RE: Evora S Sports Racer: Intro
Discussion
peter450 said:
This is not some top secret high end uber engine like the one in the Lexus LFA, theV6 was out of a ordinary saloon or some such, if Toyota let Lotus use the high rev Yamaha designed 1.8 (Toyotas version of a Honda VTEC) I very much doubt there would be an issue with using DI version of the V6 other than lotus wanting to save a few quid by buying the obsolete engine instead.....
The non supercharged V6 is from all sorts of Toyotas: Camry, Kluger and even the previous generation Rav4 had it. It's not that much less powerful than the DI version (2GR-GSE). Apart from cost, Lotus may have gone with the 2GR-FE over the 2GR-FSE as the DI may not take the revs if Lotus resorted to increasing revs to find more power (again).One post a few back had a picture of the Evora chassis with running gear and the McLaren 12C for comparison. What could have been if Lotus went with that arrangement (obviously losing the back "seats") and offered the Toyota 5.7 litre V8 (code: 3UR-FE)? 50kg more but lower down in the chassis, 380 horses naturally aspirated and a TRD supercharger optional for 500 horses. Or was that destined for the new Esprit?
Olivera said:
I do like the Evora (and Exige) a lot, however I can't help but notice how high the engine sits when compared to another bespoke designed chassis like the MP4-12C
Evora:
MP4-12C:
Great post and photos but heartily disagree with your conclusion, most of the weight in an engine is low down and the packaging on the Evora is excellent and proves that the transverse, al la muira, is the best installation for rear drive unles you want to add 0.5m to the wheelbase and forget luggage. The packaging on the Cayman is even better with two boots a la 914.Evora:
MP4-12C:
domtreas said:
Funny how this has turned into the Battle of Britain - Spitfire V's Messerschmitt..
Evora and Cayman are both great accomplished handling and beautiful looking cars.. they do more than most out there and are very focused mid-engined sports cars. Any comparison to 911 seems odd, different segment.
You buy from the heart at the end of the day, if you are in the market for one. I challenge anyone who really is into their cars not to want to own both, i would, just to appreciate the qualities/feeling of both and their subtle differences. Yes if you need the +2 the Cayman is not an option.
Nobody has mentioned nationality so much (thank god) just two rival cars, agree with you that both are excellent/desirable.Evora and Cayman are both great accomplished handling and beautiful looking cars.. they do more than most out there and are very focused mid-engined sports cars. Any comparison to 911 seems odd, different segment.
You buy from the heart at the end of the day, if you are in the market for one. I challenge anyone who really is into their cars not to want to own both, i would, just to appreciate the qualities/feeling of both and their subtle differences. Yes if you need the +2 the Cayman is not an option.
Until you mentioned it that is!
ads_green said:
As I understand it, the DI version wouldn't fit. You can see how cramped the engine is in the evora even after slanting it backwards. The DI version has both direct and indirect injectors and makes the engine wider (which is why it's only used in front engine rear wheel drive layouts).
Also when in supercharged trim the power output is about the same at 360ps so it is a lot of complexity for not very much gain (and about another 10kgs). Lotus would have to warrant the engines themselves if they went above this. We also are not party to the commercial arrangement which may prevent lotus from tuning the engines outside their published specifications.
The Elise had to be downsized - the old high performance engine was discontinued due to euro regs and the old 1.8 was replaced by the 1.6. It was the only engine they could get at the time. The new Elise s's are now using a newer 1.8 with a supercharger but to use it in place of the 1.6 would give a tiny increase in power and need to be re-type approved. Not worth the cost.
Your right in that this is all speculation and we don't know the terms of the agreements etc, but cost is usually the thing behind most of these decisions and there hardly going to come out and say that, so it's always this won't fit, or the performance of that better suits out needs etc. look at the pathetic blurb they put out about the environment to justify the use of a 1.6 over a 1.8Also when in supercharged trim the power output is about the same at 360ps so it is a lot of complexity for not very much gain (and about another 10kgs). Lotus would have to warrant the engines themselves if they went above this. We also are not party to the commercial arrangement which may prevent lotus from tuning the engines outside their published specifications.
The Elise had to be downsized - the old high performance engine was discontinued due to euro regs and the old 1.8 was replaced by the 1.6. It was the only engine they could get at the time. The new Elise s's are now using a newer 1.8 with a supercharger but to use it in place of the 1.6 would give a tiny increase in power and need to be re-type approved. Not worth the cost.
The old high performance 1.8 was end of line yes, this was not replaced for a long time (another bad move) and left a huge gap in the lineup were the R and SC were until the supercharged 1.8 came along itself a disappointment with no power increase over the old car.
The engine I was referring to mainly was the 135 odd hp unit in the base car, this was also end of line and Toyota replaced this engine (which I'm sure also came in 1.6 and other displacements) with a new range of more efficient units of which there was also a 1.8 and maybe even a 2 litre if I recall, anyway the 1.8 kicked out around 145 + hp. I commented on this a long time ago when the 1.6 launched so my memory is not 100% on everything, but lotus rather than use the 1.8 litre version from Toyotas updated engine range choose to downsize to the 1.6 why? because they wanted to save the environment ? Or because it saved them a one or two hundred quid.....End result an Elise that had the real world grunt of a 2 litre MX5 a car the old S1 comprehensively outperformed back in the day.
There are certain performance expectations that come with the Lotus badge and a slow 1.6 was a step to far the old 135hp1.8 base car was already in need of more power to keep it in the game, not less !!! the final nail came with the 1.6 that they massively struggled to shift even when it was the only model they sold.
Fact is the current range are inferior to the previous range with worse engines and same or worse performance, no wonder 2nd hand values are rock solid on the older cars it's what anyone sensible would buy given the money
The Wookie said:
mrdemon said:
easy
build is still dire
support and dealers are still dire
the engines a heavy weight old lump
And it's slower
hence why we pick Caymans
No it isn't, certainly not compared to my experience with Porschesbuild is still dire
support and dealers are still dire
the engines a heavy weight old lump
And it's slower
hence why we pick Caymans
No they aren't, certainly not compared to my experience with Porsche dealers
Fair enough, the engine is mediocre, but it doesn't spoil the car
They don't sell in numbers because a Lotus needs to either be significantly cheaper than the equivalent mainstream brands to sell, or have a chunk more performance.
In terms of build is is better built than my 2010 Mini convertible which creaks and rattles and not just from the roof, the Lotus is still silent (of creaks and rattles).
In terms of support, Lotus Silverstone have been fantastic from purchase to service and support - I have had a few niggles, none of which stopped me enjoying the car and they sorted them quickly and without any fuss.
Yes the engine's a heavy weight old lump but so what? As part of the whole package it provides a perfectly balanced car, and I have more confidence in a mass produced Toyota engine which means I should be able to affordably maintain it over the long period I plan to keep the car.
And it's slower, yup, but if you want straight line numbers get a TVR or a Corvette! It's not about pub or playground statistics. It is about how it drives and how it feels. I love mine and I expect to keep it for at least another decade.
Someone complained about VED, my NA gives out 199g/km, which is band J - £260/yr. Others are higher but you pays your money and takes your choice. You could get and S and then pay another £225 a year, buy you have just bought a £60K car does that really matter? Really?
bencollins said:
Olivera said:
I do like the Evora (and Exige) a lot, however I can't help but notice how high the engine sits when compared to another bespoke designed chassis like the MP4-12C
Evora:
MP4-12C:
Great post and photos but heartily disagree with your conclusion, most of the weight in an engine is low down and the packaging on the Evora is excellent and proves that the transverse, al la muira, is the best installation for rear drive unles you want to add 0.5m to the wheelbase and forget luggage. The packaging on the Cayman is even better with two boots a la 914.Evora:
MP4-12C:
Horses for courses, I love Corvettes, but I'd never buy one over a Lotus for the UK and the driving I do.
I'm struggling with the opinions that you'd have to be committed or spiteful to buy a Lotus - no one else offers a similar focus on purist ride and handling, other than the typically impractical things such as Caterfields.
I couldn't stretch to my first choice Elise, so bought the only thing that comes close, a kit car. Now in some ways it's more practical than the Lotus, and it's both lighter and more powerful than the the Lotii I was looking at. But for those gains and the cost savings I also know I'm missing out on that elusive x% in ride and handling tuning that only the boys from Hethel seem to create...
I'm struggling with the opinions that you'd have to be committed or spiteful to buy a Lotus - no one else offers a similar focus on purist ride and handling, other than the typically impractical things such as Caterfields.
I couldn't stretch to my first choice Elise, so bought the only thing that comes close, a kit car. Now in some ways it's more practical than the Lotus, and it's both lighter and more powerful than the the Lotii I was looking at. But for those gains and the cost savings I also know I'm missing out on that elusive x% in ride and handling tuning that only the boys from Hethel seem to create...
Mr.Ben Collins, do you have an engineering background ? I pray not, because how you could ever imagine that the rear axle mounted , ex front wheel drive power train , could be optimal is to me beyond belief, what are you seeing ? Do you really think that part of the block, the cylinder heads, including camshafts and valve train, then the induction system, and on the car in question, perched right on the top of all of this hardware is a 40 kg supercharger,all a long way above the axle centre line could possibly be an optimal weight distribution beggars belief ? McLaren know a thing or two about optimising weight distribution, and that's why their engine and ancillaries are very close to the ground .
The reason these rear axle mounted engined cars exist is because it is a very cheap solution, a production front drive power train moved to the rear axle, a pseudo mid-engined configuration .
The reason these rear axle mounted engined cars exist is because it is a very cheap solution, a production front drive power train moved to the rear axle, a pseudo mid-engined configuration .
ravon said:
Mr.Ben Collins, do you have an engineering background ? I pray not, because how you could ever imagine that the rear axle mounted , ex front wheel drive power train , could be optimal is to me beyond belief, what are you seeing ? Do you really think that part of the block, the cylinder heads, including camshafts and valve train, then the induction system, and on the car in question, perched right on the top of all of this hardware is a 40 kg supercharger,all a long way above the axle centre line could possibly be an optimal weight distribution beggars belief ? McLaren know a thing or two about optimising weight distribution, and that's why their engine and ancillaries are very close to the ground .
The reason these rear axle mounted engined cars exist is because it is a very cheap solution, a production front drive power train moved to the rear axle, a pseudo mid-engined configuration .
Does it really matter though? The McLaren and Evora have pretty brilliant handling so engine position etc does not seem to have had much detrimental effect. In many ways it could be argued that the Evora is more renowned for its handling than the 12c.The reason these rear axle mounted engined cars exist is because it is a very cheap solution, a production front drive power train moved to the rear axle, a pseudo mid-engined configuration .
Kawasicki said:
Isn't the Cayman powertrain longitudinally mounted though?
True but flat so you still get two big boots like the 914.Given theres no flat engines off the shelf for Lotus they are stuck.
Although the 914 is transverse so bad example from me
I think the real problem is Toyota petrol engines are behind the times and have been for years.
My sixpenneth worth on Lotus dealers - as has been said already I can't fault MMC here in Scotland. Others have had honourable mentions as well. Service, sales and support has been outstanding in the 10 years I have been dealing with MMC. Hell, Brandon even managed to sell me a Volvo!!! They are actively involved with all the owners and clubs and last month hosted our regular breakfast meet, opening up the showroom on a Sunday for over 110 guests. Its no coincidence that they have I think sold more Evoras than any other dealer in Europe, many of them to ex-Porsche owners.
There is currently a 4-6 month waiting list for new Lotus' and MMC struggle to fill their showroom with new/used as they turn them around so quickly. So Lotus (and MMC) must be doing something right, at least here in Scotland. But I don't get this Lotus vs Porsche mentality. They both make great cars that we love to drive. Ultimately its a personal and probably emotional choice rather than for any logical reason. If it was we would all be driving bland euroboxes.
Whilst this is a defense of Lotus, it should not be taken as a dig at Porsche. I'm sure many owners Porsche owners have had similar experiences. We should just be glad we have such great choices and should just get out there and enjoy them.
There is currently a 4-6 month waiting list for new Lotus' and MMC struggle to fill their showroom with new/used as they turn them around so quickly. So Lotus (and MMC) must be doing something right, at least here in Scotland. But I don't get this Lotus vs Porsche mentality. They both make great cars that we love to drive. Ultimately its a personal and probably emotional choice rather than for any logical reason. If it was we would all be driving bland euroboxes.
Whilst this is a defense of Lotus, it should not be taken as a dig at Porsche. I'm sure many owners Porsche owners have had similar experiences. We should just be glad we have such great choices and should just get out there and enjoy them.
SidewaysSi said:
ravon said:
Mr.Ben Collins, do you have an engineering background ? I pray not, because how you could ever imagine that the rear axle mounted , ex front wheel drive power train , could be optimal is to me beyond belief, what are you seeing ? Do you really think that part of the block, the cylinder heads, including camshafts and valve train, then the induction system, and on the car in question, perched right on the top of all of this hardware is a 40 kg supercharger,all a long way above the axle centre line could possibly be an optimal weight distribution beggars belief ? McLaren know a thing or two about optimising weight distribution, and that's why their engine and ancillaries are very close to the ground .
The reason these rear axle mounted engined cars exist is because it is a very cheap solution, a production front drive power train moved to the rear axle, a pseudo mid-engined configuration .
Does it really matter though? The McLaren and Evora have pretty brilliant handling so engine position etc does not seem to have had much detrimental effect. In many ways it could be argued that the Evora is more renowned for its handling than the 12c.The reason these rear axle mounted engined cars exist is because it is a very cheap solution, a production front drive power train moved to the rear axle, a pseudo mid-engined configuration .
Of course the Mclaren set up is better for roll centre, height of centre of mass, but theres more to building a car than that and i was clearly referring to overall car packaging efficiency.
Like somewhere to put golf clubs, plus 2 seating, not needing another 0.5m on the wheelbase (and the extra weight that demands), the 90dg diff loses some efficiency and most importantly of all cost. Using Mclaren for comparison against a 2+2 car is barely relevant.
Worth checking what autocar said this car compares to at 2:00 in :- http://youtu.be/uQ664uE48WY
Zyp said:
Porsche's 3.4 DFi engine is incredibly reliable - I can't remember hearing about one that's failed.
The Cayman GTS you speak of - are you sure?
(For the record, I love Lotus and I like Porsche
)
It had GTS in the carrera script in big letters down the sides, if they are not on sale I guess the owner though his mods made it one.. It was white, red script, red cage fitted. Looked a lovely car but it went home early blowing smoke. This was at Abingdon with Motor Sport Events last summer.The Cayman GTS you speak of - are you sure?
(For the record, I love Lotus and I like Porsche
)Zyp said:
Certainly isn't an official Cayman GTS then - can only just order one for June delivery at the earliest.
I must admit I never queried it, not one to follow the new lineups. It was well done though it looked factory, didn't look at all aftermarket cage it looked very GT3 esq.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff