RE: Driven: Lotus Carlton

[Oilchange]

Hilarious!

defblade said:

Only ever seen one.
That was at Castle Coombe on a "supercar" test/play day. It was out on track with a bunch of sierra cossies. The Lotus would catch up on one straight, follow around the next corner, then pass like they were standing still... rinse and repeat all around the track.

The cossies had been dumping every ounce of weight - spare tires, jacks, etc. before hitting the track.

The Lotus came back in after handing all the cossies their bottoms. Dad got out of the driver's seat, Mum out of the other, kids out of the back. Boot was opened and chairs, table and big picnic hamper pulled out and set up

Total respect.

(The F40 was fast too, mind.....)

[Welshbeef]

The engine is a 3ltr 24v single turbo which delivers 377bhp and huge torque from low revs. 419ft lb

in addition the car was H reg so 1990-1992 era.

Question is even today BMW with their 335i engine only deliver 305bhp so why? It appears to be a reliable lotus unit but why has noone built another 3ltr engine producing more or the same power since?

It's boost is that turned right up?

[Smike]

Welshbeef said:

The engine is a 3ltr 24v single turbo which delivers 377bhp and huge torque from low revs. 419ft lb

in addition the car was H reg so 1990-1992 era.

Question is even today BMW with their 335i engine only deliver 305bhp so why? It appears to be a reliable lotus unit but why has noone built another 3ltr engine producing more or the same power since?

It's boost is that turned right up?

It's actually about 3.6 litres with twin turbos.
Not running particularly high boost to be honest at 0.7 bar

A lot of turbo engines of that time and earlier produced about 100bhp per litre running at 9/10 psi

The BMW 335i engine is a 3 litre so roughly about the same state of tune per litre if you think about it

Edited by Smike on Tuesday 17th May 23:24

[Welshbeef]

Smike said:

It's actually about 3.6 litres with twin turbos.
Not running particularly high boost to be honest at 0.7 bar

A lot of turbo engines of that time and earlier produced about 100bhp per litre running at 9/10 psi

The BMW 335i engine is a 3 litre so roughly about the same state of tune per litre if you think about it

Edited by Smike on Tuesday 17th May 23:24

Sorry my mistake.
Still the point stands - if the output per ltr is roughly the same today for say the 335i v the LC why is that the case? its 20 years on.

How about we look at say the RS6 that was a 4.2 v8 twin turbo with c450bhp, which is 107bhp/ltr.

The new RS6 is a 5.2 ltr v10 twin turbo which produces 570bhp - this equates to c110bhp/ltr

So 20 years and the improvement is a mere 10%....or less than 0.5bhp per year....
Is it a case of the LC really pushed the envalope and since that point in time no other has done it to the same level (ignore the silly bhp 2ltr WRC).


I think this is an interesting angle of debate which clearly shows the LC in even higher echelons

[rhinochopig]

Welshbeef said:

Smike said:

It's actually about 3.6 litres with twin turbos.
Not running particularly high boost to be honest at 0.7 bar

A lot of turbo engines of that time and earlier produced about 100bhp per litre running at 9/10 psi

The BMW 335i engine is a 3 litre so roughly about the same state of tune per litre if you think about it

Edited by Smike on Tuesday 17th May 23:24

Sorry my mistake.
Still the point stands - if the output per ltr is roughly the same today for say the 335i v the LC why is that the case? its 20 years on.

How about we look at say the RS6 that was a 4.2 v8 twin turbo with c450bhp, which is 107bhp/ltr.

The new RS6 is a 5.2 ltr v10 twin turbo which produces 570bhp - this equates to c110bhp/ltr

So 20 years and the improvement is a mere 10%....or less than 0.5bhp per year....
Is it a case of the LC really pushed the envalope and since that point in time no other has done it to the same level (ignore the silly bhp 2ltr WRC).


I think this is an interesting angle of debate which clearly shows the LC in even higher echelons

But compare the fuel economy of the the various engines to the lotus unit. Peak power is but one small factor in engine design these days.

[Welshbeef]

rhinochopig said:

But compare the fuel economy of the the various engines to the lotus unit. Peak power is but one small factor in engine design these days.

I would say that the 5.2 V10 & 4.2 8 RS6's use either more or indifferent.

One thing the LC is renouned for is its in gear ability same goes for the RS6's mentioned and these all play in the same field.

Also its been 20 years fuel has been very cheap in that timeframe and only in the last 3-4 odd years have prices gone up notably.

Sure the RS6's would be quicker round the twisties but thats 4wd v rwd and more modern chassis but on the straights well there woul be nothing in it if not the LC to be ahead due to lighter kerb weight.

[rhinochopig]

Welshbeef said:

rhinochopig said:

But compare the fuel economy of the the various engines to the lotus unit. Peak power is but one small factor in engine design these days.

I would say that the 5.2 V10 & 4.2 8 RS6's use either more or indifferent.

One thing the LC is renouned for is its in gear ability same goes for the RS6's mentioned and these all play in the same field.

Also its been 20 years fuel has been very cheap in that timeframe and only in the last 3-4 odd years have prices gone up notably.

Sure the RS6's would be quicker round the twisties but thats 4wd v rwd and more modern chassis but on the straights well there woul be nothing in it if not the LC to be ahead due to lighter kerb weight.

Both those engine are N/A Compare Porsche's flat 6 turbo 3.8 litres, which is the same number of cylinders and almost the same capacity - 530 bhp, 25 mpg combined, 35 Extra Urban, and pretty much zero turbo lag.

[Welshbeef]

rhinochopig said:

Both those engine are N/A Compare Porsche's flat 6 turbo 3.8 litres, which is the same number of cylinders and almost the same capacity - 530 bhp, 25 mpg combined, 35 Extra Urban, and pretty much zero turbo lag.

Eh - RS6's are twin turbo engines.
th old RS6 is a 4.2 ltr V8 Bi Turbo
the new RS6 is a 5.2 ltr V10 bi turbo

the new S6 is a n/a 5.2ltr v10.

The thing with the porche is that thats a coupe vs a 4 door family saloon which can seat 4 hefty rugby bruisers. So apples with apples.

However on engines alone the Porche is pushing out c140bhp/ltr so good going. What did the 911 Turbo of the day have in bhp & ltrs - just so that we ca see the progress.

[rhinochopig]

Welshbeef said:

rhinochopig said:

Both those engine are N/A Compare Porsche's flat 6 turbo 3.8 litres, which is the same number of cylinders and almost the same capacity - 530 bhp, 25 mpg combined, 35 Extra Urban, and pretty much zero turbo lag.

Eh - RS6's are twin turbo engines.
th old RS6 is a 4.2 ltr V8 Bi Turbo
the new RS6 is a 5.2 ltr V10 bi turbo

the new S6 is a n/a 5.2ltr v10.

The thing with the porche is that thats a coupe vs a 4 door family saloon which can seat 4 hefty rugby bruisers. So apples with apples.

However on engines alone the Porche is pushing out c140bhp/ltr so good going. What did the 911 Turbo of the day have in bhp & ltrs - just so that we ca see the progress.

Ah sorry - read it as RS4 for some reason, and thought the V10 was the same engine as in the R8. However neither engine is a 6 cylinder, so will lose out in economy terms.

However, you asked why engine tech hadn't moved on, the engine within the Porker is certainly comparable in terms of number of cylinders and and displacement. The weight of both cars is almost identical - Lotus 1663kg according to Wiki and Porsche 1660 according to their website. And the Porsche is AWD which means greater transmission losses and poorer fuel economy.

I maintain that things have moved on - considerably.

[Biker's Nemesis]

I fancy one of these.

[Welshbeef]

rhinochopig said:

Ah sorry - read it as RS4 for some reason, and thought the V10 was the same engine as in the R8. However neither engine is a 6 cylinder, so will lose out in economy terms.

However, you asked why engine tech hadn't moved on, the engine within the Porker is certainly comparable in terms of number of cylinders and and displacement. The weight of both cars is almost identical - Lotus 1663kg according to Wiki and Porsche 1660 according to their website. And the Porsche is AWD which means greater transmission losses and poorer fuel economy.

I maintain that things have moved on - considerably.

Would I beright in saying it was a 993 Turbo at the time of the LC or would it have been the 964? That to me is a like for like.


Also - shocking that a snall coupe weighs the same as what would be a 5 series in todays money...

[rhinochopig]

Welshbeef said:

rhinochopig said:

Ah sorry - read it as RS4 for some reason, and thought the V10 was the same engine as in the R8. However neither engine is a 6 cylinder, so will lose out in economy terms.

However, you asked why engine tech hadn't moved on, the engine within the Porker is certainly comparable in terms of number of cylinders and and displacement. The weight of both cars is almost identical - Lotus 1663kg according to Wiki and Porsche 1660 according to their website. And the Porsche is AWD which means greater transmission losses and poorer fuel economy.

I maintain that things have moved on - considerably.

Would I beright in saying it was a 993 Turbo at the time of the LC or would it have been the 964? That to me is a like for like.


Also - shocking that a snall coupe weighs the same as what would be a 5 series in todays money...

That's not what I was responding too though.

You said

So 20 years and the improvement is a mere 10%....or less than 0.5bhp per year.... Is it a case of the LC really pushed the envalope and since that point in time no other has done it to the same level (ignore the silly bhp 2ltr WRC).


I think this is an interesting angle of debate which clearly shows the LC in even higher echelons

...and I was stating no, engine development has advanced considerably since then.

I've never driven either car, but I would put good money on the Porsche turbo motor having much much less lag than the LC, and a much more stable power curve purely because engine electronics and turbo design has come on massively in 20 years

[Welshbeef]

Just Wiki'd
The 911 turbo of the LC era was the 964 Turbo
It came as a 3.3ltr turbo with 320bhp exact era as the LC which had a 97bhp/tonne

Later varients came which were the 964 Turbo S which was a 3.3ltr with 376bhp giving 114bhp/tonne
Finally the 964 Turbo was gven a 3.8ltr and 380bhp resulting in a lower 105.5bhp/tonne.

So if we take todays 997 Turbo it is a 3.6ltr which has 473bhp giving 131bhp.

Or putting it another way its circa 100bhp in absolute terms like for like.
Or it just goes to show you that todays RS6 5.2 V10 twin turbo isnt the machine it should be... it should have 681bhp.
Also the older RS6 4.2V8 twin turbo SHOULD have 490bhp not just 444bhp.



I guess only the B5 RS4 2.7 Twin Turbo delivers the business with a tasty 132bhp/ltr & thats a mighty engine.

[rhinochopig]

Welshbeef said:

Just Wiki'd
The 911 turbo of the LC era was the 964 Turbo
It came as a 3.3ltr turbo with 320bhp exact era as the LC which had a 97bhp/tonne

Later varients came which were the 964 Turbo S which was a 3.3ltr with 376bhp giving 114bhp/tonne
Finally the 964 Turbo was gven a 3.8ltr and 380bhp resulting in a lower 105.5bhp/tonne.

So if we take todays 997 Turbo it is a 3.6ltr which has 473bhp giving 131bhp.

Or putting it another way its circa 100bhp in absolute terms like for like.
Or it just goes to show you that todays RS6 5.2 V10 twin turbo isnt the machine it should be... it should have 681bhp.
Also the older RS6 4.2V8 twin turbo SHOULD have 490bhp not just 444bhp.



I guess only the B5 RS4 2.7 Twin Turbo delivers the business with a tasty 132bhp/ltr & thats a mighty engine.

The Turbo S produces 530bhp.

[Welshbeef]

rhinochopig said:

The Turbo S produces 530bhp.

my point is still valid the LC equivalents RS6's don't come close why not?. They don't come close on bhp per ltr.

[rhinochopig]

Welshbeef said:

rhinochopig said:

The Turbo S produces 530bhp.

my point is still valid the LC equivalents RS6's don't come close why not?. They don't come close on bhp per ltr.

Emissions, reliability, etc. or they simply don't need to. The last few years of WRC cars with 300bhp were faster than the lighter, much more powerful, group b cars.

[NotNormal]

rhinochopig said:

Emissions, reliability, etc. or they simply don't need to. The last few years of WRC cars with 300bhp were faster than the lighter, much more powerful, group b cars.

I think that's more to do with suspension advances tbh in this instance.

[Welshbeef]

rhinochopig said:

Emissions, reliability, etc. or they simply don't need to. The last few years of WRC cars with 300bhp were faster than the lighter, much more powerful, group b cars.

That's more to do with tyre technology, chassis advancement suspension advancement braking systems and also highly advanced awd systems vs the basic setup

I'd wager putting a group b engine in a wrc would show it much quicker

[Smike]

One of the first I remember seeing apart from Dalian Atkinson's was during a late summer holiday down Cornwall ( 1992 I think ). Guy was obviously down around Newquay in the same week - remember seeing a crowd of people round it when it was parked up a few times

defblade said:

Only ever seen one.

That was at Castle Coombe on a "supercar" test/play day. It was out on track with a bunch of sierra cossies. The Lotus would catch up on one straight, follow around the next corner, then pass like they were standing still... rinse and repeat all around the track.

Seen this one at Combe at the RSOC day - late 90s



Got some footage following it from one of the sessions somewhere

Edited by Smike on Wednesday 18th May 23:21

[Dr-Bob]

BIG 10......

LEGEND....

Saw six all in one garage at one time and yes owned by one person.......