RE: Lotus previews new Emira interior

RE: Lotus previews new Emira interior

Author
Discussion

bcr5784

5,588 posts

111 months

Friday 11th June
quotequote all
DonkeyApple said:
I think the 'SUV' today is what a crossover was. SUVs have been getting lower and lower and I think if you looked at today's Cayenne with eyes from 10 years ago you would be wrong to label it a crossover rather than an SUV. I think SUVs have been steadily moving away from those original faux 4x4 marketing credentials. Most performance SUVs move along at the height of a crossover and when stationary will pump up to look like an SUV.
Really not true of the Macan or Cayenne - I've driven both. The Toyota Vensa which Lotus based their thesis on looks like a slightly pumped up estate car - probably lower than a Subaru Forrester. Would such a car appeal to the masses - regretably not I fear. I suppose if you made it LOOK butch enough with a silly grill and plastic arches, perhaps.

DonkeyApple

41,033 posts

135 months

Friday 11th June
quotequote all
bcr5784 said:
I'm frankly at a loss to understand why someone would consider an MPV less sexy than an SUV. Why does a jacked up suspension, 4wd which the vast majority of owners don't use, an ugly pedestrian hostile nose, and frankly silly plastic wheel arches, make it more sexy. I frankly can't think of anything less sexy than an SUV. Girls in Doc Martins spring to mind -SUGs.


Edited by bcr5784 on Thursday 10th June 19:23
How have you not heard of Ronnie Pickering?

Even in the US the 'minivan' thing was short lived. It just wasn't a shape or package, despite its practicality, that grabbed people. It probably more represented the drudgery of life, the reality of what life was for most people. It wasn't a shape or package that sold any kind of dream or even hope of a better life. It was simply an enormous box that sat there telling the operators that their life had not gone anywhere close to what they ever imagined or hoped for through their entire youth. Thirty years of dreaming and then an MPV on the drive is the realisation that not only is it not coming home but you don't even live in the home that you thought you did and it was never coming anywhere near it.

Why go into debt to rent reality, blandness, drudgery and an endless wake up call that your life hasn't gone to plan when you can go into a bit more debt and have the illusion that you are the Che Guevara or outdoor activities and in your spare time a titan of industry?

But today SUBs are finally delivering on that illusion in that they have performance and handling that pretty much make them the fastest A-B cars on the road. You have the speed of a 911, handling that even surpasses estate cars on race tracks and superior forward vision allowing for greater speeds to be carried more safely.

Of course, they might not be everyone's cup of tea but they can never be accused of not being a driver's car as they very much can be.

Frankly, it's always been the person behind the wheel that defines whether a car is a driver's car. I grew up in central London. I don't see Porsches as drivers cars. I've never seen drivers using them. They are just the next chattel up on the income ladder.

bcr5784

5,588 posts

111 months

Friday 11th June
quotequote all
DonkeyApple said:
Of course, they might not be everyone's cup of tea but they can never be accused of not being a driver's car as they very much can be.
Like I say I've driven both Macan and Cayenne (on track too) - neither is what I would call a driver's car. They look and, more importantly, feel like tanks in comparison with an Evora. Of course if you give them enough horsepower they can be fast - but that doesn't make them engaging fun cars.

I am perfectly aware that SUVs are bought because the "say" something about your active lifestyle. But it doesn't correspond to most buyer's reality. A perfect case of fooling a lot of people a lot of the time. Inevitably there will come a time when people recognise that the king has no clothes.

NDNDNDND

1,323 posts

149 months

Friday 11th June
quotequote all
DonkeyApple said:
How have you not heard of Ronnie Pickering?

Even in the US the 'minivan' thing was short lived. It just wasn't a shape or package, despite its practicality, that grabbed people. It probably more represented the drudgery of life, the reality of what life was for most people. It wasn't a shape or package that sold any kind of dream or even hope of a better life. It was simply an enormous box that sat there telling the operators that their life had not gone anywhere close to what they ever imagined or hoped for through their entire youth. Thirty years of dreaming and then an MPV on the drive is the realisation that not only is it not coming home but you don't even live in the home that you thought you did and it was never coming anywhere near it.

Why go into debt to rent reality, blandness, drudgery and an endless wake up call that your life hasn't gone to plan when you can go into a bit more debt and have the illusion that you are the Che Guevara or outdoor activities and in your spare time a titan of industry?

But today SUBs are finally delivering on that illusion in that they have performance and handling that pretty much make them the fastest A-B cars on the road. You have the speed of a 911, handling that even surpasses estate cars on race tracks and superior forward vision allowing for greater speeds to be carried more safely.

Of course, they might not be everyone's cup of tea but they can never be accused of not being a driver's car as they very much can be.

Frankly, it's always been the person behind the wheel that defines whether a car is a driver's car. I grew up in central London. I don't see Porsches as drivers cars. I've never seen drivers using them. They are just the next chattel up on the income ladder.
You have such a miserably misanthropic world view, seemingly based entirely on materialism.

You must have worked in marketing.

danp

1,444 posts

228 months

Friday 11th June
quotequote all
DonkeyApple said:
How have you not heard of Ronnie Pickering?

Even in the US the 'minivan' thing was short lived. It just wasn't a shape or package, despite its practicality, that grabbed people. It probably more represented the drudgery of life, the reality of what life was for most people. It wasn't a shape or package that sold any kind of dream or even hope of a better life. It was simply an enormous box that sat there telling the operators that their life had not gone anywhere close to what they ever imagined or hoped for through their entire youth. Thirty years of dreaming and then an MPV on the drive is the realisation that not only is it not coming home but you don't even live in the home that you thought you did and it was never coming anywhere near it.

Why go into debt to rent reality, blandness, drudgery and an endless wake up call that your life hasn't gone to plan when you can go into a bit more debt and have the illusion that you are the Che Guevara or outdoor activities and in your spare time a titan of industry?
Yet VW are able to flog their £50/60/70k+ vans on the lifestyle aspect to campers/ surfers/ outdoors types/ tradesman done good!

DonkeyApple

41,033 posts

135 months

Friday 11th June
quotequote all
bcr5784 said:
DonkeyApple said:
Of course, they might not be everyone's cup of tea but they can never be accused of not being a driver's car as they very much can be.
Like I say I've driven both Macan and Cayenne (on track too) - neither is what I would call a driver's car. They look and, more importantly, feel like tanks in comparison with an Evora. Of course if you give them enough horsepower they can be fast - but that doesn't make them engaging fun cars.

I am perfectly aware that SUVs are bought because the "say" something about your active lifestyle. But it doesn't correspond to most buyer's reality. A perfect case of fooling a lot of people a lot of the time. Inevitably there will come a time when people recognise that the king has no clothes.
But that's just loaded prejudice. A driver's car can be anything that 'drivers' opt to use. You can't take a small niche of driving, say, the affordable sports car, and somehow make such a bold statement as these are the only objects that can be categorised as drivers cars. That's merely your personal opinion. Whereas my opinion is that it is more the person who defines the product. The PH concept that to be a driver you must have a very specific, niche type of car isn't remotely logical when you look at the statement honestly. We all have our prejudices but it's sensible to recognise them. I recognise that while I would never consider a Porsche to be a drivers car because I've never seen them being used by people who actively enjoy driving is a function of where I have lived my life and possibly unique to us Londoners.

It's as flawed a view as the other PH obsession over estate cars that somehow these are the weapon of choice for the driver who needs a family car.

For over twenty years I have had in my garage an SUV, and estate and a sports car pretty much continuously. I use them as my mood or need takes me. I have an estate because I don't see the point in a saloon when the same car but with a bigger, easier boot is available and they generally have more legroom than a hatchback. And you can get them with silly engines. They might be slower than the equivalent SUV and they might not handle on the ragged limit like their saloon version but this doesn't stop them from being a drivers car because I'm the driver. I like driving. I want my driving experience to always be fun. It's me and me alone that defines whether a car is a drivers car. Same with the SUV. Hugely practical and hugely fun to hustle down C roads while at the same time nice for traffic jams as well as spinning up over fields. Brilliant drivers car.

Then there's the sports car. The least of the drivers cars. A lovely thing. Tremendous fun if you're willing to take corners at over 100 and wholly unacceptable speeds. A car that you can no longer use on the Continent because it will be confiscated and crushed. A car which you can rarely use anyway because of life and work commitments and when you can you're in traffic with brief moments to use it as intended and due to the performance you're talking seconds of pleasure not minutes. It's not a drivers car at all because I'm the driver who personally defines what is and isn't. And with it not being a drivers car I sold it.

No one is being fooled by SUVs. That again is a prejudice based on the assumption that people with money must be stupid and that those without must all be oppressed Einsteins. That kind of thinking is best left under the flat roofs from which it is born.

The people buying SUVs aren't fools. They are the normal and representative car buyers in society. That's why there is an SUV for everyone from the cracking, cheap Duster through to startling things like Porsche's take on a VW with every niche in between including the mass market, mundane crap that dominates all car niches, even sports cars.

And like every sector there are the 'look at me' consumers but they don't define the sector any more than they do the other sectors. They are just part of it.

The reality is that the SUV is popular because it does more jobs than the other types of car and the majority of people can only have one car and where they have two cars we now live in a society where the woman is allowed a voice, allowed a job, allowed to leave the house and as such allowed to drive the family car. And women for the most part are still closer to 5' than 6' which means if your wife is to drive the family wagon then you're going to get an SUV not a big saloon or even an estate.

Short blokes who can fit in Lotuses will understand this if they've ever sat in an S Class and then sat in a Range Rover where they can see without the need for a booster seat. wink

But these strict rules about what a drivers car is or that SUV drivers are all fools are the same silliness as the obsession over estate cars and other bloke twaddle. They rely on stigma and prejudice to support them and in reality just aren't true.

What is more true is that what is relevant is the driver and if the driver gets pleasure from threading a 2CV through heavy urban traffic then that makes that particular car a drivers car while if a 911 is sitting outside an office and just used by a bald old man to potter about in then that car is not a drivers car.

Sporky

1,609 posts

30 months

Friday 11th June
quotequote all
bcr5784 said:
I am perfectly aware that SUVs are bought because the "say" something about your active lifestyle.
I bought my Yetis because they did exactly what I needed, which included crossing building sites, going along forest roads, and never being stuck if it snowed, all while being a very practical hatchback and surprisingly decent to drive - more enjoyable than the Octavia VRS I tested back-to-back against the Yeti. I didn't need a Defender, but a Golf or Focus wasn't up to what I actually did with my car. I'd broken the company Avensis more than once just using it to get to where work sent me.

I now have a jacked-up estate with cladding on it for the same reasons I had the Yetis - my uses haven't changed. It does exactly what I need that car to do. It also looks ace, though portal hubs and knobbly tyres would make it look even better. Or those bolt-on tracks. I've not done those because they'd make it work worse.

I didn't give a toss what anyone else thought of me for owning the Yetis, and I find the idea of choosing a car based on what I think other people might think about me is laughably silly. I know it's really popular to decide why other people make the decisions they do - especially if it means you get to look down on them - but you cannot know what's inside anyone else's head, only what's inside yours.

If the estate or the Yetis were in a car park you'd have no way whatsoever of knowing that (until Covid, at least) they regularly went over ground that - from experience - knackers a normal car. That extra 5cm of ground clearance and AWD makes all the difference

PhantomPH

3,838 posts

191 months

Friday 11th June
quotequote all
DonkeyApple said:
Olivera said:
DonkeyApple said:
I think there is very much demand for SUVs with the Lotus ethos because not everyone who needs a family car wants to have a turgid diesel van or worse, an MPV. biggrin
There's barely enough demand for Lotus full stop, never mind a Lotus ethos SUV. No buyer gives a st about a lightweight SUV. The Lamborghini Urus has been an enormous sales success despite weighing 2.2 tonnes and being a VAG parts bin.

Edited by Olivera on Thursday 10th June 17:34
Can Lotus, who have doggedly stuck to 'adding lightness' in their marketing and brand perception get away with selling a heavy shopping van with a load of fancy clothing and an enormous engine to enable that mass to move?

I think the brand would demand that there is some semblance of 'lightness'

Maybe that's why it might be a pure EV as the market can blame the batteries for the lardiness?
I think if people were really honest, who the hell (other than the constantly mentioned die hards) knows - or cares - that Lotus used to be about lightness? That's certainly not why (going forwards) people will buy a Lotus. Lotus want to make a profit and create a growing company by attracting more customers.

I would say that the overwhelming majority of the market they NEED, do not have any hard and fast link between the brand and 'lightness'.

Make no mistake at all - Lotus are pretty much trying to build a brand again from scratch with a customer base they have so far not really gone after (SUV buyers). Not a single buyer of an SUV is doing so because it's light.

otolith

44,561 posts

170 months

Friday 11th June
quotequote all
PhantomPH said:
Not a single buyer of an SUV is doing so because it's light.
For those who buy an SUV because they think it's safer for their family, mass is likely to be a positive.

PhantomPH

3,838 posts

191 months

Friday 11th June
quotequote all
otolith said:
PhantomPH said:
Not a single buyer of an SUV is doing so because it's light.
For those who buy an SUV because they think it's safer for their family, mass is likely to be a positive.
I still maintain that 95% of buyers couldn't give a rat's ass about the weight of the vehicle they are buying. I'd say the number of people who actually use that as a factor in their buying decision is even more insignificant.

bcr5784

5,588 posts

111 months

Friday 11th June
quotequote all
Sporky said:
I bought my Yetis because they did exactly what I needed, which included crossing building sites, going along forest roads, and never being stuck if it snowed, all while being a very practical hatchback and surprisingly decent to drive - more enjoyable than the Octavia VRS I tested back-to-back against the Yeti. I didn't need a Defender, but a Golf or Focus wasn't up to what I actually did with my car. I'd broken the company Avensis more than once just using it to get to where work sent me.

I now have a jacked-up estate with cladding on it for the same reasons I had the Yetis - my uses haven't changed. It does exactly what I need that car to do. It also looks ace, though portal hubs and knobbly tyres would make it look even better. Or those bolt-on tracks. I've not done those because they'd make it work worse.

I didn't give a toss what anyone else thought of me for owning the Yetis, and I find the idea of choosing a car based on what I think other people might think about me is laughably silly. I know it's really popular to decide why other people make the decisions they do - especially if it means you get to look down on them - but you cannot know what's inside anyone else's head, only what's inside yours.

If the estate or the Yetis were in a car park you'd have no way whatsoever of knowing that (until Covid, at least) they regularly went over ground that - from experience - knackers a normal car. That extra 5cm of ground clearance and AWD makes all the difference
I am perfectly aware that there are buyers of SUVs who do so because they are ACTUALLY meet their needs - towing caravans, going across muddy fields, even competing in cross country evens. But, let's be honest, most never go anywhere a hatchback couldn't or tow anything.

otolith

44,561 posts

170 months

Friday 11th June
quotequote all
PhantomPH said:
otolith said:
PhantomPH said:
Not a single buyer of an SUV is doing so because it's light.
For those who buy an SUV because they think it's safer for their family, mass is likely to be a positive.
I still maintain that 95% of buyers couldn't give a rat's ass about the weight of the vehicle they are buying. I'd say the number of people who actually use that as a factor in their buying decision is even more insignificant.
I think if you say "This Lotus SUV is much lighter than than the opposition for better handling and more efficiency", they will hear "This flimsy contraption will crumple like tinfoil in a collision with that German Main Battle Tank, which I will buy instead"

braddo

7,633 posts

154 months

Friday 11th June
quotequote all
DonkeyApple said:
The reality is that the SUV is popular because it does more jobs than the other types of car and the majority of people can only have one car and where they have two cars we now live in a society where the woman is allowed a voice, allowed a job, allowed to leave the house and as such allowed to drive the family car. And women for the most part are still closer to 5' than 6' which means if your wife is to drive the family wagon then you're going to get an SUV not a big saloon or even an estate.
On the bolded bit - no it isn't. The vast majority of people don't need to go down muddy tracks or tow heavy trailers and all the other excuses people use to justify SUVs, i.e. things like Qashquais that are a typical family car these days.

It's a lot more simple.

SUVs have a less boring image than estates and MPVs, especially for women.
Many people prefer the elevated seating position; but not to the extent they would buy an unfashionable MPV. hehe






DonkeyApple

41,033 posts

135 months

Friday 11th June
quotequote all
PhantomPH said:
I think if people were really honest, who the hell (other than the constantly mentioned die hards) knows - or cares - that Lotus used to be about lightness? That's certainly not why (going forwards) people will buy a Lotus. Lotus want to make a profit and create a growing company by attracting more customers.

I would say that the overwhelming majority of the market they NEED, do not have any hard and fast link between the brand and 'lightness'.

Make no mistake at all - Lotus are pretty much trying to build a brand again from scratch with a customer base they have so far not really gone after (SUV buyers). Not a single buyer of an SUV is doing so because it's light.
Tend to agree but they do have to keep to some kind of brand ethos despite my suspicion that they are targeting a near 100% new client base from that of the last 20 years and as you say, no one giving two hoots about mass in reality.

If their SUV does come to Europe, surely they have no choice but to have some focus on lightness? If it's a pure EV then maybe there's nothing they can do about it anyway?

otolith

44,561 posts

170 months

Friday 11th June
quotequote all
DonkeyApple said:
If their SUV does come to Europe, surely they have no choice but to have some focus on lightness? If it's a pure EV then maybe there's nothing they can do about it anyway?
Do it superficially.

blueg33

26,457 posts

190 months

Friday 11th June
quotequote all
braddo said:
DonkeyApple said:
The reality is that the SUV is popular because it does more jobs than the other types of car and the majority of people can only have one car and where they have two cars we now live in a society where the woman is allowed a voice, allowed a job, allowed to leave the house and as such allowed to drive the family car. And women for the most part are still closer to 5' than 6' which means if your wife is to drive the family wagon then you're going to get an SUV not a big saloon or even an estate.
On the bolded bit - no it isn't. The vast majority of people don't need to go down muddy tracks or tow heavy trailers and all the other excuses people use to justify SUVs, i.e. things like Qashquais that are a typical family car these days.

It's a lot more simple.

SUVs have a less boring image than estates and MPVs, especially for women.
Many people prefer the elevated seating position; but not to the extent they would buy an unfashionable MPV. hehe
Many SUV's are not 4 wheel drive.

Basically they are family cars that let the kids see over the hedges, and hide low things from the driver.

We have a crossover a Volvo V60 Cross Country - basically an estate car that can move off the tarmac to allow people to pass on narrow land without getting stuck. It is more capacious than the equivalent SUV, capable enough off road for our rural residency, much nicer to drive than a similar price SUV - and IMO much cooler

PhantomPH

3,838 posts

191 months

Friday 11th June
quotequote all
Lets face it ladies and gents - we live in a world where (inexplicably) a massively popular car is the 2wd 1.0 3-cyl Nissan Joke. A more ugly effort you are unlikely to see...and yet there's fricken millions of them around! And that's because people are choosing to buy them based on...erm...personal desire and taste, I suppose!!

With that in mind, I think it's safe to say none of us have a clue what the mass market is going to buy. biggrin

I 100% get all the comments about lightness and 'buy a hatch/estate' and totally respect anyone's choice to buy whatever they want (see paragraph 1!). All I know for sure is that The Market speaks with the loudest voice. If nobody bought an SUV and instead the roads were chock full of small manual sport cars, the manufacturers would churn out little else than little light sports cars. So supply and demand has dictated demand and supply (another example being Apple and the iPhone created a demand for smartphones, so the suppliers all jumped on that bandwagon).

My OH likes being up a bit higher because she finds the whole vehicle easier to interact with (6ft 1in), particularly ingress and egress. For me, I need to stop driving the Q5 soon as it's wrecking my fked up knee every time I climb out of the thing. I actually need a lower car to step upwards out of rather than downwards as it's a different 'twisting' action that doesn't hurt.

Anyway...

evotion

10 posts

216 months

Friday 11th June
quotequote all
This all makes me believe that Lotus are doing the right thing by re-branding with a car with more mass appeal, as har as that will be,

It is just an appetiser before they try to smash the EV market apart and good for them.

Sporky

1,609 posts

30 months

Friday 11th June
quotequote all
bcr5784 said:
I am perfectly aware that there are buyers of SUVs who do so because they are ACTUALLY meet their needs - towing caravans, going across muddy fields, even competing in cross country evens. But, let's be honest, most never go anywhere a hatchback couldn't or tow anything.
How do you know what someone you've never met or talked to does with their car, just from looking at their car (absence of tow hook aside)?

I have a suggestion - you do not and cannot know what is inside their head. You only know what's inside yours.

bcr5784

5,588 posts

111 months

Friday 11th June
quotequote all
Sporky said:
How do you know what someone you've never met or talked to does with their car, just from looking at their car (absence of tow hook aside)?

I have a suggestion - you do not and cannot know what is inside their head. You only know what's inside yours.
I can't know what is in the head of any individual, but I do know enough SUV owners to know that , as a group, most don't need the off road capabilies of their cars. Are you REALLY suggesting otherwise?