and professional companies happy to take my custom. I may well fit a Duratec but if it breaks I'm much more on my own in terms of fixing it and that makes a huge difference. The K series of today is well-removed from its original spec so it's not old-fashioned or bad, most of the flaws are documented, fixable and can be mostly avoided. The alternatives will always look better I suspect but right now, I thrash my K series around a track and it's not the engine that is left wanting in terms of better performance and lap times. shrewdcookie - my Caterham site - now with carbon fibre airbox pictures ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemesis Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 I have to say I want a Duratec and will probably get one , BUT when I get into my 1800 K Series and go for a little blat it does sound and feel pretty bloddy good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert heywood Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 why has nobody tried the audi tt engine route, the basic engine is used in many guises and is highly tuneable and bullit proof Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Beaumont Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 > why has nobody tried the audi tt engine route, the basic engine Is it light? Is easily available with the required power from natural aspiration? Many people are justifiably shy of forced induction on very light cars. Even then, you'd get people poo-pooing it 'cos it's a Skoda engine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich_em Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 I thought i read somewhere that Westf***d were prototyping with the Audi TT block, dunno where i read it though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinfourth Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 bearing in mind that the choice of k series was made years ago when zetec,duratec,VAGturbo,rx8 ****el weren't out in public circulation. okay today it might not be 100% the best engine but it is pretty damn good light and revvy personnely i think the design of the engine is sound yes it has weak points but what engine don't. i have a k series and i love it Blatting round aberdeen wondering wether to buy a jumper or heater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caterhamnut Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 Donkervoort uses the Audi engine. Its a considerably bigger car than a Caterham now. Agree with all that Count has said. You will find good and bad stories with all the engines. IME the k has been very very reliable in our car - the engine has just gone through 70,000 miles this week. Still going strong. 1 head gasket failure about 2 years/45,000 miles ago - caused by the failure of an ancillary component - fair enough. Sure - alternators have failed - not the engine. And we certainly thrash it - its not just a touring engine. Yet I never have to adjust settings, never have to tweak points, or carbs, or jets. I can buy spares at Halfords, Rover or most car factors. Our 60,000 miles would have cost a LOT more with other engines as far as petrol goes. Yet, you hear tales of head gaskets failing within 3000 miles? Guess we are lucky. Very happy with it right now. If I ever came to change, then I would be very interested in the Duratec - hopefully as more are used installation will come down in price. 'My First Race - SPA' pictures here 60,000miles in 3years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom7 Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 The naivity and absurdity of the original post almost beggars belief! The poster clearly has no idea how much Japanese engines cost to buy, or whether the manufacturers would sell on an OE basis. You may have the idea that all Caterham have to do is pick up the phone to Honda order somes engines, get £000's of engineering and promotional support, use of facilities etc. and for what? oooh maybe 500 engines per year. Get real. I have to agree with Count that this 'Metro' tag is daft and derisory for the reasons that have been spelled out. There is still not many, if any engines available that can produce a bhp per kg weight co-efficient than a standard K engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Beaumont Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 The Westy XTR4 uses a turbo'd VAG thing. I'm sure I've heard of another kit mfr playing with it but can't recall who OTTOMH. I'm a K'er, and whilst it's not fantastic, I don't think it's the lemon some people make it out to be (for modest power outputs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nifty Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 Totally agree with Count...and therefore Angus. Don't forget that not only must an engine be light and reasonably powerful when tuned (or out of the box) but it also needs to fit inside the chassis which is not the easiest of requests. What engine will fit a Caterham and produce 230 bhp for vastly less than the K as you suggest. Certainly not the Duratec from what those that are/have built them suggest. What engine are you currently running? Nifty. P.S. It's not a Metro engine anymore, its a Freelander motor. Keep off the straight and narrow 😬 Edited by - Nifty on 28 Apr 2004 22:13:14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caterhamnut Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 I guess the other thing is that when the k was first fitted, the highest 'factory spec' was about 140bhp (as far as I am aware) and so the engine was ideally suited, and pretty unstressed. Development since has seen much higher figures - people are pushing various elements of the design to the limit and beyond - of course this might lead to less reliability, potentially due to extra stresses in other associated components, as well as the core engine itself. Try suggesting to Peter C that k-series are an unreliable engine, then stand back as he vigorously disagrees! His well publicised engine problems, as far as I am aware, have never been down to the engine itself, and he was pushing out serious figures! 'My First Race - SPA' pictures here 60,000miles in 3years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EFA Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 Totally disagree with Count, but nothing to do with what he said. The K was a lousy poor performing engine in a 7 when first introduced. Only when the aftermarket parts such as throttle bodies and decent ECU's became available did it become an accepatble alternative to a low spec VX 16V. I know a chap who has recently developed a forced induction version of the VAG 1.8 unit which dynoed at 525bhp!!!! Fat Arn Slay the K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nifty Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 And we all know a chap who has pushed almost 300bhp out of his VX. Sadly, pushing the car seems to be the only way it moves *tongue* *tongue* Keep off the straight and narrow 😬 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMMO Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 Duratec! If you had a Caterham with no engine and had a look around the Duratec would be the logical answer. Crossflow is old and not particularly light. Only 8 valves. Good engine for the traditionalist but nobody would consider this for a new build. Properly built will give 180 bhp at a price. K Series is light but getting a bit long in the tooth. Limited tuning potential due to small valves and undersquare design. Big power available if you want to throw money at it. VX old and heavy. Good tuning potential at a price. Has its followers but would you want to put this in a new car? Not me. Zetec now discontinued in its original pre-'98 from which lends itself to easy installation in the Seven. Good power for not a lot of money but heavy. Duratec is light, big valves, oversquare and is a current engine that will probably be around for the next few years. It is a current engine that was designed as 1.8, 2.0 and 2.3 lt. engine. It is not an engine that has been stretched and compromised in design. Cheap to buy. Do you think you can get cheap Hondas or Audis from the manufacturers? I bet Caterham could get a good deal on Duratecs if they approached Ford. The cost of the Duratec is in the installation not in the cost of the engine itself. If Caterham decided to go this route then around 185 bhp is available from a stock 2 litre engine on throttle bodies. 2.3 would be more like 200 bhp. The Duratec becomes expensive once you start doing the usual stuff like porting, cams, verniers, springs, ARP bolts etc etc. The costs involved in modifying a Duratec are no more than modifying any other engine however. Anyway I must be right cos I'm fitting one to my car 😬 AMMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe 90 Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 The K is getting long in the tooth, and I wonder what powertrain have in mind as a replacement. I asked this question on the factory tour, and didn't get much of an answer. This either means it's secret (not unreasonable) or they don't have anything in the pipeline (scary for them). Compared with engines of a similar vintage, the K looks good, but eventually a more modern engine will come along which will be convincingly better. SEP field working, not spotted in 100,590 miles. Some photos here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Walker Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 The K as fitted in the Caterham was never fitted in the METRO. This was the old wet linered block and had the low port line head. The K has proved its self to be a very reliable lightweight engine, go to any track day and you will see something like 90 k`s 1 zetec, 4 VX, 2XF and the rest bike engined so it stands to reason that any failure would be most likely to be a K but its usually one of the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogvet Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 toyota engines are light and prvide good power in all sorts of guises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTD Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 "I thought i read somewhere that Westf***d were prototyping with the Audi TT block, dunno where i read it though" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Driver Mag drove it, I think. G 4 Geoff Leather Good - Carbon Fibre Bad 619 GTD here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 If I had a clean peice of paper I would spec a duratec based on value - they are light, kit is available for fitting and relatively cheap. They should deliver R500 performance at a fraction of cost and without reliability issues. Proof of the pudding will be reviews of the cars being built and there performance on the track. Over 230-250 costs will be significant on most engines and you are then into 2 ltr v8 zone - at a cost. I am happy with my VX project but from a cost perspective it would never stack up 😬 😬 Anthony Raceco can on and it looks stunning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Woods Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 Throwing comments around about where an engine originated is pointless IMHO as none of them have a particularly exciting background e.g :-, K-series = Metro engine (conveniently ignoring Robs point) VX 2 litre = Vauxhall Cavalier engine VX 1.6 = Vauxhall Astra X flow = 1960's Ford Cortina Zetec = 1990s Ford Escort surely what matters is how they perform in a 7 Nick Red and Black 1.6K supersport visit Carrotland.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gimp Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 1.4 to 2.0 100-230+ bhp Light weight, for speed add Lightness where elese do you get that sort of range Must keep costs down at Manufacture Sensible Engine for the car The Future.......Who Knows, Toyota, Honda, Ford well i guess we will have to wait and see, would depend on the markets in which they wish to sell. Lov Yoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now