RE: Lotus Elise Sprint

[kambites]

andy_s said:

Think of it as homologation!

To be fair, a level playing field in this respect would be good - if everyone but Lotus quotes dry weight then it's probably better Lotus do too rather than launching into an explanation/excuse in the showrooms/magazines every time.

They don't though, the Italians quote dry; the Germans quote EU (equally daft, in the opposite direction); Lotus used to quote DIN which, if not the most sensible measure, is at least more sensible than the other two.

[andy_s]

kambites said:

They don't though, the Italians quote dry; the Germans quote EU (equally daft, in the opposite direction); Lotus used to quote DIN which, if not the most sensible measure, is at least more sensible than the other two.

Ah - point taken.

[jayemm89]

Also the Italians seem to flit between dry and wet weights, whenever it suits them.

Perhaps a more worrying question is how the bloody hell did Aston Martin manage to make the DB11 weigh 1770KG DRY!?

Edited by jayemm89 on Monday 20th March 09:07

[Cold]

jayemm89 said:

Perhaps a more worrying question is how the bloody hell did Aston Martin manage to make the DB11 weigh 1770KG DRY!?

By using lightweight materials in its construction. Apart from the dirty great big engine of course.

[jayemm89]

Actually my point was how do they manage to make the thing so heavy? Their press releases wax lyrical about lightweight this, carbon that, aluminium the other, but they don't even dare quote a wet weight - so the damn thing must be 1.9 tonnes at least. I know they've got plenty of leather and a thumping great engine, but so does the F12 and it is 250kg lighter

[DonkeyApple]

jayemm89 said:

Actually my point was how do they manage to make the thing so heavy? Their press releases wax lyrical about lightweight this, carbon that, aluminium the other, but they don't even dare quote a wet weight - so the damn thing must be 1.9 tonnes at least. I know they've got plenty of leather and a thumping great engine, but so does the F12 and it is 250kg lighter

My guess would be that Ferrari have quite a bit more money in order to make their cars lighter, plus they probably have more of a brand obligation to do so, whereas Aston really don't have much money left after filling up the Board's pension pots and financing their excessive lifestyles but also have always been heavy GT cars so less brand pressure to be the lightest in their group.

[AlexS]

peter450 said:

When the S1 launched it was around 18k with good performance relative to other sporty cars of the time, and in relation to its price. It also had an engine that could be easily tuned at a relatively low cost which gave a good performance increase for the outlay if you wanted more.

Fast forward 20 odd years and it has poor performance relative to today's sporty cars.

The basic Boxter the S1 faced had 200 hp, today's one is 50% more than that

This Elise has 10% more than the car from 20 years ago, ok so the build is much better, but so is every other car compared to the version on sale 20 years ago.

I have the original bill of sale for my S1 111S (the car which would have been a Sprint if Mercedes had allowed it) and it is for £27K. The basic Elise was never sold at £18K either as just about everything that was needed to spec it correctly was optional.

[framerateuk]

Interesting that people consider the base Elise to be a bit slow.

I see lots of Elises on trackdays, and compared to my 140bhp Caterham, they're usually quite well matched. I'm almost always quicker through and out of corners, but their aero means they catch up on long straights.

I had a great few sessions chasing down a well driven Elise last year at Pembrey. Catching up with him through the infield and then loosing out slightly over the straights. I think it probably took me about 5 laps to pass him. I don't think much else passed us in that time. It's all fine quoting 0-60 times and horsepower, but the fast people on trackdays are those who can brake late and corner quickly, and the Elise is all about that!

[Whitergb]

Lefty said:

Too expensive still.

The s1 was £18k in 1996. 20 years of CPI inflation takes that to about £27k. At £30k this would be a lot more attractive than it is at £37k.

If you factor in improvements over the last 20 years on the engine, suspension, gearbox, interior etc then the £7K you mention isnt as significant as you think. Compare the performance, residuals and general owner experience and its pretty good value. Audi TT RS is over £51k and you see plenty on the road, Boxster with half decent spec is around £50k, so its starting to stack up in my opinion. What is a five year old boxster or TT worth, Id say less that a lotus and cost more to run.

[Derek Chevalier]

Whitergb said:

If you factor in improvements over the last 20 years on the engine

Isn't the current engine a pretty standard Toyota lump as used in the Corolla?

[kambites]

Derek Chevalier said:

Whitergb said:

If you factor in improvements over the last 20 years on the engine

Isn't the current engine a pretty standard Toyota lump as used in the Corolla?

Yes, which is a much more modern engine than the 1.8 K-series. Whether it's "better" is debatable, though.

[otolith]

BangernomicsAndy said:

Am I missing the point of a carbon fibre engine cover to save weight? Remove the engine cover, weight saved. The rear deck covers the engine quite well I seem to think.

I think it's the rear deck they're talking about.

This;



Replacing this;



Or the slatted versions in earlier models.

[saaby93]

kambites said:

Derek Chevalier said:

Whitergb said:

If you factor in improvements over the last 20 years on the engine

Isn't the current engine a pretty standard Toyota lump as used in the Corolla?

Yes, which is a much more modern engine than the 1.8 K-series. Whether it's "better" is debatable, though.

Isnt an updated K series still running in the Chinese MG?

[kambites]

saaby93 said:

Isnt an updated K series still running in the Chinese MG?

Yes, the N-series.

[Vroom101]

kambites said:

Derek Chevalier said:

Whitergb said:

If you factor in improvements over the last 20 years on the engine

Isn't the current engine a pretty standard Toyota lump as used in the Corolla?

Yes, which is a much more modern engine than the 1.8 K-series. Whether it's "better" is debatable, though.

Well, it's certainly likely to be more reliable

[kambites]

Vroom101 said:

Well, it's certainly likely to be more reliable

My K-series is on 10-years of daily use with no breakdowns, which isn't too bad. Certainly more than can be said of the wife's TFSI Skoda.

[Olivera]

kambites said:

Derek Chevalier said:

Whitergb said:

If you factor in improvements over the last 20 years on the engine

Isn't the current engine a pretty standard Toyota lump as used in the Corolla?

Yes, which is a much more modern engine than the 1.8 K-series. Whether it's "better" is debatable, though.

IIRC the 1.6 was never in the Corolla which also ceased production 11 years ago. It's an Auris/Avensis engine.

I also don't know why Lotus don't use the 1.8 NA Toyota Avensis engine from the same family which makes more power and torque than the 1.6. It must amount to a piddly amount more per unit than the 1.6.

[kambites]

The Auris is still called the Corolla in some markets.

[jayemm89]

Olivera said:

IIRC the 1.6 was never in the Corolla which also ceased production 11 years ago. It's an Auris/Avensis engine.

I also don't know why Lotus don't use the 1.8 NA Toyota Avensis engine from the same family which makes more power and torque than the 1.6. It must amount to a piddly amount more per unit than the 1.6.

I suspect the base Elise exists probably for other markets, where taxes etc... can make price of ownership punitive, and some markets base taxes very heavily on engine size/emissions etc (much more so than us).

In reality I expect the majority of Elise sold here are the supercharged versions.

[Vroom101]

jayemm89 said:

I suspect the base Elise exists probably for other markets, where taxes etc... can make price of ownership punitive, and some markets base taxes very heavily on engine size/emissions etc (much more so than us).

In reality I expect the majority of Elise sold here are the supercharged versions.

That certainly looks to be the case going by the ratio of 1.6/supercharged Elises on Autotrader.

However I still think there is a market for the 1.6. There's a lot to be said for being able to rag the nuts off a little engined car on the road without too much fear of losing your licence. Of all the things I've read online from owners and reviews, they all say the smaller engine is perfect for this, and don't miss the shove of the supercharger.