RE: Driven: Lotus Elise S
Discussion
jason61c said:
otolith said:
Interesting, so what donor car is it based on then?
Sorry I wasn't trolling, £36k+options is a lot of money for such a car. When I said an expensive kit car, its a complement, a lot of great kit cars out there.jason61c said:
otolith said:
Interesting, so what donor car is it based on then?
Sorry I wasn't trolling, £36k+options is a lot of money for such a car. When I said an expensive kit car, its a complement, a lot of great kit cars out there.Ultimately, it's a low volume specialist product - it is never going to offer the white label value-for-money proposition of something mass produced, but those who want such a car just have to pay what it costs.
stevenandalex said:
I am sure it is a great car, but an elise now a days needs to be more daily driver friendly. I just hope the new elise is not too far away.
I disagree - the friendly daily driver market is sewn up between souped up shopping cars and those manufacturers like Porsche which are masters at producing sports cars which are ordinary to live with.stevenandalex said:
I am sure it is a great car, but an elise now a days needs to be more daily driver friendly. I just hope the new elise is not too far away.
It really doesn't. The Elise needs to be what the Elise is. It's a brilliant car when it works. What they need to sort out is the build quality of the thing. Do that and I'd have another at the drop of a hat. Which in essence is all that's wrong with Lotus in general.Kong said:
kambites said:
Kong said:
Expensive? This is only slightly pricier than a Golf R which is much slower.
It's a funny old world where a bespoke sports car costs about the same as a (slower) hot hatch but gets accused of being overpriced by people claiming to be car enthusiasts, isn't it?
I don't think people realise how quick 220bhp in a 925kg car actually is, you really don't need much more. Then when you factor in the excellent long term residuals and the high MPG - I can think of much worse ways to spend £36k.. given that it's the running costs that have caused the Nissan 370Z to suffer, I'd say this was a better bet.Twincam16 said:
given that it's the running costs that have caused the Nissan 370Z to suffer, I'd say this was a better bet.otolith said:
Twincam16 said:
given that it's the running costs that have caused the Nissan 370Z to suffer, I'd say this was a better bet.Looking around it's clear to me that Zs are bought by twenty- and thirty-something men who prioritise taking a car by the scruff of the neck and driving it over the residual values and lower running costs offered by a BMW Z4 or an Audi TT. OK, so the Lotus will slice through hairpins like a scalpel while the Z will offer up a big booming V6 and great lairy powerslides, but ultimately the driver is after driving fun. By contrast, a significant proportion of BMW and Audi drivers bought them as cars to commute in.
Bearing in mind that this demographic will only have the money for one car and will probably have one eye on running costs (but another quite firmly on track days), the raw figures of the Elise S seem to tip the balance against the 370.
They might look like chalk and cheese in engineering terms, but they have a very similar market to themselves.
"the big difference with this engine being that it’s a lot more undersquare than the previous one and much more torquey as a result – 184lb ft over the SC’s 156lb ft. OK, it doesn’t rev quite as manically – peak power is at 6,800rpm rather than 8,000rpm"
- more under-square and much more torquey as a result. Being a bit pedantic, but the undersquare nature of the design is not "the reason" for having more torque. The reason for more torque is that if you're making the same peak power, but 1200 RPM lower, than your peak airflow, due to either increased boost pressure, or increased breathing (different exhaust, intake, camshafts etc.) over the new speed-range.at peak power, more torque will be made due to the torque-speed-power relationships.
Same power at lower speed = more torque at mid/lower speeds - because there is more air-flow in the new lower speed range. Torque or power express work recovered from the air and fuel flow through the system - power = air flow is constant or continues to increase above the torque/power cross-over @ 5252rpm.
Yes, the bore-stroke ratio shares a trend with torque vs power focused design - but the numbers themselves don't magically produce more torque or power, they come as a mechanical by-product of the desired design, the trade off of where in the power-band you want the performance. (torque or power depending on the designed operating range)
- more under-square and much more torquey as a result. Being a bit pedantic, but the undersquare nature of the design is not "the reason" for having more torque. The reason for more torque is that if you're making the same peak power, but 1200 RPM lower, than your peak airflow, due to either increased boost pressure, or increased breathing (different exhaust, intake, camshafts etc.) over the new speed-range.at peak power, more torque will be made due to the torque-speed-power relationships.
Same power at lower speed = more torque at mid/lower speeds - because there is more air-flow in the new lower speed range. Torque or power express work recovered from the air and fuel flow through the system - power = air flow is constant or continues to increase above the torque/power cross-over @ 5252rpm.
Yes, the bore-stroke ratio shares a trend with torque vs power focused design - but the numbers themselves don't magically produce more torque or power, they come as a mechanical by-product of the desired design, the trade off of where in the power-band you want the performance. (torque or power depending on the designed operating range)
kambites said:
Kong said:
Expensive? This is only slightly pricier than a Golf R which is much slower.
It's a funny old world where a bespoke sports car costs about the same as a (slower) hot hatch but gets accused of being overpriced by people claiming to be car enthusiasts, isn't it?as good as it is the thick end of 30k is very expensive for a 20 year old ally tub that cost £1200 to make with a fibre glass body and a mass produced bargain basement engine and a bolt on blower
Twincam16 said:
Different objectives, yes, but curiously I reckon the buying demographic is actually quite similar.
Looking around it's clear to me that Zs are bought by twenty- and thirty-something men who prioritise taking a car by the scruff of the neck and driving it over the residual values and lower running costs offered by a BMW Z4 or an Audi TT.
My wife bought hers because she had decided her MX-5 was too slow Looking around it's clear to me that Zs are bought by twenty- and thirty-something men who prioritise taking a car by the scruff of the neck and driving it over the residual values and lower running costs offered by a BMW Z4 or an Audi TT.
Again, guilty of extrapolating from the older car to the newer model, but the Z is a GT to my mind. It's a big, heavy car and it always feels like one. Lousy ride quality and noise levels apart, it's a fairly comfortable, civilised place to travel in - certainly compared to the spartan Lotus. The best thing about it is the noise it makes. This is the view of ours from the driver's seat of the Lotus - it's flipping huge!
The Elise is a more practical alternative to a Caterham or a purer alternative to an Boxster, IMO, where the Z is a daily driver kind of car.
Dave Hedgehog said:
kambites said:
Kong said:
Expensive? This is only slightly pricier than a Golf R which is much slower.
It's a funny old world where a bespoke sports car costs about the same as a (slower) hot hatch but gets accused of being overpriced by people claiming to be car enthusiasts, isn't it?as good as it is the thick end of 30k is very expensive for a 20 year old ally tub that cost £1200 to make with a fibre glass body and a mass produced bargain basement engine and a bolt on blower
Whats wrong with fiberglass?
Whats wrong with the tub? I don't think i've ever heard a review which said its not good or up to the job?
juansolo said:
It really doesn't. The Elise needs to be what the Elise is. It's a brilliant car when it works. What they need to sort out is the build quality of the thing. Do that and I'd have another at the drop of a hat. Which in essence is all that's wrong with Lotus in general.
This smacks of someone who hasn't driven one for quite some time.In terms of build quality there is nothing wrong with the Toyota engined cars in my opinion. I had a 2010 Elise 1.6 for a day to write a piece on it last year and had absolutely no complaints about the way it was put together.
Thorburn said:
In terms of build quality there is nothing wrong with the Toyota engined cars in my opinion. I had a 2010 Elise 1.6 for a day to write a piece on it last year and had absolutely no complaints about the way it was put together.
They're better (nothing particularly to do with the engine, they just got better as the years went by), but they still have some significant design flaws and assembly quality problems. Of the niggles that I've had with my car since I've had it, over half are unchanged on the latest cars. kambites said:
Low development costs?!? The development cost per unit sold (which is all that matters) on the Elise will be vastly higher than on anything that the mainstream manufacturers produce.
this will be true, even thou the R only shifts in the 1000s its still a huge number compared to the elise Sregardless 36k for a play thing no matter how superb is an awful lot
Dave Hedgehog said:
kambites said:
Low development costs?!? The development cost per unit sold (which is all that matters) on the Elise will be vastly higher than on anything that the mainstream manufacturers produce.
this will be true, even thou the R only shifts in the 1000s its still a huge number compared to the elise Sregardless 36k for a play thing no matter how superb is an awful lot
kambites said:
I don't really understand. By "kit car" do you just mean "low volume car"? Generally lower production volumes push prices up, not down.
No I mean all parts bought in except the body, Assembled with varying quality depending on the what mood the guy doing the job is in.Fit and finish of a well done kit car basically, where's the 37k's worth in it? low production of this car is more due to the cost of the thing to buy new, i'm sure if it was 20k they'd sell 100's a year. I'm not slating the car at all, they're great things but 37k great? I guess that depends on how much money you've got to slosh around.
98elise said:
Can you make one cheaper?
Whats wrong with fiberglass?
Whats wrong with the tub? I don't think i've ever heard a review which said its not good or up to the job?
i have no doubts i could build a kit car that's faster than the elise S for less than 36kWhats wrong with fiberglass?
Whats wrong with the tub? I don't think i've ever heard a review which said its not good or up to the job?
fibreglass, its light but has zero structural integrity in a crash
nothing wrong with the tub, the RnD costs on it are well covered and it lasts well
cars are just very expensive now i guess
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff