RE: Is VW going to buy Lotus?
Discussion
Wills2 said:
A cooking 997 is a very very fluid car I simply cannot understand why you think otherwise, corners as flat a fart yet is supremely damped.
Funny the 997.2 C2 I had had fairly poor body control and adequate damping, while the old man's 997.2 Turbo S sorts it out but is very stiff, albeit well damped. They are both fantastic cars, but the ride and handling is well overrated IMHO.kambites said:
I can see VAG being good for Lotus - after all they already buy in half of the bits they use to make their cars from somewhere or other, at least they could get them from a single source in VAG - except for the engines. I can't see VAG being very happy with Lotus buying in engines from other manufacturers or with them to spending the money to comprehensively re-engineer the VAG units to suit Lotus' products.
I wonder if the VAG twincharged engine feels noticeably turbocharged?otolith said:
kambites said:
I can see VAG being good for Lotus - after all they already buy in half of the bits they use to make their cars from somewhere or other, at least they could get them from a single source in VAG - except for the engines. I can't see VAG being very happy with Lotus buying in engines from other manufacturers or with them to spending the money to comprehensively re-engineer the VAG units to suit Lotus' products.
I wonder if the VAG twincharged engine feels noticeably turbocharged?Problem is, would VW really let them have engines that would allow them to beat Porsches and Audi R8s? Don't think so somehow.
If VAG were to help Lotus to do what Lotus is good at, in terms of finance, management and access to components, that would be positive. That just isn't their style, though, so I think it would be unlikely.
I think the badge-engineered MX-5 competitor people seem to want would be a likely outcome. Lots of people who don't understand or appreciate what has made Lotus cars special would be able to put Chapman's initials on their driveway in a very inferior vehicle, which is all some people seem to think matters.
I think the badge-engineered MX-5 competitor people seem to want would be a likely outcome. Lots of people who don't understand or appreciate what has made Lotus cars special would be able to put Chapman's initials on their driveway in a very inferior vehicle, which is all some people seem to think matters.
Edited by otolith on Wednesday 1st August 16:05
otolith said:
I think the badge-engineered MX-5 competitor people seem to want would be a likely outcome. Lots of people who don't understand or appreciate what has made Lotus cars special would be able to put Chapman's initials on their driveway in a very inferior vehicle, which is all some people seem to think matters.
It's an odd one really. Oliver Winterbottom once told me that 'Lotus is all about simplicity, but a lot of thought has gone into that simplicity'. Compared to the pared-back Elise, the MX-5 looks more sophisticated, but is much more conventionally engineered and runs into problems that result in weighty complexity - problems that a Lotus-engineered car would avoid.Edited by otolith on Wednesday 1st August 16:05
Oddly enough I think one of the reasons why Chapman agreed to let go of the Seven was perhaps he didn't consider its engineering radical any more. Chapman saw the Europa as the successor to the Seven, as its mid-engined layout followed Formula One technology and kept the 'F1 for the road' theme going.
The Elan was far more sophisticated and expensive than people seem to think it was. I don't know why people tend to lump it in mentally with the MGB, Spitfire and Spider - its performance and price weren't far off an E-type, and it was motorsport engineering that meant such prowess could be extracted from a four-cylinder roadster. Adjusting for price and performance, a modern Elan equivalent would cost about £40k, out-accelerate everything short of a Gallardo and be good for way over 150mph.
In short, the Elise S and Exige V6S are closer to the Elan and its variants in spirit than any MX5-alike could be.
However, I think there's still room for a cheaper sub-Elise Lotus. Maybe something akin to the Smart Roadster-Coupe, badged Europa and sold for about £20k.
Actually, isn't the R-C project still going begging after AC bottled it? I reckon Chapman would have loved its tridion structure as it's very light and very strong, almost like the base-unit of an F1 car.
I think the problem with a cheap Lotus is that I can't see any way of doing it other than using a conventionally engineered steel monocoque manufactured in high volumes, which realistically would mean a platform share. It should really be rear drive, but that might not really be feasible, the only small rear drive cars I can think of which sell in any volume are the MX-5 and the BMW 1-series.
I just don't see how that proposition can be made special enough not to devalue the brand. Lotus are very good at setting cars up to ride and handle well, and they've polished enough other people's turds in the past, but they're only using physics.
I just don't see how that proposition can be made special enough not to devalue the brand. Lotus are very good at setting cars up to ride and handle well, and they've polished enough other people's turds in the past, but they're only using physics.
otolith said:
I think the problem with a cheap Lotus is that I can't see any way of doing it other than using a conventionally engineered steel monocoque manufactured in high volumes, which realistically would mean a platform share. It should really be rear drive, but that might not really be feasible, the only small rear drive cars I can think of which sell in any volume are the MX-5 and the BMW 1-series.
I just don't see how that proposition can be made special enough not to devalue the brand. Lotus are very good at setting cars up to ride and handle well, and they've polished enough other people's turds in the past, but they're only using physics.
...which is why my idea of a heavily made-over hatch, heat considerably turned up and aimed at the 'premium compact' market would seem to make sense.I just don't see how that proposition can be made special enough not to devalue the brand. Lotus are very good at setting cars up to ride and handle well, and they've polished enough other people's turds in the past, but they're only using physics.
I've even thought of a name for it, 'Elite 3', with the badge reading 'ELITE' with the second 'E' turned round to look like a '3'. A subtle nod to the 1958 and 1974 cars.
Wouldn't necessarily be this, as I reckon it needs to look more like a coupe, but I don't think this is such a bad idea given how lucrative the market is. Get Proton to mass-produce the basic bits, ship it over to have Lotus finish it off and sell it.
Maybe, but I'm not sure that Lotus (or Proton) is strong enough in the areas that seem to matter to that sort of buyer, or that the areas Lotus is really good in would really add that much value. The Proton Gen-2 already boasts of "Lotus-engineered precision handling". They would be setting themselves up against RenaultSport on the dynamics front and being judged against A1s and MINIs for things like interior fit and finish.
Twincam16 said:
...which is why my idea of a heavily made-over hatch, heat considerably turned up and aimed at the 'premium compact' market would seem to make sense.
The thing is, Lotus isn't a strong enough brand to carry a car like that. Those in the know would see it as a Proton with bits added, and those who don't know would see it as a.. Proton with bits added.The hot hatch market is easily met by fairly boggo standard hatches with larger engines shoved in. The formula's simple - keep it cheap, give it some numbers to brag about in the pub and tighten up the suspension to make it feel sporty. Lotus input would add no real premium over what the other manufacturers already do. If there was serious Lotus input, the price difference would put it right out of the market.
It'd be up against cars like the Suzuki Swift Sport (named top hot hatch of 2012) which costs just £13,499. There's just not enough margin in that segment to save a car company.
Tuna said:
Twincam16 said:
...which is why my idea of a heavily made-over hatch, heat considerably turned up and aimed at the 'premium compact' market would seem to make sense.
The thing is, Lotus isn't a strong enough brand to carry a car like that. Those in the know would see it as a Proton with bits added, and those who don't know would see it as a.. Proton with bits added.The hot hatch market is easily met by fairly boggo standard hatches with larger engines shoved in. The formula's simple - keep it cheap, give it some numbers to brag about in the pub and tighten up the suspension to make it feel sporty. Lotus input would add no real premium over what the other manufacturers already do. If there was serious Lotus input, the price difference would put it right out of the market.
It'd be up against cars like the Suzuki Swift Sport (named top hot hatch of 2012) which costs just £13,499. There's just not enough margin in that segment to save a car company.
Not VXRs, but Carlton-style hyper-Vauxhalls, only badged as Vauxhalls even when sold in LHD form through Opel dealers to increase Vauxhall's USP and British-brand credentials.
The Lotus-Vauxhalls could be subjected to weight-loss programmes, track-biased tweaks and monstrous performance upgrades (I'm thinking supercharger installations, especially as one thing VXRs are criticised for is turbo-lag).
There could even be a Lotus high-performance version of the British-built 5-door hatch and estate version of the Astra, given that Opel only bother with a hot version of the coupe variant.
How about Lotus drops the idea of a parasitic department that tries and fails to build and sell cars at a profit, and concentrates on being an expert consultant to the wider motor industry, at a considerable profit? Lotus doesn't owe its small group of followers anything and there's no reason they should seek to build cars at a loss to satisfy them.
10 Pence Short said:
How about Lotus drops the idea of a parasitic department that tries and fails to build and sell cars at a profit, and concentrates on being an expert consultant to the wider motor industry, at a considerable profit? Lotus doesn't owe its small group of followers anything and there's no reason they should seek to build cars at a loss to satisfy them.
I've often wondered why Lotus continue to build cars. I wonder if they view it as necessary to showcase what the engineering division are doing, but they don't actually seem to share THAT much. 10 Pence Short said:
How about Lotus drops the idea of a parasitic department that tries and fails to build and sell cars at a profit, and concentrates on being an expert consultant to the wider motor industry, at a considerable profit? Lotus doesn't owe its small group of followers anything and there's no reason they should seek to build cars at a loss to satisfy them.
Because that would be a great loss to motoring. Also, without their own cars how do they develop said technology? They'd quickly become a follower rather than a leader if they had to work with other peoples' ride, handling and performance technology rather than developing their own.If the Exige and supercharged Elise take off (and given the interest, I like to think they will), I don't see any reason why they shouldn't continue to build cars. More affordable tuned versions of other people's cars, like my Vauxhall idea, would gain customers at the lower end of the market too, securing greater numbers of sales.
I reckon they should drop the Evora after the Esprit comes out, especially given that it'll be based on the Evora anyway and that supercharged V6 engine has proven itself a better fit for the Exige.
They don't sell enough product to be a "great loss" in terms of building cars. Also, there's no need to build cars in order to consult and develop technology for the motor industry. There are plenty of specialists, from electronics to drivetrain, who have never built a production car.
The current Lotus range is never going to jump in sales in a way that makes an appreciable difference. Putting new engines and specs onto these vehicles is an exercise in rearranging deckchairs.
Lotus may have a brand value, but first and foremost it's a commercial organisation that has to make money to exist. If the manufacture of vehicles in their present form is loss making, they have to change something. If the change to make it profitable is too expensive or long term then whether the company builds cars or not has to change.
If I were Hicom and looking at where the value lies, it would be squarely on the specialist consulting and technology development and I would be looking to shift the vehicle production off the books ASAP.
The current Lotus range is never going to jump in sales in a way that makes an appreciable difference. Putting new engines and specs onto these vehicles is an exercise in rearranging deckchairs.
Lotus may have a brand value, but first and foremost it's a commercial organisation that has to make money to exist. If the manufacture of vehicles in their present form is loss making, they have to change something. If the change to make it profitable is too expensive or long term then whether the company builds cars or not has to change.
If I were Hicom and looking at where the value lies, it would be squarely on the specialist consulting and technology development and I would be looking to shift the vehicle production off the books ASAP.
10 Pence Short said:
They don't sell enough product to be a "great loss" in terms of building cars. Also, there's no need to build cars in order to consult and develop technology for the motor industry. There are plenty of specialists, from electronics to drivetrain, who have never built a production car.
The current Lotus range is never going to jump in sales in a way that makes an appreciable difference. Putting new engines and specs onto these vehicles is an exercise in rearranging deckchairs.
Lotus may have a brand value, but first and foremost it's a commercial organisation that has to make money to exist. If the manufacture of vehicles in their present form is loss making, they have to change something. If the change to make it profitable is too expensive or long term then whether the company builds cars or not has to change.
If I were Hicom and looking at where the value lies, it would be squarely on the specialist consulting and technology development and I would be looking to shift the vehicle production off the books ASAP.
Sounds like the kind of mentality that would have terminally ill and borderline-terminal patients shot in the head to free up beds in hospitals.The current Lotus range is never going to jump in sales in a way that makes an appreciable difference. Putting new engines and specs onto these vehicles is an exercise in rearranging deckchairs.
Lotus may have a brand value, but first and foremost it's a commercial organisation that has to make money to exist. If the manufacture of vehicles in their present form is loss making, they have to change something. If the change to make it profitable is too expensive or long term then whether the company builds cars or not has to change.
If I were Hicom and looking at where the value lies, it would be squarely on the specialist consulting and technology development and I would be looking to shift the vehicle production off the books ASAP.
What's wrong with just being realistic with production targets and building as many cars as they know they can sell? Why does everything have to be mass-market?
We're constantly told that capitalism brings choice, but it doesn't. If I had £50k to spend on a car, I'd buy a Lotus Exige, not a Porsche or a BMW, because I like the way they're engineered. I'm sure there are enough people out there like me to sustain a market and who have the requisite funds. But if market-forces are the be-all and end-all of existence, we end up with no small independent car firms, films, record labels, restaurants, clothing companies, TV stations, intelligent drama and documentary, not-for-profit art or subversive comedy - absolutely none of it.
Instead it just gets replaced with lowest-common-denominator, mass-market, shut-yer-face neo-Con, what-the-people-are-assumed-to-want subcultural sludge oozing from every highest-margin-lowest-bidder in every walk of life.
And if I don't like it I'm just told to lump it, or are told that my tastes are affected, or outdated, or that my attitudes are elitist or politically correct.
Capitalism brings choice? My arse. Your brand of soul-denying, hatchet-faced, coldly calculating monetarism merely leads to a world dominated by a handful of homogenised monopolies. And then, ironically, life is closer to that in the former Eastern Bloc, with only a limited number of suppliers for everything and very narrow parameters within that.
I suggest you watch Wall-E. If this weak-should-die attitude continues, that's where we'll end up.
Personally, if products have merit and appeal, even if it's to a minority, then if the motivation's there, they should be saved.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff