RE: Porsche 911 GT3 RS vs Lotus Exige Sport 410
Discussion
RacerMike said:
GingerMunky said:
jackal said:
Sadly Lotus have been well and truly left behind. Once upon a time they used to hold all the aces with regard to ride, handling and chassis but those days are now long gone. Since the inception of the V6 Exige and the Evora everyone else has moved on massively whilst they have pretty much stood still. To keep it relevant the Exige needs a completely new chassis, a semi auto box, a pedigree engine and a much more creative, fun handling dynamic. Drove an Alpine the other day and it put the Exige completely into touch even with a humble four pot, made the Lotus seem recalcitrant, laborious and prehistoric.
You are completely wrong J. Infact the exact opposite is true. The Alpine is dreadful, more like a sporty Megane. If that's the best Renualt can do with their billions, then its laughable. The Exige is visceral, and I can't begin to imagine what it will be like when Geely put development and finance behind it Edited by jackal on Saturday 17th November 20:39
Generally, it’s always interesting that the Elise is often lauded as such a bastion of dynamic ability. It’s actually quite compromised and suffers from the fact they didn’t really had a suitable engine to fit in the car, meaning it ended up with a rather high CoG 4 pot from Rover and then Toyota. I’m not totally sure about the V6, but the whole platform was developed on a shoe string, and whilst the cars are certainly very interactive due to a general lack of assistance, they’re not that great if you measure them objectively against the competition.
This isn’t anything against what was done, or against the team that designed them, but it’s funny how the general public often only see a tiny part of the picture. The fact that in the one hand a Elise can be incredible and an A110 can be one dimensional just shows how complex these things are. Fundamentally one person can have two wildly different views about basically the same underlying car, due to the fact it’s influenced by more than just objectivity.
Edited by RacerMike on Sunday 18th November 17:29
jackal said:
Sadly Lotus have been well and truly left behind. Once upon a time they used to hold all the aces with regard to ride, handling and chassis but those days are now long gone. Since the inception of the V6 Exige and the Evora everyone else has moved on massively whilst they have pretty much stood still. To keep it relevant the Exige needs a completely new chassis, a semi auto box, a pedigree engine and a much more creative, fun handling dynamic. Drove an Alpine the other day and it put the Exige completely into touch even with a humble four pot, made the Lotus seem recalcitrant, laborious and prehistoric.
Having had an extended test drive of the new Alpine I couldn't disagree anymore.Edited by jackal on Saturday 17th November 20:39
Any modern lotus (post 1996) absolutely thumps it in terms of handling and feel IMO. Lovely car but the gearbox is also a bit meh in its response.
Lotus do need a new product but they still make the best cars in the market they play in which isn't necessarily the same market Porsche occupy (although similar).
The GT3 is an absolutely epic car at any price range however and I would love to own one one day!
Edited by hughcam on Sunday 18th November 18:48
GingerMunky said:
That's a tricky one. The 410 has lots of 430 specification; adjustable suspension, lots of carbon, charge cooler, additional oil cooler for gearbox, J-Hook brakes, 430 flywheel, and a partridge in a pear tree
Yes, but it's also over 25k more expensive. Hard to justify in my opinionFantastic article and pics, great job PH.
It's been said so many times but Lotus has milked the platform big time, but they are now taking the piss. Asking 6 digits for third party "fancy" parts bolted on a 20+ year old chassis is simply laughable. The car is not light either, 1170Kgs is a couple hundred too many- not to mention the characterless engine which also lives in a Lexus SUV.
Lotus used to be a £35k car, and it was a excellent car in that bracket. On 6 digits it is way out of its league.
It's been said so many times but Lotus has milked the platform big time, but they are now taking the piss. Asking 6 digits for third party "fancy" parts bolted on a 20+ year old chassis is simply laughable. The car is not light either, 1170Kgs is a couple hundred too many- not to mention the characterless engine which also lives in a Lexus SUV.
Lotus used to be a £35k car, and it was a excellent car in that bracket. On 6 digits it is way out of its league.
D7Cup said:
Fantastic article and pics, great job PH.
It's been said so many times but Lotus has milked the platform big time, but they are now taking the piss. Asking 6 digits for third party "fancy" parts bolted on a 20+ year old chassis is simply laughable. The car is not light either, 1170Kgs is a couple hundred too many- not to mention the characterless engine which also lives in a Lexus SUV.
Lotus used to be a £35k car, and it was a excellent car in that bracket. On 6 digits it is way out of its league.
How is 1170kg (kerb weight + drivers) heavy for a car with a 3.5 liter supercharged engine? No way they could make it 200 kg lighter. It's been said so many times but Lotus has milked the platform big time, but they are now taking the piss. Asking 6 digits for third party "fancy" parts bolted on a 20+ year old chassis is simply laughable. The car is not light either, 1170Kgs is a couple hundred too many- not to mention the characterless engine which also lives in a Lexus SUV.
Lotus used to be a £35k car, and it was a excellent car in that bracket. On 6 digits it is way out of its league.
But yes, I also think these 410/430 cars are too expensive, an Elise 220 at 39k is much more what Lotus make, but apparently the market doesn't agree and will make them even more upmarket on the next gen.
This is just their way of making the most of the platform before launching the new cars. Hopefully exciting times are ahead, but I do fear the loss of an affordable lightweight sportscar
I think it unreasonable to expect an £85k Exige to be able to perform as well as or even outperform a 145k Porsche. People seem to want a lot for their £85k. At that price range the Exige offers one of the best track day toys that you can drive everyday on the roads if you choose to.
A GT3RS will set you back over £200k if you wanted to buy one right now and in 5 or 6 years there is a good chance its value will be back down to retail at £145k. Driving them on the roads and doing 7k miles is losing £4k a year ontop of the depreciation. If you are lucky enough to get one at 145k then you have an amazing car that is going to lose any money for 5 or 6 years and something you could sell right now for a decent profit.
A GT3RS will set you back over £200k if you wanted to buy one right now and in 5 or 6 years there is a good chance its value will be back down to retail at £145k. Driving them on the roads and doing 7k miles is losing £4k a year ontop of the depreciation. If you are lucky enough to get one at 145k then you have an amazing car that is going to lose any money for 5 or 6 years and something you could sell right now for a decent profit.
RacerMike said:
GingerMunky said:
jackal said:
Sadly Lotus have been well and truly left behind. Once upon a time they used to hold all the aces with regard to ride, handling and chassis but those days are now long gone. Since the inception of the V6 Exige and the Evora everyone else has moved on massively whilst they have pretty much stood still. To keep it relevant the Exige needs a completely new chassis, a semi auto box, a pedigree engine and a much more creative, fun handling dynamic. Drove an Alpine the other day and it put the Exige completely into touch even with a humble four pot, made the Lotus seem recalcitrant, laborious and prehistoric.
You are completely wrong J. Infact the exact opposite is true. The Alpine is dreadful, more like a sporty Megane. If that's the best Renualt can do with their billions, then its laughable. The Exige is visceral, and I can't begin to imagine what it will be like when Geely put development and finance behind it Edited by jackal on Saturday 17th November 20:39
Generally, it’s always interesting that the Elise is often lauded as such a bastion of dynamic ability. It’s actually quite compromised and suffers from the fact they didn’t really had a suitable engine to fit in the car, meaning it ended up with a rather high CoG 4 pot from Rover and then Toyota. I’m not totally sure about the V6, but the whole platform was developed on a shoe string, and whilst the cars are certainly very interactive due to a general lack of assistance, they’re not that great if you measure them objectively against the competition.
This isn’t anything against what was done, or against the team that designed them, but it’s funny how the general public often only see a tiny part of the picture. The fact that in the one hand a Elise can be incredible and an A110 can be one dimensional just shows how complex these things are. Fundamentally one person can have two wildly different views about basically the same underlying car, due to the fact it’s influenced by more than just objectivity.
Edited by RacerMike on Sunday 18th November 17:29
interesting that the first post in the above quote belittles the Lotus for being outdated when a new car to the market uses a design philosophy (not shared parts or anything) that lotus have been using of 20 years!
I’ve owned an evora 400, elise a 4C and have recently driven a Renault Alpine A110. All are great cars but to say that the Lotus products are outclassed and they need development and investment when all of its direct competitors have basically copied it and only just reached market is somewhat contradictory!
D7Cup said:
Fantastic article and pics, great job PH.
It's been said so many times but Lotus has milked the platform big time, but they are now taking the piss. Asking 6 digits for third party "fancy" parts bolted on a 20+ year old chassis is simply laughable. The car is not light either, 1170Kgs is a couple hundred too many- not to mention the characterless engine which also lives in a Lexus SUV.
Lotus used to be a £35k car, and it was a excellent car in that bracket. On 6 digits it is way out of its league.
do you not spot the irony that the A110, 4C (and it could be argued that mclaren) have all taken the basic lotus architecture and copied it, then you with no car listed come in here and spout that. It's been said so many times but Lotus has milked the platform big time, but they are now taking the piss. Asking 6 digits for third party "fancy" parts bolted on a 20+ year old chassis is simply laughable. The car is not light either, 1170Kgs is a couple hundred too many- not to mention the characterless engine which also lives in a Lexus SUV.
Lotus used to be a £35k car, and it was a excellent car in that bracket. On 6 digits it is way out of its league.
I do hope people who casually peruse these forums don’t take everything they read seriously!
Colin Chapman's philosophy was to make road cars feel like racing cars ,and give the opportunity for the Common man to drive them.
To build a £25,000 Exige is a nice idea,but it doesn't make commercial sense.
Unfortunately ,you need to be wealthy to buy a new Exige,the same way you had to have spare cash to buy a seven or Elan in the sixties!
If you aren't rich enough you can't have it!
To build a £25,000 Exige is a nice idea,but it doesn't make commercial sense.
Unfortunately ,you need to be wealthy to buy a new Exige,the same way you had to have spare cash to buy a seven or Elan in the sixties!
If you aren't rich enough you can't have it!
Richard-G said:
Racermike, what on earth are you on about? the Alpine A110 might have the same concept as the Lotus tubs but is certainly nothing to do with Lotus themselves, also the kinematics again might be similar (although they’ve not changed on the evora much over the years) in that the a110 uses double wishbones all round but has diddly squat to do with lotus.
interesting that the first post in the above quote belittles the Lotus for being outdated when a new car to the market uses a design philosophy (not shared parts or anything) that lotus have been using of 20 years!
I’ve owned an evora 400, elise a 4C and have recently driven a Renault Alpine A110. All are great cars but to say that the Lotus products are outclassed and they need development and investment when all of its direct competitors have basically copied it and only just reached market is somewhat contradictory!
The initial work for the A110 and Caterham was done by CTI (Caterham Technology) which was formed (I believe) from a group of ex Lotus dynamics engineers, the lead guy being the, or one of the lead chassis engineers from the Evora Project. The tub structure and hard points were taken from the Evora with slightly modified kinematics and tub changes to allow for lower sills/bigger doors and changes were made that were possible due to the increased budget that the Renault/Caterham partnership had. Both the method of manufacture and origins lie in Lotus principals and tech (I can't remember if they were directly involved or not). You can actually see the similarity in these two photos. The A110 clearly has more die cast/cast components, but the fundamentals are the same (proportions and locations of structural components and bonding techniques). This is because the same people designed both cars!interesting that the first post in the above quote belittles the Lotus for being outdated when a new car to the market uses a design philosophy (not shared parts or anything) that lotus have been using of 20 years!
I’ve owned an evora 400, elise a 4C and have recently driven a Renault Alpine A110. All are great cars but to say that the Lotus products are outclassed and they need development and investment when all of its direct competitors have basically copied it and only just reached market is somewhat contradictory!
Caterham pulled out eventually (and as such so did the CTI involvement), but Renault's work beyond that point was fundamentally 'just' damper/spring/arb tuning as the hard points and chassis structure had been set. The fundamental chassis design and suspension kinematics are very much rooted in the Lotus Evora. Remember that there's a finite number of people in the automotive industry and the intellectual property/talent lies with individuals and not the company. Lotus now, is not the Lotus it was 10 years ago. Matt Becker who was head of VeD is now working at Aston Martin, and the majority of the rest of the Dynamics team has moved to the likes of McLaren, JLR and AML as well due to a lack of money at Lotus until very recently. Whilst Lotus as a company still have an 'ethos' of good VeD, they don't actually have anyone there anymore who has previously led that development on a Lotus.
I wasn't actually rubbishing Lotus dynamics at all. The Elise clearly did very well with what it had, but that was always going to be a compromise. Lotus in the 90's had basically no money. The Elise was absolutely make or break. But to rubbish the A110 and say it can't compare to a Lotus is the ironic bit, given that it was developed from a Lotus, by Lotus engineers..... The end attribute may be subtly different, but ultimately the A110 is an Evora with Renault attributes!
kambites said:
I wonder what proportion of GT3 RSs get driven on track a significant amount? Or at all for that matter?
it does sort of feel like its suffering from a bit of an existential crisis - too fast, big and aloof to be much fun on the road yet too expensive and rare to be likely to see a track.
It rather feels like the Elise platform has been pushed too far too. That unassisted steering which is such a delight in 800kg Elise on 175 cross-section tyres starts to feel a bit of a liability with front tyres supporting 50% more weight and generating twice the lateral grip.
On the recent DN20 day at the Nurburgring I saw maybe 20 991 gen GT cars of which 2/3rds were GT3 RS or GT 2RS. It might actually have been the most popular car there, it was certainly between the GT3's (991) and E46 M3's for which filled the most spots in the car park. So for some very lucky people put there they are still a track car of choice.it does sort of feel like its suffering from a bit of an existential crisis - too fast, big and aloof to be much fun on the road yet too expensive and rare to be likely to see a track.
It rather feels like the Elise platform has been pushed too far too. That unassisted steering which is such a delight in 800kg Elise on 175 cross-section tyres starts to feel a bit of a liability with front tyres supporting 50% more weight and generating twice the lateral grip.
Edited by kambites on Saturday 17th November 10:18
RacerMike said:
The initial work for the A110 and Caterham was done by CTI (Caterham Technology) which was formed (I believe) from a group of ex Lotus dynamics engineers, the lead guy being the, or one of the lead chassis engineers from the Evora Project. The tub structure and hard points were taken from the Evora with slightly modified kinematics and tub changes to allow for lower sills/bigger doors and changes were made that were possible due to the increased budget that the Renault/Caterham partnership had. Both the method of manufacture and origins lie in Lotus principals and tech (I can't remember if they were directly involved or not). You can actually see the similarity in these two photos. The A110 clearly has more die cast/cast components, but the fundamentals are the same (proportions and locations of structural components and bonding techniques). This is because the same people designed both cars!
Caterham pulled out eventually (and as such so did the CTI involvement), but Renault's work beyond that point was fundamentally 'just' damper/spring/arb tuning as the hard points and chassis structure had been set. The fundamental chassis design and suspension kinematics are very much rooted in the Lotus Evora. Remember that there's a finite number of people in the automotive industry and the intellectual property/talent lies with individuals and not the company. Lotus now, is not the Lotus it was 10 years ago. Matt Becker who was head of VeD is now working at Aston Martin, and the majority of the rest of the Dynamics team has moved to the likes of McLaren, JLR and AML as well due to a lack of money at Lotus until very recently. Whilst Lotus as a company still have an 'ethos' of good VeD, they don't actually have anyone there anymore who has previously led that development on a Lotus.
I wasn't actually rubbishing Lotus dynamics at all. The Elise clearly did very well with what it had, but that was always going to be a compromise. Lotus in the 90's had basically no money. The Elise was absolutely make or break. But to rubbish the A110 and say it can't compare to a Lotus is the ironic bit, given that it was developed from a Lotus, by Lotus engineers..... The end attribute may be subtly different, but ultimately the A110 is an Evora with Renault attributes!
No the point im making is that you've said "The Elise clearly did very well with what it had, but that was always going to be a compromise. Lotus in the 90's had basically no money" thats a backwards compliment if ive ever heard one, so what your saying is a cash strapped british company managed what Fiat and renault group have only just figured out 22 years on with buckets of cash?Caterham pulled out eventually (and as such so did the CTI involvement), but Renault's work beyond that point was fundamentally 'just' damper/spring/arb tuning as the hard points and chassis structure had been set. The fundamental chassis design and suspension kinematics are very much rooted in the Lotus Evora. Remember that there's a finite number of people in the automotive industry and the intellectual property/talent lies with individuals and not the company. Lotus now, is not the Lotus it was 10 years ago. Matt Becker who was head of VeD is now working at Aston Martin, and the majority of the rest of the Dynamics team has moved to the likes of McLaren, JLR and AML as well due to a lack of money at Lotus until very recently. Whilst Lotus as a company still have an 'ethos' of good VeD, they don't actually have anyone there anymore who has previously led that development on a Lotus.
I wasn't actually rubbishing Lotus dynamics at all. The Elise clearly did very well with what it had, but that was always going to be a compromise. Lotus in the 90's had basically no money. The Elise was absolutely make or break. But to rubbish the A110 and say it can't compare to a Lotus is the ironic bit, given that it was developed from a Lotus, by Lotus engineers..... The end attribute may be subtly different, but ultimately the A110 is an Evora with Renault attributes!
a lot of posters on this debate keep carting out the 'elise is 20 years old move on' which is a stupid statement as other companies are essentially copying Lotus. Lotus, Who will move the game on again when they re develop the Elise underpinnings, even though one might say that they just need an evolution rather than revolution. The two lotus cars ive had (evora and elise) creaked and twisted far less than my current I8 which is all GRP/carbon.
You mention Matt Becker, a great engineer who has gone to work for aston (DB11 onwards i recall). Aston are a company that purchased the rights to the chassis design from lotus for use in thier entire range at a time when they were owned by ford!
The ultimate ULTIMATE irony is that we are debating a chassis tech that is relatively new when comparing to the more expensive car in this test, a car thats been a constant evolution of a tried theme for nearly 60 years! makes me think that Porsche pay KGB style bots to casually overlook that fact!
Richard-G said:
No the point im making is that you've said "The Elise clearly did very well with what it had, but that was always going to be a compromise. Lotus in the 90's had basically no money" thats a backwards compliment if ive ever heard one, so what your saying is a cash strapped british company managed what Fiat and renault group have only just figured out 22 years on with buckets of cash?
a lot of posters on this debate keep carting out the 'elise is 20 years old move on' which is a stupid statement as other companies are essentially copying Lotus. Lotus, Who will move the game on again when they re develop the Elise underpinnings, even though one might say that they just need an evolution rather than revolution. The two lotus cars ive had (evora and elise) creaked and twisted far less than my current I8 which is all GRP/carbon.
You mention Matt Becker, a great engineer who has gone to work for aston (DB11 onwards i recall). Aston are a company that purchased the rights to the chassis design from lotus for use in thier entire range at a time when they were owned by ford!
The ultimate ULTIMATE irony is that we are debating a chassis tech that is relatively new when comparing to the more expensive car in this test, a car thats been a constant evolution of a tried theme for nearly 60 years! makes me think that Porsche pay KGB style bots to casually overlook that fact!
Let's not get too worked up here. And lets separate chassis in a vehicle engineering sense from chassis in a customer sense. I'm specifically talking about vehicle kinematics which is often referred to as the 'chassis' by the wider public.a lot of posters on this debate keep carting out the 'elise is 20 years old move on' which is a stupid statement as other companies are essentially copying Lotus. Lotus, Who will move the game on again when they re develop the Elise underpinnings, even though one might say that they just need an evolution rather than revolution. The two lotus cars ive had (evora and elise) creaked and twisted far less than my current I8 which is all GRP/carbon.
You mention Matt Becker, a great engineer who has gone to work for aston (DB11 onwards i recall). Aston are a company that purchased the rights to the chassis design from lotus for use in thier entire range at a time when they were owned by ford!
The ultimate ULTIMATE irony is that we are debating a chassis tech that is relatively new when comparing to the more expensive car in this test, a car thats been a constant evolution of a tried theme for nearly 60 years! makes me think that Porsche pay KGB style bots to casually overlook that fact!
Suspension kinematics are relatively easy to do well....if you have zero constraints from anything else. Lotus have traditionally been very good at this. They had a good bunch of Vehicle Dynamics engineers with a decent amount of experience and they make sports cars which largely don't need to deal with boring compromises. They also had some good subjective ride and handling targets.
Chassis in the vehicle manufacturer sense which is the mechanics of the body structure (but not the design or tuning of the components that influence how the car handles) is entirely different. Matt Becker for example is a Vehicle Dynamics engineer....not a chassis engineer. He would not have been responsible or involved in the fundamental body structure design (and isn't at Aston). He cares about kinematics, damper tuning, spring rates and overall vehicle attributes. This is a very subjective role, and it's why people like him generally tend to do the rounds around the industry. Their experience and feel is what helps define the character of a car. If you lose that one person, it's very difficult to replace him (or her!).
So for the Alpine, the thing that matters is the fact that the fundamental kinematics and hard points are Lotus Derived. This means that the anti dive/squat, roll centres and camber gain in roll figures will be largely similar to those found in an Evora. This defines the general balance and behaviour of the car, with things like bushings, damper rates, spring rates and arb rates then defining the transient behaviour (something that Renault engineers tuned to match their attribute targets).
The issue Lotus had with all their vehicles was the lack of a decent engine with a low CoG. Something which is fairy important in a mid engined car. For this reason, whilst the initial transient behaviour is good, the influence of the heavy engine can't be ignored, and as such, the car is ultimately a compromise due to this. The A110, from the perspective of those involved, was what they would have done with the Evora had it had a good budget and a ground up design.
So for someone to say the A110 isn't a patch on their Elise, is somewhat moot. It would point to the more likely fact that there's a degree of brand image involved and the belief that the Lotus is better 'because it's a Lotus' when in reality, the A110 is as much a Lotus as it is a Renault.
RacerMike said:
Richard-G said:
No the point im making is that you've said "The Elise clearly did very well with what it had, but that was always going to be a compromise. Lotus in the 90's had basically no money" thats a backwards compliment if ive ever heard one, so what your saying is a cash strapped british company managed what Fiat and renault group have only just figured out 22 years on with buckets of cash?
a lot of posters on this debate keep carting out the 'elise is 20 years old move on' which is a stupid statement as other companies are essentially copying Lotus. Lotus, Who will move the game on again when they re develop the Elise underpinnings, even though one might say that they just need an evolution rather than revolution. The two lotus cars ive had (evora and elise) creaked and twisted far less than my current I8 which is all GRP/carbon.
You mention Matt Becker, a great engineer who has gone to work for aston (DB11 onwards i recall). Aston are a company that purchased the rights to the chassis design from lotus for use in thier entire range at a time when they were owned by ford!
The ultimate ULTIMATE irony is that we are debating a chassis tech that is relatively new when comparing to the more expensive car in this test, a car thats been a constant evolution of a tried theme for nearly 60 years! makes me think that Porsche pay KGB style bots to casually overlook that fact!
Let's not get too worked up here. And lets separate chassis in a vehicle engineering sense from chassis in a customer sense. I'm specifically talking about vehicle kinematics which is often referred to as the 'chassis' by the wider public.a lot of posters on this debate keep carting out the 'elise is 20 years old move on' which is a stupid statement as other companies are essentially copying Lotus. Lotus, Who will move the game on again when they re develop the Elise underpinnings, even though one might say that they just need an evolution rather than revolution. The two lotus cars ive had (evora and elise) creaked and twisted far less than my current I8 which is all GRP/carbon.
You mention Matt Becker, a great engineer who has gone to work for aston (DB11 onwards i recall). Aston are a company that purchased the rights to the chassis design from lotus for use in thier entire range at a time when they were owned by ford!
The ultimate ULTIMATE irony is that we are debating a chassis tech that is relatively new when comparing to the more expensive car in this test, a car thats been a constant evolution of a tried theme for nearly 60 years! makes me think that Porsche pay KGB style bots to casually overlook that fact!
Suspension kinematics are relatively easy to do well....if you have zero constraints from anything else. Lotus have traditionally been very good at this. They had a good bunch of Vehicle Dynamics engineers with a decent amount of experience and they make sports cars which largely don't need to deal with boring compromises. They also had some good subjective ride and handling targets.
Chassis in the vehicle manufacturer sense which is the mechanics of the body structure (but not the design or tuning of the components that influence how the car handles) is entirely different. Matt Becker for example is a Vehicle Dynamics engineer....not a chassis engineer. He would not have been responsible or involved in the fundamental body structure design (and isn't at Aston). He cares about kinematics, damper tuning, spring rates and overall vehicle attributes. This is a very subjective role, and it's why people like him generally tend to do the rounds around the industry. Their experience and feel is what helps define the character of a car. If you lose that one person, it's very difficult to replace him (or her!).
So for the Alpine, the thing that matters is the fact that the fundamental kinematics and hard points are Lotus Derived. This means that the anti dive/squat, roll centres and camber gain in roll figures will be largely similar to those found in an Evora. This defines the general balance and behaviour of the car, with things like bushings, damper rates, spring rates and arb rates then defining the transient behaviour (something that Renault engineers tuned to match their attribute targets).
The issue Lotus had with all their vehicles was the lack of a decent engine with a low CoG. Something which is fairy important in a mid engined car. For this reason, whilst the initial transient behaviour is good, the influence of the heavy engine can't be ignored, and as such, the car is ultimately a compromise due to this. The A110, from the perspective of those involved, was what they would have done with the Evora had it had a good budget and a ground up design.
So for someone to say the A110 isn't a patch on their Elise, is somewhat moot. It would point to the more likely fact that there's a degree of brand image involved and the belief that the Lotus is better 'because it's a Lotus' when in reality, the A110 is as much a Lotus as it is a Renault.
It’s evident that Fiat group (Maserati) didn’t purchase an Elise/Evora or raid any lotus staff and that is why the 4C drove like it did (woeful!) but that doesn’t surprise me as that whole group has an air of arrogance due to the 'other brand'. So they had to go carbon and then they messed up by fitting hot hatch suspension to the rear. Again failing to get anywhere near Lotus levels of ride handling and compliance, 20 years on built in a factory next door to Ferrari.
Finally we have a car (slightly comprised I’ll give you that) half the price of a car that you cannot buy and people (not you Mike) are saying that the lotus can’t compete as its fundamentally flawed and severely lacking in investment. You’d only say that if you didn’t know what you were talking about or had never owned anything similar to the breed/type of car. People who I imagine if you were to press them think a sports car is a golf R.
lotuslover69 said:
I think it unreasonable to expect an £85k Exige to be able to perform as well as or even outperform a 145k Porsche. People seem to want a lot for their £85k. At that price range the Exige offers one of the best track day toys that you can drive everyday on the roads if you choose to.
Finally someone with some common senseThe Exige has superb steering feel, i'll give you that.
It also has various other charms by virtue of the fact that it is a little old and outdated. I get the whole having to put effort in and some decent control weights etc I really do (you are talking to an original 1999 340r owner, SLR owner and guinea pig for the first ever Duratec powered R500) but none of this really changes the bigger commercial perspective that the car is just seriously outdated now relative to the rest of the marketplace or even to cars that have long since been replaced (e.g. 997 GT3). It's been what 6 years now and it's not received one single major lifecycle change to it's drivetrain, chassis or even interior.
For my mind, it doesn't matter how delightful some of these driver-centric idiosyncracies are, the fact is this is now a £100k+ car in many guises and you are paying for something that has been left behind. The Alpine in 'pure' trim is a 48k car and whilst it lacks the last 20% of the Lotus's steering feel, it has the build quality of a production Renault, a proper gearbox, LCD dash and perhaps most importantly, a creative playful handling dynamic that does not dictate to you, a level of fun perhaps not seen in a Lotus since perhaps the S4S or the original 1960's Elan.
It also has various other charms by virtue of the fact that it is a little old and outdated. I get the whole having to put effort in and some decent control weights etc I really do (you are talking to an original 1999 340r owner, SLR owner and guinea pig for the first ever Duratec powered R500) but none of this really changes the bigger commercial perspective that the car is just seriously outdated now relative to the rest of the marketplace or even to cars that have long since been replaced (e.g. 997 GT3). It's been what 6 years now and it's not received one single major lifecycle change to it's drivetrain, chassis or even interior.
For my mind, it doesn't matter how delightful some of these driver-centric idiosyncracies are, the fact is this is now a £100k+ car in many guises and you are paying for something that has been left behind. The Alpine in 'pure' trim is a 48k car and whilst it lacks the last 20% of the Lotus's steering feel, it has the build quality of a production Renault, a proper gearbox, LCD dash and perhaps most importantly, a creative playful handling dynamic that does not dictate to you, a level of fun perhaps not seen in a Lotus since perhaps the S4S or the original 1960's Elan.
Edited by jackal on Monday 19th November 19:42
jackal said:
The Exige has superb steering feel, i'll give you that.
It also has various other charms by virtue of the fact that it is a little old and outdated. I get the whole having to put effort in and some decent control weights etc I really do (you are talking to an original 1999 340r owner, SLR owner and guinea pig for the first ever Duratec powered R500) but none of this really changes the bigger commercial perspective that the car is just seriously outdated now relative to the rest of the marketplace or even to cars that have long since been replaced (e.g. 997 GT3). It's been what 6 years now and it's not received one single major lifecycle change to it's drivetrain, chassis or even interior.
For my mind, it doesn't matter how delightful some of these driver-centric idiosyncracies are, the fact is this is now a £100k+ car in many guises and you are paying for something that has been left behind. The Alpine in 'pure' trim is a 48k car and whilst it lacks the last 20% of the Lotus's steering feel, it has the build quality of a production Renault, a proper gearbox, LCD dash and perhaps most importantly, a creative playful handling dynamic that does not dictate to you, a level of fun perhaps not seen in a Lotus since perhaps the S4S or the original 1960's Elan.
The Aplone missed its market being an auto, so not winning in Lotus key area. It also has various other charms by virtue of the fact that it is a little old and outdated. I get the whole having to put effort in and some decent control weights etc I really do (you are talking to an original 1999 340r owner, SLR owner and guinea pig for the first ever Duratec powered R500) but none of this really changes the bigger commercial perspective that the car is just seriously outdated now relative to the rest of the marketplace or even to cars that have long since been replaced (e.g. 997 GT3). It's been what 6 years now and it's not received one single major lifecycle change to it's drivetrain, chassis or even interior.
For my mind, it doesn't matter how delightful some of these driver-centric idiosyncracies are, the fact is this is now a £100k+ car in many guises and you are paying for something that has been left behind. The Alpine in 'pure' trim is a 48k car and whilst it lacks the last 20% of the Lotus's steering feel, it has the build quality of a production Renault, a proper gearbox, LCD dash and perhaps most importantly, a creative playful handling dynamic that does not dictate to you, a level of fun perhaps not seen in a Lotus since perhaps the S4S or the original 1960's Elan.
Edited by jackal on Monday 19th November 19:42
jackal said:
The Exige has superb steering feel, i'll give you that.
It also has various other charms by virtue of the fact that it is a little old and outdated. I get the whole having to put effort in and some decent control weights etc I really do (you are talking to an original 1999 340r owner, SLR owner and guinea pig for the first ever Duratec powered R500) but none of this really changes the bigger commercial perspective that the car is just seriously outdated now relative to the rest of the marketplace or even to cars that have long since been replaced (e.g. 997 GT3). It's been what 6 years now and it's not received one single major lifecycle change to it's drivetrain, chassis or even interior.
For my mind, it doesn't matter how delightful some of these driver-centric idiosyncracies are, the fact is this is now a £100k+ car in many guises and you are paying for something that has been left behind. The Alpine in 'pure' trim is a 48k car and whilst it lacks the last 20% of the Lotus's steering feel, it has the build quality of a production Renault, a proper gearbox, LCD dash and perhaps most importantly, a creative playful handling dynamic that does not dictate to you, a level of fun perhaps not seen in a Lotus since perhaps the S4S or the original 1960's Elan.
How can it be outdated if the competition are utilising its chassis and suspension tech? It has recieved powertrain updates, the original came to market with 350 the top line ones have 430 along with a redically redesigned shifter, ok so it doesn't have new exciting engines but then it doesnt suffer from, ahem, bore scoring, IMS, RMS, sporadic fires....It also has various other charms by virtue of the fact that it is a little old and outdated. I get the whole having to put effort in and some decent control weights etc I really do (you are talking to an original 1999 340r owner, SLR owner and guinea pig for the first ever Duratec powered R500) but none of this really changes the bigger commercial perspective that the car is just seriously outdated now relative to the rest of the marketplace or even to cars that have long since been replaced (e.g. 997 GT3). It's been what 6 years now and it's not received one single major lifecycle change to it's drivetrain, chassis or even interior.
For my mind, it doesn't matter how delightful some of these driver-centric idiosyncracies are, the fact is this is now a £100k+ car in many guises and you are paying for something that has been left behind. The Alpine in 'pure' trim is a 48k car and whilst it lacks the last 20% of the Lotus's steering feel, it has the build quality of a production Renault, a proper gearbox, LCD dash and perhaps most importantly, a creative playful handling dynamic that does not dictate to you, a level of fun perhaps not seen in a Lotus since perhaps the S4S or the original 1960's Elan.
Edited by jackal on Monday 19th November 19:42
Also an exige 350 isnt into 6 figures, granted its more than an A110 but its much more car and you'll see the cash back come resale time.
Right now im going to stop fanboying, let me have a go in your 488 mister!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff