RE: Driven: Lotus Evora IPS

[cathalm]

5 USA said:

If the Evora was a good sportscar I'd have bought one.

So you're suggesting it isn't a good sportscar? That's positively inane. Not perfect sure, but one of the most highly celebrated and awarded sportscars of the the last ten years isn't a good car? Might not be to your personal taste, might have some flaws which are well reported but don't you think that might be a just a wee bit exaggerated?

For the guy earlier, no they wont continue with the Toyota engines, they are developing their own engines for the new cars along with twin clutch gearboxes. Hence keeping the pennies tight on an auto Evora.

[GKP]

rhinochopig said:

"You have probably worked out that the Lotus Evora IPS has been born of convenience; in a market that favours twin clutches and robotised manual gearboxes, expedience and cost means Lotus has had to go down the torque converter route."

Doesn't really fit with having the funds to develop 3 or 4 new cars that. Is the Toyota V6 getting carried over into any of the newer models? If it is then I would have thought this was the ideal opportunity to develop a two pedal engine and 'box combo that is more sports car orientated than than a TC 'box.

No, the Toyota engines and gearboxes aren't going to feature in the Paris concepts.

[Oddball RS]

kambites said:

Hoygo said:

Americans also are the only in the world to get 170-200 bhp from a 5.0 V8 engine.

As opposed to the fantastic 137bhp that Rover got from their 3.5 V8 in the MGB?

Surely you mean Buick / BL? i don't see what Rover had to do with the MGB GT V8?

[LuS1fer]

I fail to see why a large capacity engine can't be sporty. Do Lamborghini and Ferrari know? Do GM know there is no point in the 7.0 LS7 revving to 7000rpm as it's not "sporty"?
Maybe when the Europeans can make large displacement engines as compact and light as the Chevy unit, they might stop being so blinkered. Not having the weight of 4 camshafts raising the CofG is also a good thing, not least for the bonnet line.

I want to like the Evora but I pass a Lotus dealer every morning and to me, it just looks like a "generic kit-car design" and I do hope that if they restyle it, they will adopt a more radical and aggressive look because however fantastic it is, it doesn't look worth the windscreen sticker price.

[kambites]

Oddball RS said:

Surely you mean Buick / BL? i don't see what Rover had to do with the MGB GT V8?

I believe, although I might be wrong, that most of the "Europeanisation" of that engine was done by Rover for the P5 and P6, wasn't it?

[McSam]

kambites said:

Ditto, but the days of those engines seem to be coming to an end.

Sadly so I love engines like those in the 458 Italia, Mucielago SV, BMW E60 M5 and so on, but there is a definite trend. However, I have much time for Koenigseggs and F40s, though, so maybe all is not lost!

[Vladimir Pukin]

Has this turned into a US muscle v UK sportscar thread?

[LuS1fer]

Oddball RS said:

Surely you mean Buick / BL? i don't see what Rover had to do with the MGB GT V8?

The engine was used by Rover in the 3500 which is where it came from. Buick were responsible for the engine originally.

People forget that America were first with catalysts ansd emissions so the V8s in the 70s and early 80s were all low compression engines designed for economy as much as anything else. However even a 1986 Camaro Z28 would hit 60 in 7.9 seconds with a 4 barrel carb but this was the mid-range car and the faster IROC had 205/215hp and hit 60 around 6.5 seconds later and if you look at what Europe had at the time, that was pretty quick.

I had the former and also an "on-paper" quicker R5 GT Turbo (7.5 to 8 seconds to 60 depending on source) but getting the R5 launched was always hit and miss with FWD whereas the Chevy was effortless and totally consistent. Both were great fun in totally different ways.

[300bhp/ton]

McSam said:

I'm talking about the general idea, and the general idea of a low specific output V8 is not a sporty image

Edited by McSam on Wednesday 15th June 11:47

I still don't see that. What does specific output truly have to do with it? To my mind it's nothing. Actual HP is what counts.

e.g.

Would you prefer a 120hp/litre 2.0 litre or a 69hp/litre 6.3?

The latter making 190hp more!

[eddie main man]

Hold on, have you seen one up close? When it first came out I thought like many (naff not so great), but when you see one, when you see one, wow!!! Nice black one in Westover down in Poole, and during the 24hrs Lotus had a white one on show. Step by step, and give them (Lotus) a chance, this car is the gap from Elise/Exige to the new Esprit. You can have 3 of these for the same price as a Audi R8 spyder.... Think of it that way.

RTH said:

Agree with that.
It does not have the 'first sight' Wow! I really want on of those look. It is a big car for Britain's country roads. It is Lotus' 'children carrier' Not exciting enough, a lot of money, at a level where there are plenty of very desirable cars in new and a couple of years old range.
Pehaps Lotus have settled for just the "Desperate Housewives" market in the USA with this car .

Edited by RTH on Wednesday 15th June 11:14

[300bhp/ton]

kambites said:

I believe, although I might be wrong, that most of the "Europeanisation" of that engine was done by Rover for the P5 and P6, wasn't it?

The only think Rover did was alter the production process. Buick had issues with the blocks warping when being cast and had a very high rejection rate. I believe Rover sorted this out but the engine remained unchanged essentially. Almost until its demise a few years ago.

[kambites]

300bhp/ton said:

kambites said:

I believe, although I might be wrong, that most of the "Europeanisation" of that engine was done by Rover for the P5 and P6, wasn't it?

The only think Rover did was alter the production process. Buick had issues with the blocks warping when being cast and had a very high rejection rate. I believe Rover sorted this out but the engine remained unchanged essentially. Almost until its demise a few years ago.

Surely Buick wouldn't have been running the thing on twin SUs?

[300bhp/ton]

McSam said:

kambites said:

And yet somehow a small capacity turbo or supercharged unit often is, despite producing a vaguely similar feeling engine...

Ah, you got there before I edited in about talking only about naturally aspirated engines, after I read 300's post

Personally, I don't like small turbos, and certainly not in a "sporty" car. Rev the nuts off it, please. Peaky delivery is my idea of "sporty", and the trend towards smaller turbos is a bit too typical of people confusing fast with "sporty".

I think there's a difference between revvy and high revs though.

For example my tuned RV8 is really, really revvy. As in it revs freely and quickly and makes most of it's power higher in the rpms. But it doesn't rev all that high, about 6000rpm.

By contrast my 1.6 16v Nissan revved to over 6500rpm, but it didn't feel as free or rev up and down as quickly. You had to wind it out more compared to the RV8.

[Vladimir Pukin]

So back to the original subject:

Article says 'But this Lotus is still some distance from becoming a proper grand tourer.'
but seems to offer no explanation for that conclusion.

I'm also not sure you answer the question of how good the paddle shift is - you say they've done well considering resources but does it work: does the down shift happen when you ask it to, is it smooth in the upshift, is it a pain when parking (I know that last point sounds boring but it could be a pain)?

[ellipsis]

spad78 said:

YAWN - shame that Lotus is reduced to targeting fat yanks who can't drive stick. Haven't had a go in the Evora but following the development it looked like a decent car, whats happened with the flat sales?

I seldom stand in defence of the Yanks, but they are a relatively savvy lot when it comes to their sports car purchases - and I mean from all countries, not just their own.

Remember it was the Yanks who asked for - and GOT - the E60 V10 M5 with a 'stick tranny' (their term, not mine ).

The article makes no reference to the US market demanding this gearbox, just a market trend in general. Which I think is plain for all to see.

[RobM77]

300bhp/ton said:

RobM77 said:

300bhp/ton said:

DaveR said:

That's effectively what I was trying to say - you just made a better job of it!

300bhp from 3 litres might be fairly sporty. 300bhp from a massive lump isn't.

Depends what it's in though. Also 300hp from an unstressed motor will likely to 200,000-250,000 miles on nothing but oil and filter changes.

In truth though, most BMW, Merc, VW and Audi engines will do that. I took a 325i to 150k miles and it never used a drop of oil, and I know people who've gone well over 200k, even 300k. The gearbox bearings tend to suffer, and you'll need a new clutch at some point but the actual engine shouldn't need opening.

In fairness though, a 325i doesn't make the stated 300hp either

I'm not saying Euro engines aren't good. Although I think with American stuff it's more the expected norm rather than the exception.

Sorry, yes, I realise that, but the 325i was the only personal experience I'd had of an engine going that far without using a drop of oil. None of the people I know with other engines in their BMWs have ever had to do oil top ups approaching or exceeding 100k miles - the engines just don't go as a rule.

In reply to Kambites' response above yours, that's generally been my experience. Jap cars seem to be the best reliability and they just run and run; German stuff next because yes, some ancillaries go (although I've not heard of this under 100k miles), but the engines are bullet proof; and very much last are Ford and Vauxhall, which seem to go pop all the time. Amongst the people I chat to about cars (which if you include Facebook and the coffee machine at work, runs into the hundreds), that's the story.

I'm not sure about the "prestige" word - I've never understood that personally. When I buy a car I just shortlist, test drive, and buy the best.

[kambites]

RobM77 said:

I'm not sure about the "prestige" word - I've never understood that personally. When I buy a car I just shortlist, test drive, and buy the best.

You are in a minority. Or rather you're probably not, but in my experience most people's shortlisting process will include discounting a whole load of cars because of the badge.

[300bhp/ton]

McSam said:

ot entirely the weight, no, though obviously it and the size are factors to consider.

Edited by McSam on Wednesday 15th June 11:47

Just for reference. But something like the LS V8's and I suspect the Chrysler Hemi's being OHV engines are typically narrower than a DOHC V6, not as tall and have a lower centre of gravity. All of those things I'd have though are important in a sporty car?

Evidently a V8 has 2 more cylinders, so its a tad longer, but as they run a timing change rather than a complex belt running across both heads, even the length difference is only marginal in many cases.

[britsportscars]

I think a fat American driving a Lotus would go against Colin Chapmans lightweight ethos

[kambites]

britsportscars said:

I think a fat American driving a Lotus would go against Colin Chapmans lightweight ethos

That would exclude most of the British population too, though. Maybe they should make the car refuse to start if the driver weighs more than 12 stone.