RE: Lotus: Dead weight lifted or dead man walking?
Discussion
Scuffers said:
Mikeyboy said:
Money has always been an issue for Lotus, it has either been badly run, or suffered from under investment whether the owner be Colin Chapman or the Malaysians.
Money was entirely the issue with the M250. If they had launched it, and by the way pretty though it was it wouldn't have sold as it was too basic inside, they wouldn't have been able to sell it the US. thus making it an unprofitable car. some manufacturers can afford to launch a car in only one market, but Lotus couldn't.
don't buy that.Money was entirely the issue with the M250. If they had launched it, and by the way pretty though it was it wouldn't have sold as it was too basic inside, they wouldn't have been able to sell it the US. thus making it an unprofitable car. some manufacturers can afford to launch a car in only one market, but Lotus couldn't.
at the time, Lotus were making good money, they could not keep up with Elise orders, they had just spanked £££ on the Autocar w*nkfeast that was the 340r.
Now, I know the M250 was not finished, but being blunt, it was not that far off, and at the ~£40K it was launched at
(worth reading this from the time)
now consider this in the context of the new Exige S (with it's 'basic' interior)....
the Exige S will maybe sell a few hundred to track enthusiasts with money, in its first year but a wider audience and in any greater numbers after the year of launch and its as much of a rapid seller as the last one. V6 or not.. It is also not even slightly the same model as the M250, even if for some reason some people on here think that the price point makes it so.
The M250 is the Evora, with two less seats and a bit less weight. But that weight is in the Evora due to modern crash tests and customer led desire for greater luxury and quality. And it still doesn't sell. So why would the M250 have been any different with the sound of stones pinging off the bottom and no carpets (most people's first comment when they got in my S1 Elise.)? I think of the M250 as Jim morrison or James Dean. Its dead so we can look at it with a glory that will never be spoilt by the duff product.
As for how much cash they had. They turned a profit once in their history with proton. Thats once in fourteen years, and that wasn't even when sales of the Elsie and other models were at their height. If you don't make a profit, you don't stand much chance of developing decent new product. Look at Rover who had much bigger resources behind them.
They didn't have any money at the time of the M250 and that article, which I read before my last post, doesn't in any way contradict that. It was a wish list for a concept car, so no different from the many models peugeot show that never get made. Simply put Manufacturers don't stop developing a model they have deposits for because they can't source a part, they stop because they can't afford to build it.
kambites said:
It is true that Lotus problem don't put the effort into fooling the test, but quite frankly, they probably need to. However daft it may be, the CO2 numbers from that test have a massive effect on the running costs of cars these days.
Ignoring the trivial difference in annual RFL fees, what causes to the "massive difference" in running costs due to CO2 emissions?Ozzie Osmond said:
I simply cannot believe that people are whimpering about fuel consumption of the Elise! It's a sportscar, not some eco-mapped city car with zero throttle response!
Biggest problem for Elise is the design is 20 years old, it's very small and it soldiers on with a laughable door opening. (For any who are unaware, the door looks OK from outside but when you open it the whole lower half of the aperture is is filled by a deep, wide sill making access awkard.) Regrettably this handicap has been carried over to the new Exige V6. Fine for a handful of 25-year old trackday enthusists but hopeless in terms of achieving Lotus' desired sales volumes.
It is an insurmountable side effect of the Elises revolutionary chassis design, which played a big part in making the car what it is. There is a secretary at work in her mid-late 50's who drives her Elise to work almost every day, if she can manage I hardly think it's that bad a problem. It's awkward the first few times but you quickly get used to getting in and out in a reasonably non-foolish manner.Biggest problem for Elise is the design is 20 years old, it's very small and it soldiers on with a laughable door opening. (For any who are unaware, the door looks OK from outside but when you open it the whole lower half of the aperture is is filled by a deep, wide sill making access awkard.) Regrettably this handicap has been carried over to the new Exige V6. Fine for a handful of 25-year old trackday enthusists but hopeless in terms of achieving Lotus' desired sales volumes.
Mr2Mike said:
kambites said:
It is true that Lotus problem don't put the effort into fooling the test, but quite frankly, they probably need to. However daft it may be, the CO2 numbers from that test have a massive effect on the running costs of cars these days.
Ignoring the trivial difference in annual RFL fees, what causes to the "massive difference" in running costs due to CO2 emissions?Scuffers said:
Mr2Mike said:
kambites said:
It is true that Lotus problem don't put the effort into fooling the test, but quite frankly, they probably need to. However daft it may be, the CO2 numbers from that test have a massive effect on the running costs of cars these days.
Ignoring the trivial difference in annual RFL fees, what causes to the "massive difference" in running costs due to CO2 emissions?Edited by kambites on Thursday 12th July 11:45
otolith said:
I'm surprised anyone gets them as a company car, a lot of companies won't allow you a two door car let alone a two seat one. I would have said that the target market being private buyers is the main reason that CO2 isn't that important (within reason) for these cars.
I don't know about other companies, but for us the company car allowance is just a benefit so we can get whatever we like. I've never actually driven anywhere for work in my own car. 
I'm pretty sure that Lotus has lost more than one sale to people here because the CO2 rating is too high, but maybe we're unusual in how our company car scheme works?
I also think even amongst private buyers, CO2 rating is important. Whether you choose to believe the whole "MMGW" thing or not, the vast majority of the population do believe it and many try to buy low-emissions cars because they actually think it's the right thing to do for the environment.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 12th July 11:58
kambites said:
Yes but the Elise still has a significantly better CdA than the Rover (and indeed than almost anything else on the road). As far as I know, only a few other sports cars and some very aerodynamically designed "eco cars" like the Prius better it.
This claims a cdA of 0.651 - that's not especially low. An Audi A4 is 0.616.kambites said:
I also think even amongst private buyers, CO2 rating is important. Whether you choose to believe the whole "MMGW" thing or not, the vast majority of the population do believe it and many try to buy low-emissions cars because they actually think it's the right thing to do for the environment.
Some do. I'm not sure that they are likely to be the sort to buy a frivolous fun car, though.otolith said:
kambites said:
Yes but the Elise still has a significantly better CdA than the Rover (and indeed than almost anything else on the road). As far as I know, only a few other sports cars and some very aerodynamically designed "eco cars" like the Prius better it.
This claims a cdA of 0.651 - that's not especially low. An Audi A4 is 0.616.otolith said:
kambites said:
I also think even amongst private buyers, CO2 rating is important. Whether you choose to believe the whole "MMGW" thing or not, the vast majority of the population do believe it and many try to buy low-emissions cars because they actually think it's the right thing to do for the environment.
Some do. I'm not sure that they are likely to be the sort to buy a frivolous fun car, though.kambites said:
Why? Environmentalism is a very middle-class thing. You've got to be fairly well off to be able to afford to worry about such things.
I think people who buy sports cars go to dinner parties where there are other people who care about their carbon footprint.Actually, I think that the Elise is fit for purpose - low weight doesn't confer significant advantage in constant speed fuel economy, but it does in repeated acceleration. I would be surprised if there are many cars which can beat the fuel economy while keeping up down a twisty B-road.
otolith said:
Actually, I think that the Elise is fit for purpose - low weight doesn't confer significant advantage in constant speed fuel economy, but it does in repeated acceleration. I would be surprised if there are many cars which can beat the fuel economy while keeping up down a twisty B-road.
All true, but how many potential buyers understand this? All most people will see is the official combined MPG/CO2 figure. At the end of the day, the key thing is that Lotus remain in business rather than not. There's a lot of what US presidential failure Henry Clay's famous quote "I'd rather be right than president" going on - or in Lotus' case, replace "president" with "solvent".
The "Why do we need to buy a Porsche?" people are right, Lotus doesn't need to build a Porsche. But it does need to steal Porsche's customers. I know people here weren't happy when I suggested they needed to get 45 year old ladies into their cars, despite the fact that this is the group that buys sports cars more than any other. No, no, Lotus should carry on making cars where the driver makes compromised in the name of Driving Purity. We want a Serious Car for Serious Drivers.
It's a business plan certainly. But it didn't work well for TVR.
IF Lotus has to survive, then chasing more and more obscure markets (eco-sports cars?) will not achieve the sales they need. The situation Lotus are in is similar to where Aston Martin was when Ford took over - and selling about as many cars. Aston now sell 4000+ cars a year, by competing in a different market whilst retaining their "Aston-ness" - but they've poached sales from people who would otherwise have bought Porsches or Merc SLs. This is what Lotus need to do - identify people they can poach, who are interested in a different proposition to the current cars on offer but which still meets their needs. There are a finite number of buyers and it's pretty close to a zero-sum game; the Evora for example, doesn't need to be like a 911, M3 or XKR. But it does need to make someone looking at one of those cars buy and Evora instead.
The "Why do we need to buy a Porsche?" people are right, Lotus doesn't need to build a Porsche. But it does need to steal Porsche's customers. I know people here weren't happy when I suggested they needed to get 45 year old ladies into their cars, despite the fact that this is the group that buys sports cars more than any other. No, no, Lotus should carry on making cars where the driver makes compromised in the name of Driving Purity. We want a Serious Car for Serious Drivers.
It's a business plan certainly. But it didn't work well for TVR.
IF Lotus has to survive, then chasing more and more obscure markets (eco-sports cars?) will not achieve the sales they need. The situation Lotus are in is similar to where Aston Martin was when Ford took over - and selling about as many cars. Aston now sell 4000+ cars a year, by competing in a different market whilst retaining their "Aston-ness" - but they've poached sales from people who would otherwise have bought Porsches or Merc SLs. This is what Lotus need to do - identify people they can poach, who are interested in a different proposition to the current cars on offer but which still meets their needs. There are a finite number of buyers and it's pretty close to a zero-sum game; the Evora for example, doesn't need to be like a 911, M3 or XKR. But it does need to make someone looking at one of those cars buy and Evora instead.
pycraft said:
IF Lotus has to survive, then chasing more and more obscure markets (eco-sports cars?) will not achieve the sales they need. The situation Lotus are in is similar to where Aston Martin was when Ford took over - and selling about as many cars. Aston now sell 4000+ cars a year, by competing in a different market whilst retaining their "Aston-ness" - but they've poached sales from people who would otherwise have bought Porsches or Merc SLs.
I'd quite like it if one of the larger euro car makers (eg. Mercedes) bought Lotus.It'd never be the same again, but if Merc actually wanted to make Smart work as a brand, I could see that sort of thing being useful. Merc should be in charge of the QA though...
C
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff