Interesting press release from Lotus yesterday detailing the amount of weight it has stripped out of its cars of late. It's claiming to have taken 207kg of flab from its current range, listing some of the ways it's done this. These include a one-piece carbon rear deck for the
Evora 410 that saves 10kg over the five-piece standard item, the 3kg saved with the development of the
Exige Sport 350's funky exposed gear linkage and the 3.5kg saved on regular Elises by switching to a lighter battery.
All very on-message for a brand once again asserting a reputation for being a lightweight leader, even if the Elise's kerbweight has apparently grown by around a third in the 20 years since the
original S1. Unfair to compare an older car with a new one carrying a bunch more tech and safety hardware? If the numbers are to be believed my mum's brand new MX-5 1.5 weighs just 50kg or so more than my own 1993 1.6 Eunos and I know which I'd rather have a crash in. Actually this particular example doesn't work because it wouldn't be the new one. I might survive the impact but it's doubtful I'd live to tell the tale!
We're rightly more sceptical about the numbers manufacturers quote after the whole emissions thing. And without putting each car on a set of scales they will always be playing the system by fair means or foul to publish the best kerbweight possible, be it listing the number AFTER weight-saving cost options like carbon seats or forged wheels have been taken into consideration. Or putting the heavy tech that achieves the performance numbers like dual-clutch transmissions, four-wheel steering systems or fancy locking diffs (potentially plus 20kg per box ticked) on the options sheet so they can quote a low 'standard' kerbweight. As well as expecting the customer to pay extra to get the full package. Yes Porsche, looking at you.
Fundamentally though I'll always look more favourably on the lighter car than the heavier one. Which is why I'd take a Golf GTI over an R any day,
Clubsport or not. And am itching to drive a
Focus RS back to back with front-wheel drive rivals like the Civic Type R or Megane 275 Cup-S. The Ford wins on attention seeking skidfoolery and on-paper firepower. And it's a hell of a machine. But compared with the
Renault or Honda it's carrying an extra 200kg or so. That's a huge amount. Chassis set-up, damping and clever traction management and stability control mitigate. But whether you're factoring in wear to consumables or simply the kind of agility that really counts in 'the twisties' on road or track it's the most significant number for me when comparing these cars. Because - numbers be damned - through the seat of your pants a lighter car is always going to be more fun, more honest in its feedback and less reliant on an electronic smokescreen to deliver the wow factor.
In the supercar league I think McLaren needs to make more noise about the weight advantage it has over the Italian and German rivals. The issue is clouded by the different weight standards used by various manufacturers but if you add a driver and fluids to the quoted 1,313kg dry weight of a 570S it's still going to be at least 150kg lighter than an
R8 or 911 Turbo, if not more. Without even driving the cars that number would be enough for me to put the McLaren in pole position, a comparison that extends to the next level up when you put a 650S against a Ferrari 488 GTB or Lamborghini Huracan.
Forget horsepower figures. Never mind the torque output or gizmo count. Don't even look at 0-62, lap times or top speeds. I think when it comes to comparing cars on stats alone the one suffixed 'kg' is the most important one to inform the fun and engagement you'll have at the wheel. On the understanding this sometimes requires a forensic examination of how the number has been reached in the first place to make sure you're comparing like with like...
Dan
