RE: Lotus Evora 400 :Driven

[otolith]

I suspect the cost of the engine is a relatively minor consideration. You are buying a low volume and substantially hand-made car built using a more expensive body structure than pressed steel for 10k less than an equivalent mass produced 911 - how much more discount should it have?

[ESOG]

otolith said:

I suspect the cost of the engine is a relatively minor consideration. You are buying a low volume and substantially hand-made car built using a more expensive body structure than pressed steel for 10k less than an equivalent mass produced 911 - how much more discount should it have?

Fair answer to a question I genuinely did not know or have any inkling as to the answer. However, using the word "discount" seems wrongly placed, unless you used it for lack of a better term, afterall it is merely semantics in the end I suppose.

I suppose the point I was trying to convey was being that the Lotus name does not have the same pull or appeal, or in some cases where-with-all (sp?) among the potential buying public, the price points for pretty much their entire line up seems askew. Granted, for the exact same reason it would make sense via economics that a lower produced as well as purchased product demands a higher price point, the cost of the Elise alone seems borderline absurd. Maybe absurd is over-stating it, but I think you probably understand where I am going with this...

For example, I live in the U.S., and a new Elise, even 7 years ago was going for upwards of $60,000 new! That's quite a bit of money for what is essentially a kit-car with heritage.

Now, just have a peek at Ebaymotors and be astounded at the asking price of second-hand Esprits, Elises, and Evoras.

Point is, if I had the money, regardless of such, why would myself or anyone pay let's say $65,000 for a new Elise when I could just as easily pay $38,000 for an Elise second hand just 2 years older but with only maybe 20K on the odometer. It's still brand new and you avoid paying almost double the price as well as avoid the taxes and of course the eventual loss when one goes to sell it?

Just think about this; One of us could buy what is in much regard a British Ferrari aka Esprit V8 or even S4S for the price of a fully loaded Hyundai Sonata and many, MANY people would not realize it is something other than a Lamborghini or Ferrari and to them they think it's brand new because of the condition. Most people wouldn't even realize it once cost nearly $100K brand new and is a 20 year old supercar that can not only keep up with the best of them like a Ferrari F355, but can in certain circumstances reign superior performance to other cars 10 years newer!

Edited by ESOG on Wednesday 5th August 03:16

[ESOG]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I completely understand what you are saying, and I agree 100% that it seems as if it would be in Lotus' best interest to stick to one extreme or the other. Personally, with the exception of having 1 flagship supercar like a new Esprit, Lotus should have been and should begin to produce bad-ass light-weight moderately priced cars like a newly designed and engineered Elan.

Lotus should take the reigns now and become a leader in such a market, and perhaps even begin producing hybrid/electric mid-level performance cars that TRULY carry the Lotus 'light-weight', 'less is more' philosophy. From that they can really show the world their engineering expertise and become leaders in what will most likely become the norm in the future anyway as alternative energy is being refined and prepped for future use in the automobile industry. Lotus has the right philosophy, the engineering know-how, the heritage, and a strong albeit somewhat small but fierce group of fans that just want to see Lotus thrive. Atleast I know I very much want them to thrive AND survive...not just scrape by.

[blueg33]

ESOG said:

otolith said:

I suspect the cost of the engine is a relatively minor consideration. You are buying a low volume and substantially hand-made car built using a more expensive body structure than pressed steel for 10k less than an equivalent mass produced 911 - how much more discount should it have?

Fair answer to a question I genuinely did not know or have any inkling as to the answer. However, using the word "discount" seems wrongly placed, unless you used it for lack of a better term, afterall it is merely semantics in the end I suppose.

I suppose the point I was trying to convey was being that the Lotus name does not have the same pull or appeal, or in some cases where-with-all (sp?) among the potential buying public, the price points for pretty much their entire line up seems askew. Granted, for the exact same reason it would make sense via economics that a lower produced as well as purchased product demands a higher price point, the cost of the Elise alone seems borderline absurd. Maybe absurd is over-stating it, but I think you probably understand where I am going with this...

For example, I live in the U.S., and a new Elise, even 7 years ago was going for upwards of $60,000 new! That's quite a bit of money for what is essentially a kit-car with heritage.

Now, just have a peek at Ebaymotors and be astounded at the asking price of second-hand Esprits, Elises, and Evoras.

Point is, if I had the money, regardless of such, why would myself or anyone pay let's say $65,000 for a new Elise when I could just as easily pay $38,000 for an Elise second hand just 2 years older but with only maybe 20K on the odometer. It's still brand new and you avoid paying almost double the price as well as avoid the taxes and of course the eventual loss when one goes to sell it?

Just think about this; One of us could buy what is in much regard a British Ferrari aka Esprit V8 or even S4S for the price of a fully loaded Hyundai Sonata and many, MANY people would not realize it is something other than a Lamborghini or Ferrari and to them they think it's brand new because of the condition. Most people wouldn't even realize it once cost nearly $100K brand new and is a 20 year old supercar that can not only keep up with the best of them like a Ferrari F355, but can in certain circumstances reign superior performance to other cars 10 years newer!

Edited by ESOG on Wednesday 5th August 03:16

I have a 2010 Evora, many prole think its a Lamborghini worth over £100k. In reality you could buy it off me for £30k of the price of a reasonably specced Passat), if can keep up with a Ferrsri 360 and is quicker than a 355. Put a private plate on big and it looks new.

Not sure what your point is.

The 400 isn't ecpensive IMO. Show me a 2+2 sports car with that performance for £72k or £78k with a fully loaded spec.

Edited by blueg33 on Wednesday 5th August 08:28

[LotusOmega375D]

So now we've had arguments about pricing regarding Evora 400 vs. 911, Evora 400 vs. Cayman GT4 and now Evora 400 vs a 2 year-old second hand Elise.

And you guys think Lotus has an issue with pitching prices!

[SidewaysSi]

Why do these threads always end up with us armchair experts giving opinions on how Lotus should be run?

I think Porsche should start making 3dr hatches. They would make a killing.

[moribund]

Lotus need to price their cars to make a profit and shift 3000+ units a year (a tiny amount globally).

A lot of posters think Lotus should price their cars so the poster can afford a new one. This would be a daft idea for Lotus.

The perception in the UK is an issue, very few would complain that an F458 isn't being charged at the £60k it cost to make instead of the £200k they are sold for, but for Lotus the perception is different. Luckily they seem to be able to find customers who see them value in the unique handling ability they offer.

[SidewaysSi]

Totally agree. All this 'make a new Esprit' is all well and good but how many of those people asking for one will actually dip into their pockets when the time comes? Very few I would imagine.

Lotus needs to have and has a solid platform which they are growing. Having some pie in the sky idea based on the opinions of people who watched Bond films 30 years ago isn't it.

[leglessAlex]

SidewaysSi said:

Totally agree. All this 'make a new Esprit' is all well and good but how many of those people asking for one will actually dip into their pockets when the time comes? Very few I would imagine.

Lotus needs to have and has a solid platform which they are growing. Having some pie in the sky idea based on the opinions of people who watched Bond films 30 years ago isn't it.

If you look at it like this, which I do and I think other people should too, I don't get why anyone would currently worry about Lotus.

Every interview I've seen from Gales makes me think he knows what he's doing and he has a solid, realistic plan. More dealers, refining the cars they have and making some small but very important changes (like lowering the sills and making the cars easier to get in and out of) and gradually increasing sales globally, which they are on course to do this year I think.

I think the only risk for Lotus in the next few years is when Gales gives the go ahead for an all new car, whatever that will be. They'll really need to get that one right, but that's going to be arriving in 2017 at the very earliest from what Gales has said, so there's no point in worrying about it now.

[tankplanker]

ESOG said:

Fair answer to a question I genuinely did not know or have any inkling as to the answer. However, using the word "discount" seems wrongly placed, unless you used it for lack of a better term, afterall it is merely semantics in the end I suppose.

I suppose the point I was trying to convey was being that the Lotus name does not have the same pull or appeal, or in some cases where-with-all (sp?) among the potential buying public, the price points for pretty much their entire line up seems askew. Granted, for the exact same reason it would make sense via economics that a lower produced as well as purchased product demands a higher price point, the cost of the Elise alone seems borderline absurd. Maybe absurd is over-stating it, but I think you probably understand where I am going with this...

For example, I live in the U.S., and a new Elise, even 7 years ago was going for upwards of $60,000 new! That's quite a bit of money for what is essentially a kit-car with heritage.

Now, just have a peek at Ebaymotors and be astounded at the asking price of second-hand Esprits, Elises, and Evoras.

Point is, if I had the money, regardless of such, why would myself or anyone pay let's say $65,000 for a new Elise when I could just as easily pay $38,000 for an Elise second hand just 2 years older but with only maybe 20K on the odometer. It's still brand new and you avoid paying almost double the price as well as avoid the taxes and of course the eventual loss when one goes to sell it?

Just think about this; One of us could buy what is in much regard a British Ferrari aka Esprit V8 or even S4S for the price of a fully loaded Hyundai Sonata and many, MANY people would not realize it is something other than a Lamborghini or Ferrari and to them they think it's brand new because of the condition. Most people wouldn't even realize it once cost nearly $100K brand new and is a 20 year old supercar that can not only keep up with the best of them like a Ferrari F355, but can in certain circumstances reign superior performance to other cars 10 years newer!

Edited by ESOG on Wednesday 5th August 03:16

Merc SLs are around £73k without options, 2 years old can be had for £35k to £40k with around £5k of options included. Early, steep deprivation in the 2 and 2+2 sports car market go hand in hand outside of the two usual suspects who both charge more for the car you actually want to drive than their base model. Its not exactly new information that you can get a bargain if you manage to pick the right, reliable, second hand sports car outside of the big two marques.

I'm buying new as I'm planning on keeping my Evora and I the depreciation is irrelevant to me, otherwise I'd be buying a second hand one. The car its replacing does about 7k a year for me.

[otolith]

ESOG said:

I suppose the point I was trying to convey was being that the Lotus name does not have the same pull or appeal, or in some cases where-with-all (sp?) among the potential buying public, the price points for pretty much their entire line up seems askew.

They need to break that perception that a Lotus should be a cheap car, because they aren't cheap cars to manufacture. The only way that you do that is by selling expensive cars, which is a catch-22 they are trying to resolve.

[rodericb]

otolith said:

They need to break that perception that a Lotus should be a cheap car, because they aren't cheap cars to manufacture. The only way that you do that is by selling expensive cars, which is a catch-22 they are trying to resolve.

Why aren't they cheap (or rather, less expensive) to manufacture? I believe the tightest margins are usually on the cheaper cars.

[otolith]

rodericb said:

Why aren't they cheap (or rather, less expensive) to manufacture? I believe the tightest margins are usually on the cheaper cars.

Three interconnected factors; volume, mechanisation, architecture. Plants for making pressed steel cars are very expensive, but can churn out large numbers of cars at relatively low unit cost. Composite bodywork on a bonded aluminium chassis with significant hand assembly requires less capital investment to set up but can't churn out cars so cheaply.

[Ozzie Osmond]

rodericb said:

Why aren't they cheap (or rather, less expensive) to manufacture?

Lotus thought it was going to be able to use its VVA (Versatile Vehicle Architecture) to sell to other manufacturers and make lots of money. This was their patter,

"The Evora platform is a lightweight, modular aluminium chassis which can be easily adapted as a basis for client vehicles. The platform provides class-leading levels of both driving dynamics and refinement.

"By using a platform that is already globally type-approved for the multiple award-winning Lotus Evora, we offer a low investment, quick route to market for low volume exciting vehicles capable of running on a range of powertrains including hybrid and electric drives."

Have they managed to sell it to anyone else? No, it's too expensive.

But what about the first Tesla in USA? No, it was too expensive so they modified the Elise chassis instead.

Have Lotus been able to use it to expand their own range of cars as hoped? No, it's too expensive.

So what about the Exige S? No, the Evora's too expensive so they had to base it on the old Exige instead.

Regrettably the VVA architecture has been an expensive mistake for Lotus, like the V8 engine which was also intended for sale to other manufacturers, and like the front-wheel-drive Elan M100 which was intended to revolutionise the sportscar business.

[kambites]

I think Aston used the Lotus design as the starting point for the "VH" platform so they've at least got some money out of the patents.

You say it's too expensive, but it appears to be cheaper than Porsche's steel monocoque platform used for the 911? OK some of that will be engine costs rather than platform cost but given the volumes involved I think the Evora's production costs look remarkably low.

I'm not sure where you get the information that Tesla were ever interested in VVA? I've not heard that before. In fact I think the Tesla Roadster predates VVA becoming production ready?



But yes, VVA clearly hasn't worked. Partly because Lotus have been in too much of a shambles to actually produce any new cars themselves recently and partly because they have, for whatever reason, failed to sell the technology to many other companies. Of course part of that might be down to the general assumption that Lotus were going to go bankrupt, which wouldn't have been very good for anyone relying on them to produce their chassis.

Edited by kambites on Wednesday 5th August 12:21

[otolith]

I remember reading somewhere that the production costs for the 911 and the Cayman/Boxster were similar - there's just an awful lot more margin in a 911 (though of course that ignores development, tooling and marketing costs).

[kambites]

otolith said:

I remember reading somewhere that the production costs for the 911 and the Cayman/Boxster were similar - there's just an awful lot more profit in a 911 (though of course that ignores development, tooling and marketing costs).

I guess that would make sense since they share so much. I suppose the rather ridiculous cost of the 911 is mostly huge profit margins.

[moribund]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Regrettably the VVA architecture has been an expensive mistake for Lotus

What a load of tosh. VVA has underpinned the *entire* range of cars for two whole companies (Lotus and Aston) over 15 and over 10 years respectively so it's hardly a failure.

[zebra]

moribund said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Regrettably the VVA architecture has been an expensive mistake for Lotus

What a load of tosh. VVA has underpinned the *entire* range of cars for two whole companies (Lotus and Aston) over 15 and over 10 years respectively so it's hardly a failure.

Don't rise to it Moribund, he's a frustrated porsche driver trolling.

[Ozzie Osmond]

otolith said:

I remember reading somewhere that the production costs for the 911 and the Cayman/Boxster were similar - there's just an awful lot more margin in a 911 (though of course that ignores development, tooling and marketing costs).

100% correct. The best value for money often lies at the lower end of any range of similar cars.

One of the fundamental rules of building cars was once summarised as "it costs as much to screw the tail-lights onto a Mini as it costs to screw the tail-lights onto a Rolls Royce".

I was unaware that Aston used a relation of VVA and am interested to see that they were using it many years before Lotus adopted it for Evora. Bearing in mind Aston sell their cars for twice as much money as Lotus they are in with a much better chance of achieving profitability.

As for Lotus' having whole range of cars based on VVA - where are they???
Bolting the back of Evora onto the tub of an old Exige simply confirms the high cost issue.