RE: Is Lotus in proper bother this time?
Discussion
mikele pirelli said:
I have to say a Lotus that isn't predominantly made ( assembled at
least ) in the UK, preferably Hethel. Is no longer a " Lotus " to me.
I accept drivetrains sourced from other larger manufacturers etc, as
sourced previous is a necessity.
But, I don't want a Lotus screwed together in Asia, any more than I'd
want a " Jaguar " made in India, eg. The purpose has been kind of defeated
at this point,imo. It's no longer " British " in just about any respect.
I'm struggling with Morgans with BMW engines already. About as
British as a Dyson ...
I'm not suggesting that it wouldn't be made in Hethel, I just think that the main reasons why the Elise is so expensive for what it is is down to the costs of producing relatively expensive parts (the bonded aluminium chassis) in relatively small numbers.least ) in the UK, preferably Hethel. Is no longer a " Lotus " to me.
I accept drivetrains sourced from other larger manufacturers etc, as
sourced previous is a necessity.
But, I don't want a Lotus screwed together in Asia, any more than I'd
want a " Jaguar " made in India, eg. The purpose has been kind of defeated
at this point,imo. It's no longer " British " in just about any respect.
I'm struggling with Morgans with BMW engines already. About as
British as a Dyson ...
If that bit of it could be bashed out in large numbers in Malaysia and sent over in the same crates as Proton's family cars, major expense could be cut out of the Elise's (and Exige's, come to think of it) production costs. This would free up the lines at Lotus for increased production.
It wouldn't really affect British manufacturing per se, no-one would lose their job, but in terms of a relatively simple procedure made expensive by the cost of working with aluminium in the UK. People might end up doing different jobs, but a major source of expense could be reduced and production could be increased at the same time.
They've done it before to ensure the VX220 retained a Vauxhall price tag - wasn't the VX220's chassis made in Finland or somewhere similar?
V8 GRF said:
I'd agree, but thinking about it I should have just left it with the Griffith/Chimaera as the Cerbera was the start of the slippery slope as that was the first car that ran their own engine ( The early AJPs had issues) and then the downhill momentum built up with the Tuscan and the Speed 6.
On one side I agree, on the other hand I reckon that for all its early faults, the Cerbera has been immeasurably important for TVR in that it cemented the marque's reputation for immense performance - the infamous Top Gear standing mile drag race (<Clarkson>look at that TVR!</Clarkson>); an early 4.5 obliterating Cobra, Viper and AM Vantage 600 in a straight line in a Top Gear mag feature with Jason Plato and another BTCC hotshoe , then giving them a bl00dy good pasting in the handling stakes; Clarkson declaring it 'so fast, it creates its own weather'... and design-wise it had continuity with the Griff and (particularly) Chim where the Tuscan arguably became a bit too bling and outlandish for a good proportion of potential customers. Before the relation with the UK press went sour and the marque became a soft target in the 2000s, the Cerb must have been worth its weight in gold publicity-wise. It also became the best selling TVR in 1998 - quite a feat as that was IIRC the best ever year with nearly 2,000 cars built in total. PerfectRide said:
I think Lotus has a lot of potential, however they need more investment and some time.
How much more time and investment do they need? Did General Motors not invest enough money? They pumped millions of dollars into Ferderalising the Elan SE Turbo. Did Romano Artioli not invest enough? Did Proton? In each and every case, Lotus Cars has been a millstone to its owner. Lotus Cars has always been unprofitable and propped up by Lotus Engineering.
Twincam16 said:
I'm not suggesting that it wouldn't be made in Hethel, I just think that the main reasons why the Elise is so expensive for what it is is down to the costs of producing relatively expensive parts (the bonded aluminium chassis) in relatively small numbers.
If that bit of it could be bashed out in large numbers in Malaysia and sent over in the same crates as Proton's family cars, major expense could be cut out of the Elise's (and Exige's, come to think of it) production costs. This would free up the lines at Lotus for increased production.
It wouldn't really affect British manufacturing per se, no-one would lose their job, but in terms of a relatively simple procedure made expensive by the cost of working with aluminium in the UK. People might end up doing different jobs, but a major source of expense could be reduced and production could be increased at the same time.
They've done it before to ensure the VX220 retained a Vauxhall price tag - wasn't the VX220's chassis made in Finland or somewhere similar?
The current Chassis is made at Lotus Lighweight Structures in worcester, which used to be Hydro, purchased in the last decade by Lotus.If that bit of it could be bashed out in large numbers in Malaysia and sent over in the same crates as Proton's family cars, major expense could be cut out of the Elise's (and Exige's, come to think of it) production costs. This would free up the lines at Lotus for increased production.
It wouldn't really affect British manufacturing per se, no-one would lose their job, but in terms of a relatively simple procedure made expensive by the cost of working with aluminium in the UK. People might end up doing different jobs, but a major source of expense could be reduced and production could be increased at the same time.
They've done it before to ensure the VX220 retained a Vauxhall price tag - wasn't the VX220's chassis made in Finland or somewhere similar?
Lotus had a huge opportunity to launch a great new sportscar and pull in the customers.
Unfortunately thay launched the Evora and Lotus cars finds itself in trouble again. The cheaper, better styled and properly packaged V6 Exige cannot come a moment too soon. It's IMO the convertible without boy-racer wings and spoilers which has the best chance of delivering real cash from real customers. But they need to build some before they can sell them...
Unfortunately thay launched the Evora and Lotus cars finds itself in trouble again. The cheaper, better styled and properly packaged V6 Exige cannot come a moment too soon. It's IMO the convertible without boy-racer wings and spoilers which has the best chance of delivering real cash from real customers. But they need to build some before they can sell them...
JonRB said:
How much more time and investment do they need? Did General Motors not invest enough money? They pumped millions of dollars into Ferderalising the Elan SE Turbo. Did Romano Artioli not invest enough? Did Proton?
In each and every case, Lotus Cars has been a millstone to its owner. Lotus Cars has always been unprofitable and propped up by Lotus Engineering.
GM has a history of messing up several car manufacturers. Lotus, SAAB, vauxhall/opel went through a crisis 2 years ago, GM almost went down after the economy shrank. There are probably more examples, but the car industry is a difficult one and many makers have gone bust or through lean periods. I think the successful Lotus Engineering and potential of Lotus Cars makes them attractive to the other automotive groups, but there are always risks. As others have mentioned Ferrari, Aston Martin, Porche have been in trouble in the past (Aston Martin selling 100 cars a year) and have been turned around and I think the same can happen to Lotus.In each and every case, Lotus Cars has been a millstone to its owner. Lotus Cars has always been unprofitable and propped up by Lotus Engineering.
Would you rather Lotus shut down and have lots of people losing jobs? I'd rather be optimistic, rather than go about doom mongering on the internet. There will be plenty of time to be gloomy and have perfect hindsight if something bad happens to Lotus.
JonRB said:
How much more time and investment do they need? Did General Motors not invest enough money? They pumped millions of dollars into Ferderalising the Elan SE Turbo. Did Romano Artioli not invest enough? Did Proton?
In each and every case, Lotus Cars has been a millstone to its owner. Lotus Cars has always been unprofitable and propped up by Lotus Engineering.
Not quite. They were poised for a change in the late Eighties that effectively went all wrong.In each and every case, Lotus Cars has been a millstone to its owner. Lotus Cars has always been unprofitable and propped up by Lotus Engineering.
Colin Chapman had spent a few years creating a working relationship with Toyota as he saw an opportunity for both company's engineering to benefit each other's products. He admired the reliability and efficiency of Toyota, and in turn Toyota wanted to make their cars fast and handle well. The link began back in the late Sixties when Toyota bought up a load of Elan chassis for the 2000GT, and by the late Seventies they were working on the M90/X100 project which would have been a RWD Elan replacement with Toyota underpinnings. It was all part of addressing Lotus' reliability problems. An Elan with a Toyota engine would have been unbeatable.
Problem was, Chapman died. The two companies were moving gradually closer and closer together, and joint-engineering projects were bearing fruit in the form of the Excel and the MR2. Had Chapman lived, then according to Oliver Winterbottom Toyota would probably have incorporated Lotus as their engineering wing as of circa 1986.
So, imagine that. Lotus would have engineered all Toyota's competition cars - the Lotus roundel would probably have graced the Celica GT-Four, the MR2 Mk2 would have handled perfectly straight out of the box and had cache as a 'baby Esprit'. Toyota would have pumped money into Lotus's cars to ensure they were built to Toyota standards, and they would have become to Toyota what Porsche is to VW. Toyota are now one of the biggest automotive giants in the world, and Lotus could have become part of that. Lotus would have heped them evolve too - imagine if Lotus had engineered the Prius?
Unfortunately (and quite by surprise to a lot of people at Lotus, apparently), when Lotus was floated on the Stock exchange General Motors just swept in from nowhere, buying out the majority of the shares before Toyota had the chance. The fact that Lotus and Toyota have always maintained a positive working relationship even since the GM takeover speaks volumes about this. The Elan M100, funnily enough, was developed in secret by a committee of GM and Lotus engineers out of the way of most people in Hethel, and the project was based in Italy. The Toyota Elan was all ready to go at this time and would have been profitable to make in volume too, whereas the M100 cost Lotus a fortune and GM dropped it - shades of what happened with Saab.
Since then it's been passed to Bugatti, then Proton, but I do wonder whether if Chapman had lived and had eased his company into Toyota ownership, ensuring that Toyota knew precisely how to preserve the spirit of Lotus, it would be a formidably strong company today, building cars that retained the lightness and innovation whilst also being reliable and well-built.
Interestingly, despite the GT86 Toyota still has no sporting wing. I know it's 25 years later than intended, but I think Toyota would understand Lotus in a way that few other manufacturers would.
One of the biggest missed opportunities of the automotive world - and tantalisingly still not out of reach. DO IT, TOYOTA, DO IT!
carl_w said:
I'm surprised the Europa S didn't sell in greater numbers. I liked the idea (but of course I didn't buy one).
I think it was because it seemed rather pointless. It was billed as a 'comfy' Elise with a bigger cockpit, but it wasn't really big or comfy enough, mainly because it was a ruse cooked up to shift leftover VX220 chassis. I suspect that because of this they never really intended to sell that many anyway.Twincam16 said:
Not quite. They were poised for a change in the late Eighties that effectively went all wrong.
Colin Chapman had spent a few years creating a working relationship with Toyota as he saw an opportunity for both company's engineering to benefit each other's products. He admired the reliability and efficiency of Toyota, and in turn Toyota wanted to make their cars fast and handle well. The link began back in the late Sixties when Toyota bought up a load of Elan chassis for the 2000GT, and by the late Seventies they were working on the M90/X100 project which would have been a RWD Elan replacement with Toyota underpinnings. It was all part of addressing Lotus' reliability problems. An Elan with a Toyota engine would have been unbeatable.
Problem was, Chapman died. The two companies were moving gradually closer and closer together, and joint-engineering projects were bearing fruit in the form of the Excel and the MR2. Had Chapman lived, then according to Oliver Winterbottom Toyota would probably have incorporated Lotus as their engineering wing as of circa 1986.
So, imagine that. Lotus would have engineered all Toyota's competition cars - the Lotus roundel would probably have graced the Celica GT-Four, the MR2 Mk2 would have handled perfectly straight out of the box and had cache as a 'baby Esprit'. Toyota would have pumped money into Lotus's cars to ensure they were built to Toyota standards, and they would have become to Toyota what Porsche is to VW. Toyota are now one of the biggest automotive giants in the world, and Lotus could have become part of that. Lotus would have heped them evolve too - imagine if Lotus had engineered the Prius?
Unfortunately (and quite by surprise to a lot of people at Lotus, apparently), when Lotus was floated on the Stock exchange General Motors just swept in from nowhere, buying out the majority of the shares before Toyota had the chance. The fact that Lotus and Toyota have always maintained a positive working relationship even since the GM takeover speaks volumes about this. The Elan M100, funnily enough, was developed in secret by a committee of GM and Lotus engineers out of the way of most people in Hethel, and the project was based in Italy. The Toyota Elan was all ready to go at this time and would have been profitable to make in volume too, whereas the M100 cost Lotus a fortune and GM dropped it - shades of what happened with Saab.
Since then it's been passed to Bugatti, then Proton, but I do wonder whether if Chapman had lived and had eased his company into Toyota ownership, ensuring that Toyota knew precisely how to preserve the spirit of Lotus, it would be a formidably strong company today, building cars that retained the lightness and innovation whilst also being reliable and well-built.
Interestingly, despite the GT86 Toyota still has no sporting wing. I know it's 25 years later than intended, but I think Toyota would understand Lotus in a way that few other manufacturers would.
One of the biggest missed opportunities of the automotive world - and tantalisingly still not out of reach. DO IT, TOYOTA, DO IT!
+1Colin Chapman had spent a few years creating a working relationship with Toyota as he saw an opportunity for both company's engineering to benefit each other's products. He admired the reliability and efficiency of Toyota, and in turn Toyota wanted to make their cars fast and handle well. The link began back in the late Sixties when Toyota bought up a load of Elan chassis for the 2000GT, and by the late Seventies they were working on the M90/X100 project which would have been a RWD Elan replacement with Toyota underpinnings. It was all part of addressing Lotus' reliability problems. An Elan with a Toyota engine would have been unbeatable.
Problem was, Chapman died. The two companies were moving gradually closer and closer together, and joint-engineering projects were bearing fruit in the form of the Excel and the MR2. Had Chapman lived, then according to Oliver Winterbottom Toyota would probably have incorporated Lotus as their engineering wing as of circa 1986.
So, imagine that. Lotus would have engineered all Toyota's competition cars - the Lotus roundel would probably have graced the Celica GT-Four, the MR2 Mk2 would have handled perfectly straight out of the box and had cache as a 'baby Esprit'. Toyota would have pumped money into Lotus's cars to ensure they were built to Toyota standards, and they would have become to Toyota what Porsche is to VW. Toyota are now one of the biggest automotive giants in the world, and Lotus could have become part of that. Lotus would have heped them evolve too - imagine if Lotus had engineered the Prius?
Unfortunately (and quite by surprise to a lot of people at Lotus, apparently), when Lotus was floated on the Stock exchange General Motors just swept in from nowhere, buying out the majority of the shares before Toyota had the chance. The fact that Lotus and Toyota have always maintained a positive working relationship even since the GM takeover speaks volumes about this. The Elan M100, funnily enough, was developed in secret by a committee of GM and Lotus engineers out of the way of most people in Hethel, and the project was based in Italy. The Toyota Elan was all ready to go at this time and would have been profitable to make in volume too, whereas the M100 cost Lotus a fortune and GM dropped it - shades of what happened with Saab.
Since then it's been passed to Bugatti, then Proton, but I do wonder whether if Chapman had lived and had eased his company into Toyota ownership, ensuring that Toyota knew precisely how to preserve the spirit of Lotus, it would be a formidably strong company today, building cars that retained the lightness and innovation whilst also being reliable and well-built.
Interestingly, despite the GT86 Toyota still has no sporting wing. I know it's 25 years later than intended, but I think Toyota would understand Lotus in a way that few other manufacturers would.
One of the biggest missed opportunities of the automotive world - and tantalisingly still not out of reach. DO IT, TOYOTA, DO IT!
There are many scenarios being discussed but I still think that this has to be the best way forward. All the other sports car manufacturers mentioned above are either wholly or part-owned by major manufacturers and Lotus will not survive without taking a similar approach. Lotus seem to be very popular in Japan (if the number of Elan's and Europa's being shipped over there are anything to go by) and Toyota would benefit from a close association with a more 'sporting' brand.
PerfectRide said:
Would you rather Lotus shut down and have lots of people losing jobs? I'd rather be optimistic, rather than go about doom mongering on the internet.
Really, why do people keep saying this? It just sounds daft.Have you never seen the supporters at a football club protest because they feel that the club is going in the wrong direction? It's not because they hate the club, or they want it to close, they protest because they want it to thrive and they think that it's being managed incorrectly.
Suggesting that anyone wants Lotus to fold is is ridiculous, and as for being optimistic, I don't see much to be optimistic about at the moment, and I think the majority agree, hence the length of this thread. It's just another act in the soap opera that is Lotus.
Be positive all you want, but please don't expect it to make a shred of difference to the future of Lotus, just at people expressing their concerns on a forum won't make a difference either.
AllNines said:
kambites said:
I think it's a matter of exactly how it's phrased...
Lotus have made a profit recently
Lotus cars have not.
The point, though, is that Lotus (the whole entity) made a profit. And at a time when they had started development on the Evora. The following year was always going to be tough, and then they began their ambitious investment plan so there was never going to be a profit for a few years anyway.Lotus have made a profit recently
Lotus cars have not.
Twincam16 said:
JonRB said:
How much more time and investment do they need? Did General Motors not invest enough money? They pumped millions of dollars into Ferderalising the Elan SE Turbo. Did Romano Artioli not invest enough? Did Proton?
In each and every case, Lotus Cars has been a millstone to its owner. Lotus Cars has always been unprofitable and propped up by Lotus Engineering.
Not quite. They were poised for a change in the late Eighties that effectively went all wrong.In each and every case, Lotus Cars has been a millstone to its owner. Lotus Cars has always been unprofitable and propped up by Lotus Engineering.
Colin Chapman had spent a few years creating a working relationship with Toyota as he saw an opportunity for both company's engineering to benefit each other's products. He admired the reliability and efficiency of Toyota, and in turn Toyota wanted to make their cars fast and handle well. The link began back in the late Sixties when Toyota bought up a load of Elan chassis for the 2000GT, and by the late Seventies they were working on the M90/X100 project which would have been a RWD Elan replacement with Toyota underpinnings. It was all part of addressing Lotus' reliability problems. An Elan with a Toyota engine would have been unbeatable.
Problem was, Chapman died. The two companies were moving gradually closer and closer together, and joint-engineering projects were bearing fruit in the form of the Excel and the MR2. Had Chapman lived, then according to Oliver Winterbottom Toyota would probably have incorporated Lotus as their engineering wing as of circa 1986.
So, imagine that. Lotus would have engineered all Toyota's competition cars - the Lotus roundel would probably have graced the Celica GT-Four, the MR2 Mk2 would have handled perfectly straight out of the box and had cache as a 'baby Esprit'. Toyota would have pumped money into Lotus's cars to ensure they were built to Toyota standards, and they would have become to Toyota what Porsche is to VW. Toyota are now one of the biggest automotive giants in the world, and Lotus could have become part of that. Lotus would have heped them evolve too - imagine if Lotus had engineered the Prius?
Unfortunately (and quite by surprise to a lot of people at Lotus, apparently), when Lotus was floated on the Stock exchange General Motors just swept in from nowhere, buying out the majority of the shares before Toyota had the chance. The fact that Lotus and Toyota have always maintained a positive working relationship even since the GM takeover speaks volumes about this. The Elan M100, funnily enough, was developed in secret by a committee of GM and Lotus engineers out of the way of most people in Hethel, and the project was based in Italy. The Toyota Elan was all ready to go at this time and would have been profitable to make in volume too, whereas the M100 cost Lotus a fortune and GM dropped it - shades of what happened with Saab.
Since then it's been passed to Bugatti, then Proton, but I do wonder whether if Chapman had lived and had eased his company into Toyota ownership, ensuring that Toyota knew precisely how to preserve the spirit of Lotus, it would be a formidably strong company today, building cars that retained the lightness and innovation whilst also being reliable and well-built.
Interestingly, despite the GT86 Toyota still has no sporting wing. I know it's 25 years later than intended, but I think Toyota would understand Lotus in a way that few other manufacturers would.
One of the biggest missed opportunities of the automotive world - and tantalisingly still not out of reach. DO IT, TOYOTA, DO IT!
Here is one reason to be optimistic.
From lotus facebook page. Maybe put out to stop everyone ridiculing them for the childish press response yesterday.
EXIGE S UPDATE: It just came back from our Hethel test track and we can reveal that during final testing its lap times have been compared to the Mk2 Exige Cup 260.
The new Exige S is up to 5 seconds a lap faster then the old Exige Cup 260.
2012 Exige S, Trofeo tyres, Lotus DPM in Race mode: 1 min 32.68 seconds
Exige cup 260, Yokohama A048: 1 min 37.90 seconds
Not sure exactly were it would fit on the top gear power lap time board. Lotus Exige S did 1.25.1, which might not be as fast as the Exige cup 260, but Hethel test track is a little longer than the top gear track.
From lotus facebook page. Maybe put out to stop everyone ridiculing them for the childish press response yesterday.
EXIGE S UPDATE: It just came back from our Hethel test track and we can reveal that during final testing its lap times have been compared to the Mk2 Exige Cup 260.
The new Exige S is up to 5 seconds a lap faster then the old Exige Cup 260.
2012 Exige S, Trofeo tyres, Lotus DPM in Race mode: 1 min 32.68 seconds
Exige cup 260, Yokohama A048: 1 min 37.90 seconds
Not sure exactly were it would fit on the top gear power lap time board. Lotus Exige S did 1.25.1, which might not be as fast as the Exige cup 260, but Hethel test track is a little longer than the top gear track.
Twincam16 said:
I think it was because it seemed rather pointless. It was billed as a 'comfy' Elise with a bigger cockpit, but it wasn't really big or comfy enough, mainly because it was a ruse cooked up to shift leftover VX220 chassis. I suspect that because of this they never really intended to sell that many anyway.
Doh! not the VX 220 argument again, don't you read the previous posts! !The Europa S was a type 121 it uses the same tub as the Elise and Exige with modified sills, it had a VX engine, the interior was then transferred to the Elise and Exige and now the Exige S and no it was not pointless I could put a LOT of luggage in the boot compared to an Elise, Exige this includes a flight bag Computer rucksack and still have space. I have to say it was comfy as I could drive 350 miles and not get back ache the probax seats are a dream.
Its like me saying the new Exige S is a Europa (it reminds me of one but I know it has different components)
kambites said:
AllNines said:
Re. cars made in Hethel - where have Elise bodies and chassis been made over the years? Not always in the UK, much like the engines...
Chassis was made in Scandinavia somewhere wasn't it? I thought the bodies were all made in Hethal. 
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff