Thinking of Changing to an Evora

[Sharpy1975]

The Evora is pitching at a different market to the Elise/Exige and shouldnt be compared to them.

In relation to needing more power and the possibility of an S model. Why is it that the car is winning awards after awards for its handing and comparisions to cars of more than 3 times the price?

I think price shouldnt come in to it, as the car is competitively priced right, if you add on your bespoke spec and with limited supply of cars, the car should hold in residual values.

[RobM77]

heebeegeetee said:

Raja said:

heebeegeetee said:

mrdemon said:

It's still slow though

Its not a track day car, and the on public roads you will never access more than what, 60% of its capabilities?

the market has repeatedly proven this point of view doesn't stop people wanting a car with more power.

i'm sure i could buy a mid level 3 series bmw and not drive it anywhere near its capabilities - but i won't because i know that i want to buy a car knowing what it can do when pushed to its limits regardless of the fact that 90% of the time i'll be driving it nowhere near its limit.

of course truth be told i doubt i have ever had the skill or talent to be able to drive any of the sports cars i've owned anywhere near their limit but even so 0-60 in 5 seconds and no idea what it gets to 100 in a standard evora just isn't enough for me.

Fair enough, but i wish people would remember that if a car is slow, it probably ain't the machinery's fault.

There isn't just one sort of slow though. What most people mean when they say the Evora is slow is that it lacks punch in a straight line, not in lap times etc.

Michael Schumacher could probably lap a 205 Gti quicker than Joe Average in a Caterham R400, but that doesn't mean that Joe Average should buy a 205 Gti instead of a Caterham. Firstly, if Joe Average pushes 60% in all of his cars, he'll be going quicker in the Caterham than in the 205 (so to him, the Caterham is still quicker than the 205) and secondly, anyone can floor the throttle in a car and enjoy the power of it, even on the public road - straight line pace is the most accessible performance feature of a car (so to him, again the R400 is faster).

I can't make a complete judgement on the Evora because I haven't driven one, but I wanted to comment because it winds me up when people say a car's not slow because the person in question is not accessing the performance potential of that car, which is rubbish because any numpty can tell that a 996TT is faster than a 996C2, no matter how bad a driver they are. That's like me saying a Strad is louder than a Yamaha; playing skill is irrelevant.

[heebeegeetee]

But it still isn't slow, is it?

In context, I mean. it could be said that anything on 4 wheels on the public road is slow.

Edited by heebeegeetee on Tuesday 10th November 10:39

[RobM77]

heebeegeetee said:

But it still isn't slow, is it?

In context, I mean. it could be said that anything on 4 wheels on the public road is slow.

It's a relative term I suppose. Someone that drives 2.0 Mondeo would probably think the Evora was fast. However, someone that buys £50k performance cars would probably think the Evora was slow compared with what he's used to (GTR, M3 etc). Having said that, I race a single seater which is far quicker than my Elise, yet I never drive the Elise and think it feels slow, in fact I hardly ever push the throttle to the floor in my Elise - it's just not that sort of car. I suppose driving a GTR or M3 is like listening to the Sex Pistols; you'll want to turn it up to full volume to enjoy it; whereas driving a Lotus is like listening to Bach, it doesn't need full volume or even benefit from it.

Yes, my Elise is slow (200bhp/tonne; so slower than the slowest Caterham with a fat man on board). I'm not sure it suffers from it though.

[heebeegeetee]

So...

It is about traffic light GP's then?

I mean, point to point there's going to be little difference in the cars we're talking about, so little that the driver would make all the difference, i would suggest.

[RobM77]

heebeegeetee said:

So...

It is about traffic light GP's then?

Where did I suggest that?!

heebeegeetee said:

I mean, point to point there's going to be little difference in the cars we're talking about, so little that the driver would make all the difference, i would suggest.

Point to point time is irrelevant; no-one's got a stopwatch on themselves on the road. We're talking about sensation, and some people like the sensation of acceleration; those people often complain that modern Lotuses are slow. Other people, me included, prefer the sensation of finely judged damping and response; people like me are generally more likely to buy Lotuses. I admit that my Elise is slow, it's just that I don't care

Edited by RobM77 on Tuesday 10th November 11:38

[heebeegeetee]

RobM77 said:

heebeegeetee said:

So...

It is about traffic light GP's then?

Where did I suggest that?!

RobM77 said:

and some people like the sensation of acceleration;

Ok, not necessarily just at the lights, but i guess also in short bursts from low speeds, on roads where you'll be highly illegal in no time at all and its probably as juvenile as traffic light GP's..

But Ok, i give in, maybe its just me. When i see talk of cars like the Evora being described as slow, i just think "bar talk". And to me point to point is not irrelevant, it's everything.

[RobM77]

heebeegeetee said:

RobM77 said:

heebeegeetee said:

So...

It is about traffic light GP's then?

Where did I suggest that?!

RobM77 said:

and some people like the sensation of acceleration;

Ok, not necessarily just at the lights, but i guess also in short bursts from low speeds, on roads where you'll be highly illegal in no time at all and its probably as juvenile as traffic light GP's..

But Ok, i give in, maybe its just me. When i see talk of cars like the Evora being described as slow, i just think "bar talk". And to me point to point is not irrelevant, it's everything.

You said it was all about the traffic light GP. It's not; not for me, clearly not for you, and clearly not for a lot of other people. The truth is though that some people who buy performance cars like them to feel quick when they floor it. The truth is that an Evora doesn't compared to what a £50k performance car buyer is used to.

[Forbes82]

I've read a fair few reviews on the Evora, surprisingly i don't recall any of them making a big deal about it lacking any pace at all, i understand the appeal of very quick accelleration, but i don't think any current lotus is about that. Besides i'm not sure the evora is that much slower than its 50k mini-supercar rivals, and i'm sure it could carry alot more pace through most corners.

My lotus certainly isn't the fastest car, but i find the thrill of being kicked in the back under heavy acceleration fades quicker than having a car that rounds a corner superbly, with great feel and grip. I understand it's power will be a deal breaker for some, but i don't think its an aspect that will ruin the car, as i say not many journalists and testers seem to have a major problem with it.

I also tend to think that unless you are on the track (not really what the evora is for) then a couple of seconds faster to 60 doesn't really help you on our roads, in a car that fast its so easy to either end up at very high very illegal speeds, or to never truely use the ability it has. Sweeping through some twisty b roads in a car with great steering feel however is something you can appreiciate much more of the time.

Edited by Forbes82 on Tuesday 10th November 17:12

[heebeegeetee]

Oh yeah, and:

RobM77 said:

no-one's got a stopwatch on themselves on the road.

Speak for yourself.

[RobM77]

heebeegeetee said:

Oh yeah, and:

RobM77 said:

no-one's got a stopwatch on themselves on the road.

Speak for yourself.

I'm not sure you've understood what I'm saying on this thread - I'm saying that the Evora is slow for a £50k car (cf GTR, M3 etc), but it's a) a Lotus and makes up for it by the way it drives and b) it's a road car, so who cares anyway.

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 11th November 08:32

[heebeegeetee]

RobM77 said:

heebeegeetee said:

Oh yeah, and:

RobM77 said:

no-one's got a stopwatch on themselves on the road.

Speak for yourself.

I'm not sure you've understood what I'm saying on this thread - I'm saying that the Evora is slow for a £50k car (cf GTR, M3 etc), but it's a) a Lotus and makes up for it by the way it drives and b) it's a road car, so who cares anyway.

You're right really, I haven't, 'cos that seems to be what i'm saying.

We could argue about it but I wouldn't include the GT-R, it's a specialist car imo - just googling I found this in the Telegraph review:

"That's how bloody hard the GT-R is. It makes this car, sadly, almost impossible to use on British roads. You bang and crash your way over the most minor variations in road surface, your spine disintegrating, your head hurting. Which makes me want to weep, because the performance available from this supercar makes it the bargain of the century."

But in comparison to conventional cars inc the M3, because Lotus has reminded the world that knowledge and not bling is required to make truly great suspension, i reckon over many a given route the Evora would be as least as quick. Which is why i asked in the beginning "Where is it slow" and if I am reading right, you do seem to be saying in an er, roundabout way 'at the traffic lights' or at least on any other section of clear public road where a bit of unsustained and possibly gratuitous acceleration can be enjoyed.

[RobM77]

heebeegeetee said:

RobM77 said:

heebeegeetee said:

Oh yeah, and:

RobM77 said:

no-one's got a stopwatch on themselves on the road.

Speak for yourself.

I'm not sure you've understood what I'm saying on this thread - I'm saying that the Evora is slow for a £50k car (cf GTR, M3 etc), but it's a) a Lotus and makes up for it by the way it drives and b) it's a road car, so who cares anyway.

You're right really, I haven't, 'cos that seems to be what i'm saying.

We could argue about it but I wouldn't include the GT-R, it's a specialist car imo - just googling I found this in the Telegraph review:

"That's how bloody hard the GT-R is. It makes this car, sadly, almost impossible to use on British roads. You bang and crash your way over the most minor variations in road surface, your spine disintegrating, your head hurting. Which makes me want to weep, because the performance available from this supercar makes it the bargain of the century."

But in comparison to conventional cars inc the M3, because Lotus has reminded the world that knowledge and not bling is required to make truly great suspension, i reckon over many a given route the Evora would be as least as quick. Which is why i asked in the beginning "Where is it slow" and if I am reading right, you do seem to be saying in an er, roundabout way 'at the traffic lights' or at least on any other section of clear public road where a bit of unsustained and possibly gratuitous acceleration can be enjoyed.

Ah, as I said at the start, the Evora is probably very fast over a lap of a track, and I'm sure with that magical Lotus suspension it's grippy in corners too, but what people mean by slow is that it has only just over 200bhp/tonne, which is matched by plenty of fairly mundane cars these days, so it lacks the acceleration of its peers (and that's the sort of fast that you can feel legally and sensibly on the road). Don't get me wrong, I'm not personally saying that I think it's dissapointing because of this, I'm just standing up for the people that say it is slow, because really, on paper, they've got a very good point!

I'd also be the first to point out that my Elise is slow - 800kg and 156bhp is not exactly fast! (again, around 200bhp/tonne). The truth is that I barely ever floor the throttle because I get my enjoyment from other aspects of the car (namely steering feel, balance and ride/handling). Lots of people out there want straight line grunt though, and they will, as they have done for years, not 'get' Lotuses, which is fair enough. It doesn't make them wrong and me right, we just have different preferences.

By the way, I sat in an Evora yesterday and I fit!

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 11th November 10:38

[heebeegeetee]

I think the other thing is, many people seem to need to hundreds and hundreds of horsepower to go quickly, whereas i don't, being an utter driving god, naturally.

[RobM77]

heebeegeetee said:

I think the other thing is, many people seem to need to hundreds and hundreds of horsepower to go quickly, whereas i don't, being an utter driving god, naturally.

As I said earlier though, no-one is timing themselves from A to B on the road, so that definition of fast doesn't really come into it. Out of the many aspects of "fast" (braking, cornering, acceleration, grip etc), the only one anyone's going to feel with regularity on the public road is acceleration. What matters more to me, and what Lotus get so right, is the feeling of driving the car. In respect to that, my Elise is better than anything I've ever driven, which is why I rate it as the best road car I've ever driven. What I expect the Evora is is that similar feeling, but in a car that can be driven everyday and over long distances in complete comfort. I expect the new Esprit (when it eventually arrives) will be the same thing, but it'll add the acceleration aspect as well.

[heebeegeetee]

RobM77 said:

heebeegeetee said:

I think the other thing is, many people seem to need to hundreds and hundreds of horsepower to go quickly, whereas i don't, being an utter driving god, naturally.

As I said earlier though, no-one is timing themselves from A to B on the road, so that definition of fast doesn't really come into it.

I totally disagree. Having participated in a sport that relies on average speeds, it's something i think about a lot, and have often timed myself over distances to see what average i'm achieving. You don't always need a watch for this, you can make rough calcs using the cars equipment.

Covering ground quickly is the be all and end all to me, it's the only way to truly define 'quick' as far as i'm concerned. I think 0-60 is a pretty useless stat tbh, although I guess 0-100 is a useful indication, but can also be highly misleading.

In my debates on the merits of MGB's , I like to quote the MotorSport report on the 1964 Monte which stated that the leading cars were averaging 45mph at times.

Now I think 99.9% of peeps here on PH would be singularly unimpressed with that, but I happen to know that it's a *staggeringly* quick time, shockingly so when some snow and ice is thrown into the mix.

I have tried it myself, on one of the very same stages on that event (Col de Castillon) in my humble MX5, at night. I timed myself over 5 miles, drove flat out, mostly second gear stuff with occasional third, when i stopped the tappets were clicking away and the brakes stank, yet i'd managed just 36 mph. Spotlights would have made a difference but i wouldn't have got anywhere near 45, and had there been any ice around i wouldn't have attempted it in a million years!

[RobM77]

heebeegeetee said:

RobM77 said:

heebeegeetee said:

I think the other thing is, many people seem to need to hundreds and hundreds of horsepower to go quickly, whereas i don't, being an utter driving god, naturally.

As I said earlier though, no-one is timing themselves from A to B on the road, so that definition of fast doesn't really come into it.

I totally disagree. Having participated in a sport that relies on average speeds, it's something i think about a lot, and have often timed myself over distances to see what average i'm achieving. You don't always need a watch for this, you can make rough calcs using the cars equipment.

Covering ground quickly is the be all and end all to me, it's the only way to truly define 'quick' as far as i'm concerned.

I agree. My definition of quick is also the ability of a car to get from A to B as quick as possible. Thus, in our terms, an R500 is "quicker" than a BMW M5. However, for modern cars this has no relevance on public roads within the bounds of what's sensible and legal. Whilst I agree that an R500 is quicker than an M5, this "quickness" wouldn't factor in my buying choice for a car for 100% road use (sticking to the law I'd be just as quick in both cars on a public road); it would be the sensation of driving the car that mattered (so an R300 would do just as well as an R500), or the acceleration. For me, that former point is all that matters (why I drive a 111S Elise and not an SC etc).

[Spunagain]

RobM77 said:

By the way, I sat in an Evora yesterday and I fit!

In the back?????


I sat in one at the Berkshire show, So far I want one, I will test drive when funds become available! My 2 kids fitted nicely in the back and with the front seat set for me I could also fit in the back, but I was kind of folded up pretty much with my head in my lap!

Spunagain

[GKP]

The Evora isn't slow, but it's not fantastically fast either. It wasn't all that long ago that £50k would get you a Lotus that would do the 0-100mph sprint in 9.5 secs.

[RobM77]

Spunagain said:

RobM77 said:

By the way, I sat in an Evora yesterday and I fit!

In the back?????


I sat in one at the Berkshire show, So far I want one, I will test drive when funds become available! My 2 kids fitted nicely in the back and with the front seat set for me I could also fit in the back, but I was kind of folded up pretty much with my head in my lap!

Spunagain

I didn't try the back, but it looked very limited (no doubt if your kids could fit that's what it's designed for). If I specced one it would be a 2+0.