Lotus:- The End?
Discussion
Just looking at the latest SMMT figures, Lotus sold 2 cars in the UK in October and have sold 122 so far this year (at the same stage last year they had sold 281, so that's a 56.58% fall). I love Lotus, but unless someone such as BMW, Mercedes, VAG takes them over I can't see how they can survive.
Scuffers said:
sorry, but that's just laughably tenus....
not sure you really get what's required to design an engine these days, it's nothing like it was 20-30 years ago, to meet all the current and near future regs on emissions etc requires a massive amount of work.
even if Lotus had the cash, I don't think they have the capabilities to do a clean-sheet engine these days (without hiring/contracting in significant staff).
in this day and age, no manufacturer can afford to design new engines without either going into partnership with other OEM's or having sufficient target volumes to justify the costs involved.
for example, BMW are hardly a small OEM, but they brought the engine in for the Mini (hardly a low-volume car itself).
I do get what's required to do a new engine, which is precisely why I suggested that a tie-up between 2 independent manufacturers could be an avenue to achieve that, especially if there is also a potential market for further sales elsewhere. In this context, just as an example, Ferrari are not a BMW-sized operation, but are still able to do their own engines, and are able to operate without subsidy.not sure you really get what's required to design an engine these days, it's nothing like it was 20-30 years ago, to meet all the current and near future regs on emissions etc requires a massive amount of work.
even if Lotus had the cash, I don't think they have the capabilities to do a clean-sheet engine these days (without hiring/contracting in significant staff).
in this day and age, no manufacturer can afford to design new engines without either going into partnership with other OEM's or having sufficient target volumes to justify the costs involved.
for example, BMW are hardly a small OEM, but they brought the engine in for the Mini (hardly a low-volume car itself).
Lotus are in the contracting game; they contract-out services, and contract-in staff to fulfill those service contracts. They know how to manage such projects, and have the depth of experience to understand the constraints. What they lack is volume. AM do not have the history of design and development, but add volume and profit into the mix. If Lotus could ramp up to, say, 3k V8-powered vehicle sales per year, and AM were to add another 3k, that would be a number comparable with Ferrari's V8 production base.
The BMW example is a bit of a red herring, I'm afraid. BMW did not 'buy in' an engine; they established a JV with Chrysler, invested considerable monies in the establishment of a new plant, with some of Chrysler's investment coming in the form of the bones of their Neon engine. The Pentagon / Tritec engine wasn't a clean sheet, no; but, at the same time, BMW were doing the NG engines to be built at Ham's Hall. There were many (potential and real) benefits for both sides in the Chrysler tie-up, but a lack of money or talent on BMW's part was hardly a part of that.
Returning to AM, Lotus and 'that engine', Is this trivial? No. Would it require considerable investment? Yes. But would it deliver something that both companies need for credibility in the international marketplace, namely their own engines? Yes. How long can AM continue to eek-out their Ford-derived engine tech? How can Lotus meet its long-term goals without their own? What set Lotus apart from the other kit-cars-gone-mainstream of the 1960s and 70s was their own engine. It gave them credibility in the marketplace, not to mention more things to sell (engines to OEM applications, technology and skills to contracting customers).
Anyhow, you have your view, and I don't object to your holding it! I think, even with an AM tie-up, that an engine project would be brave, nay bold, but the latter is often the precursor to good-fortune...
MG511 said:
Just looking at the latest SMMT figures, Lotus sold 2 cars in the UK in October and have sold 122 so far this year (at the same stage last year they had sold 281, so that's a 56.58% fall). I love Lotus, but unless someone such as BMW, Mercedes, VAG takes them over I can't see how they can survive.
Keep up at the back. The Exige has not been coming out of the factory. Sales figures are low because they haven't been producing anything to sell.skwdenyer said:
The BMW example is a bit of a red herring, I'm afraid. BMW did not 'buy in' an engine; they established a JV with Chrysler, invested considerable monies in the establishment of a new plant, with some of Chrysler's investment coming in the form of the bones of their Neon engine. The Pentagon / Tritec engine wasn't a clean sheet, no; but, at the same time, BMW were doing the NG engines to be built at Ham's Hall. There were many (potential and real) benefits for both sides in the Chrysler tie-up, but a lack of money or talent on BMW's part was hardly a part of that.
how so?BMW did not design the engine, they bought/bartered it in, yes, they may well have paid some of the money to setup a plant to make it, but that's not designing it is it?
I am not suggesting BMW don't have the know-how to design a new engine, but the costs are just silly now, hence it's pragmatic decision to buy in/share.
Lotus don't have the money or the knowhow any more (and to put it bluntly, the last engine they designed - the V8 - was a complete turd.
these days, when OEM's want an engine, and don;t have the in-house capabilities, they seem to use Ricardo or the like, this the the kind of work Lotus Engineering should have been getting.
Scuffers said:
Lotus don't have the money or the knowhow any more (and to put it bluntly, the last engine they designed - the V8 - was a complete turd.
Out of interest, where does all the eco-tech multi-fuel stuff that Lotus Engineering has been doing fit in to all this? They seem to be involved in a fair amount of research as well as testing for clients. What know-how is missing?Tuna said:
Scuffers said:
Lotus don't have the money or the knowhow any more (and to put it bluntly, the last engine they designed - the V8 - was a complete turd.
Out of interest, where does all the eco-tech multi-fuel stuff that Lotus Engineering has been doing fit in to all this? They seem to be involved in a fair amount of research as well as testing for clients. What know-how is missing?skwdenyer said:
I do get what's required to do a new engine, which is precisely why I suggested that a tie-up between 2 independent manufacturers could be an avenue to achieve that, especially if there is also a potential market for further sales elsewhere. In this context, just as an example, Ferrari are not a BMW-sized operation, but are still able to do their own engines, and are able to operate without subsidy.
Lotus are in the contracting game; they contract-out services, and contract-in staff to fulfill those service contracts. They know how to manage such projects, and have the depth of experience to understand the constraints. What they lack is volume. AM do not have the history of design and development, but add volume and profit into the mix. If Lotus could ramp up to, say, 3k V8-powered vehicle sales per year, and AM were to add another 3k, that would be a number comparable with Ferrari's V8 production base.
The BMW example is a bit of a red herring, I'm afraid. BMW did not 'buy in' an engine; they established a JV with Chrysler, invested considerable monies in the establishment of a new plant, with some of Chrysler's investment coming in the form of the bones of their Neon engine. The Pentagon / Tritec engine wasn't a clean sheet, no; but, at the same time, BMW were doing the NG engines to be built at Ham's Hall. There were many (potential and real) benefits for both sides in the Chrysler tie-up, but a lack of money or talent on BMW's part was hardly a part of that.
Returning to AM, Lotus and 'that engine', Is this trivial? No. Would it require considerable investment? Yes. But would it deliver something that both companies need for credibility in the international marketplace, namely their own engines? Yes. How long can AM continue to eek-out their Ford-derived engine tech? How can Lotus meet its long-term goals without their own? What set Lotus apart from the other kit-cars-gone-mainstream of the 1960s and 70s was their own engine. It gave them credibility in the marketplace, not to mention more things to sell (engines to OEM applications, technology and skills to contracting customers).
Anyhow, you have your view, and I don't object to your holding it! I think, even with an AM tie-up, that an engine project would be brave, nay bold, but the latter is often the precursor to good-fortune...
An A-M tie-up seems unlikely given this discussion : http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...Lotus are in the contracting game; they contract-out services, and contract-in staff to fulfill those service contracts. They know how to manage such projects, and have the depth of experience to understand the constraints. What they lack is volume. AM do not have the history of design and development, but add volume and profit into the mix. If Lotus could ramp up to, say, 3k V8-powered vehicle sales per year, and AM were to add another 3k, that would be a number comparable with Ferrari's V8 production base.
The BMW example is a bit of a red herring, I'm afraid. BMW did not 'buy in' an engine; they established a JV with Chrysler, invested considerable monies in the establishment of a new plant, with some of Chrysler's investment coming in the form of the bones of their Neon engine. The Pentagon / Tritec engine wasn't a clean sheet, no; but, at the same time, BMW were doing the NG engines to be built at Ham's Hall. There were many (potential and real) benefits for both sides in the Chrysler tie-up, but a lack of money or talent on BMW's part was hardly a part of that.
Returning to AM, Lotus and 'that engine', Is this trivial? No. Would it require considerable investment? Yes. But would it deliver something that both companies need for credibility in the international marketplace, namely their own engines? Yes. How long can AM continue to eek-out their Ford-derived engine tech? How can Lotus meet its long-term goals without their own? What set Lotus apart from the other kit-cars-gone-mainstream of the 1960s and 70s was their own engine. It gave them credibility in the marketplace, not to mention more things to sell (engines to OEM applications, technology and skills to contracting customers).
Anyhow, you have your view, and I don't object to your holding it! I think, even with an AM tie-up, that an engine project would be brave, nay bold, but the latter is often the precursor to good-fortune...
skwdenyer said:
Toaster said:
people on here are second guessing and condemning yet most wont buy a lotus, have never owned a lotus, dislike lotus.
But those people are Lotus' target market - the 99.999% of the car-buying population who don't / won't buy Lotus.Porsche were once in the same boat, as were Aston, Lamborghini, and many others. I don't advocate throwing out the baby with the bath water, but equally preaching only to the choir is - arguably - part of what got Lotus into this mess in the first place.
Gassing Station | General Lotus Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff