Autocar Road test

[jeff oakley]

I thought the review was okay as the driver look at it in a realistic way. If you compared a Porsche Boxster against an MX5 there would be a wide variation between the two as one would expect of a car that was much more expensive.

So the way he looked at the Westfield against the Caterham was realistic and as he pointed out the nature of our cars is that we can, nay love to tinker and get them how we want them to drive. Caterham owners tend to slap down a fat cheque for all the bells and whistles and leave them alone from what I see.

There is no excuse for giving a sub standard car to a mainstream magazine tester, but if a Kit car journalist who only usually drives Kit cars then comparing say a GBS or a Luego against a Westfield, it will show the Westfield head an shoulders above those, but again there is a premium difference.

My view has always been that Westfield let them selves down with the accuracy of the fiberglass, there is no excuse for bad panel gaps these days, it is as hard to make a bad mould as a good one so why not do it right. Squeaks and rattles on any car are annoying on a £30k one there shouldn't be any even a Westfield.

DaveMK1 is spot on but there is a cost to get it right. 

It will be interesting to see how the new GTM, which is only going to be available fully built, will be compared against similarly priced cars and how they are presented for road testing.

[Lyonspride]

 

I'm just going to put this out there....

I think a lot of companies now rely on marketing BS and slick salesmen, whilst producing a mediocre product.
I think that WSC has also started to turn down this road, there is no excuse for putting a substandard car into the hands of a motoring journo (who is bound to be anti-kitcar biased in the first place). I fear there's a culture brewing up in WSC, a corporate one that ignores the bread and butter side of the business (building cars).