2011 Lotus California... Err Elise

  • Thread starter Thread starter J-PaP
  • 71 comments
  • 7,079 views
Oh Lord, the humanity! :sly:

Seriously, if you can tell the difference between six tenths of a second in the 0-60 and a few miles an hour on the top end without any sort of timing gear you're either a professional road tester used to launching hundreds of cars off the line, or you're cheating.

I'd be happy to sacrifice a completely unnoticeable performance defecit when you're absolutely caning it for the extra 20% less fuel it'll use day to day.

I don't mind the styling either, though perhaps orange isn't the best colour for it.

It's not the point whether you can feel the difference or not. When someone looking to buy an Elise seeking a performance orientated model they would be hard pressed to find a reason to buy a new one when a used one is cheaper to buy and faster anyway. Like you said anyway, it is only the S which is seeing any real fuel efficiency gains given it has the 1.6. So presumably there would be little to no improvement for the R and SC models.

Anyhow I find fuel efficient and performance car to be something a bit silly to have in one sentence. The vast majority of people who want to go fast don't think of their carbon footprint when they put their foot on the gas pedal.
 
It does seem to be a complete California rip-off, but then again, I never expected the Elise could get any prettier than the current generation. The first generation will probably remain my favourite one, but I never really thought Lotus could do any better than the current generation Elise. So I'm not dissapointed either.
 
LOL. There's a difference between similar features and the blatant rip off the OP is claiming. If you want to be anal, seems you do, look up other cars and you'll find many with similar shapes of things.
A car with similar bumper cut outs, that's never happened before.

I think your the only person being anal here. It seems that you can't grasp the idea of similarity. It's not a mm by mm copy of the California front end but it sure as hell looks like one.
 
Is everyone just choosing to forget that this car exists or what?

2009-lotus-evora-001.jpg


The Elise is supposed to look like the Evora. That's their new corporate look. I'd expect the new Esprit to look similar as well.
 
I must be the only one who sees no resemblance between the elise and the california.



That is a very ridiculous post. I don't care if you think they have similarly shaped bumper openings, probably so do 40 other cars, the cars in question look nothing alike.

So the headlights aren't the same design?

The grille is not in identical proportions (despite being empty rather than having a Ferrari badge and the bars, and no, that can't be your only argument here)?

And I'll let you off on the brake ducts, seeing as if they were 1mm different that would define them as "similar" rather than "the same".



In other words, tell me what makes the Elise's front end entirely different. Several of us are making the claim that the front is pretty much identical. I'm making the assumption that the statement is true. Now prove it wrong.


Edit: Unfortunately the Evora's design looks great on the Evora, but bland when the style gets translated to the Elise.
 
Is everyone just choosing to forget that this car exists or what?

2009-lotus-evora-001.jpg


The Elise is supposed to look like the Evora. That's their new corporate look. I'd expect the new Esprit to look similar as well.

Beaten :sly:👍
 
It's not the point whether you can feel the difference or not. When someone looking to buy an Elise seeking a performance orientated model they would be hard pressed to find a reason to buy a new one when a used one is cheaper to buy and faster anyway.

I think in that sense you've rather missed the point of the new car market. I think you're also over-estimating the importance of a few tenths of a second in a car thats USP is handling. Especially in the base model.

Like you said anyway, it is only the S which is seeing any real fuel efficiency gains given it has the 1.6. So presumably there would be little to no improvement for the R and SC models.

The 1.8 has been changed and the new bodywork is more aerodynamic. They'll all see gains, but the biggest will be in the base model.

Anyhow I find fuel efficient and performance car to be something a bit silly to have in one sentence. The vast majority of people who want to go fast don't think of their carbon footprint when they put their foot on the gas pedal.

That's a daft thing to say. You're assuming that everyone has unlimited money to chuck at fuel. I think it's great that my MX5 does 40mpg as well as being fantastic to drive, and I know that when my mate had an old S1 Elise he was pretty chuffed that it could be the fastest thing on the road over a back road, yet still get him 35mpg on the motorway.

Seriously, if you could had a car that performed near-identically but got 10mpg more, would you really go for the less efficient model, all other things being equal?
 
The 1.8 has been changed and the new bodywork is more aerodynamic. They'll all see gains, but the biggest will be in the base model.

The 1.8 is essentially the same. The car just sees some changes in the ECU mapping. Just because it has a lower cfd doesn't necessarily see the car having reduced drag. The front end appears to be larger, thus it does have more air to push through.

That's a daft thing to say. You're assuming that everyone has unlimited money to chuck at fuel. I think it's great that my MX5 does 40mpg as well as being fantastic to drive, and I know that when my mate had an old S1 Elise he was pretty chuffed that it could be the fastest thing on the road over a back road, yet still get him 35mpg on the motorway.

An mx5 wasn't known for being a fuel efficient sports car. It gained its credibility for being a car with great handling dynamics while being affordable to buy. Sure being able to do 35mpg is an added benefit that your typical performance cars don't accomplish but I'd be confident in saying your mate would have been pretty chuffed driving his s1 regardless of how much fuel it burnt. Anyhow if someone goes and buys a car like an Elise or even something more exotic but can't afford to run it, let alone fuel, they clearly are in the wrong price bracket for a car.

To add, most people who would buy a car like an Elise don't purchase it as an A to B car. Thus they probably also drive it around with a bit of a lead foot which I'm also sure would mean the car would burn a hell of a lot more fuel than whatever the mpg for the car is. So if someone is choosing an Elise because it is "fuel efficient" yet drive it around in a way that is anything but "fuel efficient" then I would be thinking the person is a bit of a hypocrite.

Seriously, if you could had a car that performed near-identically but got 10mpg more, would you really go for the less efficient model, all other things being equal?

You do realise we are talking about a 4cylinder engine. We aren't comparing a v12 to a 4. The differences are marginal between the old and new and a 4cylinder is rather fuel efficient to start with. This is especially the case when needing to push a car weighing less than most hatchbacks on the market. Anyhow to answer your question... I'd be highly unlikely to ever even look at the mpg figure of a car I'm purchasing so if I was choosing a car to buy that in all other aspects were fairly similar I'd be buying the one I find the greater emotional attachment to. Hence again I purchased an Elise. I know it is by far anything but a "smart" choice of car to buy. It is less safe than most others, difficult to get into, arguably overpriced and anything but convenient. But I love the car for being exactly what it is. Fun and Unique.

I don't really know what the situation is with fuel prices in your home country. I'm sure it is probably worse than here in Australia as I know while we feel like prices have increased a lot, they still are low considering a global standpoint. Thus I expect fuel efficiency is something probably considered less heavily here in Australia hence my standpoint on the matter.
 
Which 1.6 is being used, here? The last one I can think of is the 4A-series engine...but that's been out of production for years. The 1.8 is the 2ZZ-GE, which is also getting on in years, but is probably still one of Toyota's best inexpensive engines of recent memory...
 
Which 1.6 is being used, here? The last one I can think of is the 4A-series engine...but that's been out of production for years. The 1.8 is the 2ZZ-GE, which is also getting on in years, but is probably still one of Toyota's best inexpensive engines of recent memory...

1ZR-FAE which replaced the 1zz the Elise S used previously.
 
The 1.8 is essentially the same. The car just sees some changes in the ECU mapping. Just because it has a lower cfd doesn't necessarily see the car having reduced drag. The front end appears to be larger, thus it does have more air to push through.

:odd:

The surface area of the front, given that the car is basically the same as the last one in every dimension, will be no different from the last one. Only now, the Cd is lower. Which means the Cda will be lower too. Which implies that there will be an improvement in economy across the range, especially since the engines have also been tinkered with.

An mx5 wasn't known for being a fuel efficient sports car. It gained its credibility for being a car with great handling dynamics while being affordable to buy.

...and run.

Sure being able to do 35mpg is an added benefit that your typical performance cars don't accomplish but I'd be confident in saying your mate would have been pretty chuffed driving his s1 regardless of how much fuel it burnt. Anyhow if someone goes and buys a car like an Elise or even something more exotic but can't afford to run it, let alone fuel, they clearly are in the wrong price bracket for a car.

Right, so people who don't have a lot of money have to drive boring cars. Gotcha. I guess I'll have to stick my £1k, 40mpg MX5 up on ebay then.

To add, most people who would buy a car like an Elise don't purchase it as an A to B car.

You'd be surprised. Have a look at the Elise owners' club site and see how many of them run it as a daily driver.

Thus they probably also drive it around with a bit of a lead foot which I'm also sure would mean the car would burn a hell of a lot more fuel than whatever the mpg for the car is.

Again, you'd be surprised. I don't think I've ever seen someone in an Elise driving like a cock (fast, all the time, everywhere) like you'd get someone in a hot hatch, or even in a VAG diesel doing. It's a useable car that happens to kick ass when you do drive quickly on a twisty road or at the track. In normal driving, it's a fairly economical car.

So if someone is choosing an Elise because it is "fuel efficient" yet drive it around in a way that is anything but "fuel efficient" then I would be thinking the person is a bit of a hypocrite.

You're making it sound like I'm making out that people buy Elises as a substitute for a Prius. What I'm actually saying is that it's a fun car that also happens to be inexpensive to run, which is actually very appealing for a lot of people who have better things to achieve than watching their wages tick away at a petrol station.

The differences are marginal between the old and new and a 4cylinder is rather fuel efficient to start with.

A circa 15% gain is anything but marginal. It's quite impressive for such a focused car.

Anyhow to answer your question... I'd be highly unlikely to ever even look at the mpg figure of a car I'm purchasing so if I was choosing a car to buy that in all other aspects were fairly similar I'd be buying the one I find the greater emotional attachment to.

...which is why I specified "all other things being equal" 💡 So now that you've read it twice, given the choice of two otherwise identical cars, would you choose the more or the less efficient one?

Thus I expect fuel efficiency is something probably considered less heavily here in Australia hence my standpoint on the matter.

Perhaps.
 
:odd:

The surface area of the front, given that the car is basically the same as the last one in every dimension, will be no different from the last one. Only now, the Cd is lower. Which means the Cda will be lower too. Which implies that there will be an improvement in economy across the range, especially since the engines have also been tinkered with

Somewhere I read the front is actually wider than the previous Elise that's why I said the front likely has more drag. If you assume the front has the same surface area/similar shape then yes the car should have a reduced Cda given the Cd is lower. I'm assuming that isn't the case.

Right, so people who don't have a lot of money have to drive boring cars. Gotcha. I guess I'll have to stick my £1k, 40mpg MX5 up on ebay then.

You missed my point. I'm saying if someone has the money to buy a car that fetches £60k+ then they surely must be able to afford the fuel for such a car as well.

What I also meant was that if someone is so concerned about their carbon footprint and fuel efficiency why are they buying a performance car and thrashing around in it. That is doing anything but being fuel efficient.

You'd be surprised. Have a look at the Elise owners' club site and see how many of them run it as a daily driver.

I'm a member of one of the Elise clubs in Australia. Most don't run them as a daily driver. Also looking at most of the car sale websites most of the cars average only around 5000km a year. If they were daily drivers then the cars would be doing something more close to 20000km a year. In the year or so I was monitoring Elises for sale on the market, ones for sale with kilometers matching that of a "daily driver" were seldom.

Again, you'd be surprised. I don't think I've ever seen someone in an Elise driving like a cock (fast, all the time, everywhere) like you'd get someone in a hot hatch, or even in a VAG diesel doing. It's a useable car that happens to kick ass when you do drive quickly on a twisty road or at the track. In normal driving, it's a fairly economical car.

That is more likely because those with an Elise are more likely to "use" their cars going off to drive on some twisty roads or a racetrack. Those I generally see thrashing around the city and suburbs are in a car that is anything but performance orientated and in my books anyway, being stupid. The guys from the Elise club are off on a track day or on a drive day through some twisty's every few weeks.

You're making it sound like I'm making out that people buy Elises as a substitute for a Prius. What I'm actually saying is that it's a fun car that also happens to be inexpensive to run, which is actually very appealing for a lot of people who have better things to achieve than watching their wages tick away at a petrol station.

I'm just trying to say that I personally find fuel economy being an odd consideration to purchase an Elise when a person who can afford one would be unlikely to have an issue affording the running expenses of one. Especially when the majority of people here that would have a lower "typical" wage buy v8's as daily drivers and thrash them about daily.

A circa 15% gain is anything but marginal. It's quite impressive for such a focused car.

...which is why I specified "all other things being equal" 💡 So now that you've read it twice, given the choice of two otherwise identical cars, would you choose the more or the less efficient one?

It is marginal though when you look at how much even the least fuel efficient Elise burns compared to 90% of all other cars on the market. Sure it is an impressive improvement, but the fuel efficiency of the car was damn impressive before anything was improved to start with.

I know what you are saying in your question. I'm trying to say that because my mind would never consider such a statistic (I don't think I've ever looked at the fuel efficiency of a car I have ever purchased/considered) I'd probably be completely unaware of such a difference and would think the two cars are identical so would base my decision on some other factor I could use to differentiate the two cars.

IF I did consider fuel efficiency in my purchase decision and did look at two absolutely identical cars which for some reason have different fuel efficiency figures then yes I would buy the more fuel efficient one. But as per my previous paragraph I haven't ever considered such a thing so probably wouldn't have known there was a difference.
 
You know, I've read that the new Mercedes-Benz SL-Klasse looks like 'the body of Halle Berry with the face of RoboCop.'

This is the opposite.
 
It is marginal though when you look at how much even the least fuel efficient Elise burns compared to 90% of all other cars on the market. Sure it is an impressive improvement, but the fuel efficiency of the car was damn impressive before anything was improved to start with.

Except... It's not at all marginal. 15% on a car that gets 10mpg will bump it to 11.5, big whoop. 15% on a car like the Elise that gets 40 results in an extra 6mpg. That's anything but marginal.
 
I think this is not the only car that will look like the California, anyway I like it, but sure the previous model is much original and distinctive in the front, the rear is basically the same.
 
I'm just trying to say that I personally find fuel economy being an odd consideration to purchase an Elise when a person who can afford one would be unlikely to have an issue affording the running expenses of one. Especially when the majority of people here that would have a lower "typical" wage buy v8's as daily drivers and thrash them about daily.

The Elise S is the answer to the problem then. Not only will it give you well above 30 MPG when tooling around, chances are, you're still going to be sipping fuel compared to other cars when hammering it around on the streets or on the track. I'm one of those odd people who do care about fuel economy, regardless of how much the car costs, just because better fuel economy is... Well, better. Period. Especially if you plan on driving the car pretty frequently.

RE: Using the Elise as a Daily[/B

It happens a lot around here, but people in Michigan are crazy. A neighbor of mine had one (moved away recently), and he would pull the car out rain or shine. I've even seen the damn things out in the snow. Again, if I'm spending that much money on a car that is that much fun to drive, and still gets 30 MPG, why not drive it as often as possible? Maybe we've got it "backwards" up here, but people drive their toys year-round.
 
Except... It's not at all marginal. 15% on a car that gets 10mpg will bump it to 11.5, big whoop. 15% on a car like the Elise that gets 40 results in an extra 6mpg. That's anything but marginal.

I agree with your sentiment, but you've misunderstood the importance of relative percentages at different MPGs. Bigger gains can be had with the less economical vehicles - when a car is getting only 10mpg and goes up to 11.5, that 15% is a massive difference, when compared relatively to a vehicle getting 15% extra that's very economical in the first place. At 10k miles per year, if you do 11.5mpg rather than 10mpg then you save 131 gallons. With the same distance and a seemingly larger distance of 6mpg between 40 and 46, you save 33 gallons*. Rather less, then.

So 15% at 10mpg really is a "big whoop" ;)

But as I was highlighting originally, 15% is a pretty big difference regardless and not at all shabby for a sports car like the Elise.


*If I've got my mathematics right. Which is by no means guaranteed, but I'm reasonably confident I've worked it out right...


And yeah, Brad, as far as I'm aware a lot of Elise owners use their cars all the year round. It may be sparse but it's still a useable car.
 
Y'know...this nose may have been in Chicago, and it's a possibility I missed it entirely...
 
And yeah, Brad, as far as I'm aware a lot of Elise owners use their cars all the year round. It may be sparse but it's still a useable car.

I'll be honest though, while I'd probably drive it year 'round if I had one, there is no way it could ever function as an errand car for me. You look like a bafoon getting in and out of it, and I would be rather afraid of what life would be like at the McDonald's drive-thru.
 
I'll be honest though, while I'd probably drive it year 'round if I had one, there is no way it could ever function as an errand car for me. You look like a bafoon getting in and out of it, and I would be rather afraid of what life would be like at the McDonald's drive-thru.

Whether most use the Elise daily or not you fairly much need to have a second car or at least access to one. McDonald's drive through is ok. Much easier with the roof off. A large drink may be a bit hard to fit through the window otherwise (I haven't gotten a large drink yet to see and I know the US has even larger cups than that in Australia). Also make sure you have a passenger if you do go through drive-thru. Need someone to hold the drink(s).

Shopping... Don't put any food in the boot unless you want it cooked by the time you get home. Also try and keep the shopping below 3-4 bags.

Female passengers... Well I need to warn my girlfriend if I am bringing my car to pick her up so that she can dress accordingly. That means pants only when going out in the Elise.
 
I'll be honest though, while I'd probably drive it year 'round if I had one, there is no way it could ever function as an errand car for me. You look like a bafoon getting in and out of it, and I would be rather afraid of what life would be like at the McDonald's drive-thru.

Pffft. If you're going to the drive-thru in an Elise then you're in the wrong car anyway. It's not exactly a location I'd choose to dine (that said, neither is McDonalds in the first place...).

Shopping... Don't put any food in the boot unless you want it cooked by the time you get home. Also try and keep the shopping below 3-4 bags.

It's amazing what my mate used to cram in his. He's in the Royal Air Force and managed to cram a whole pack and a couple of sleeping bags in. The boot cover needed a hefty shove to close :lol:
 
What a disgrace of a Lotus. The whole car is the same Elise all over again, minus the headlights. If I see this on the streets of Las Vegas, I will laugh at the person who owns it. Really, the headlights resembles the Ferrari California. Thanks a lot, Proton.
 
What a disgrace of a Lotus. The whole car is the same Elise all over again, minus the headlights. If I see this on the streets of Las Vegas, I will laugh at the person who owns it. Really, the headlights resembles the Ferrari California. Thanks a lot, Proton.
:lol:

No-one said it was a whole new car, hell it was even stated that an entirely new car is in the works.

And anyone who says this is a California can, and forever shall be, forwarded to a pic of the Lotus Evora. kthnxbye.

2010-lotus-evora-front.jpg
 
I know, but the Elise has been the same for over how many years?! Eight. What did you get on this Elise? An overdue facelift. At least the E85 Z4 lasted six years and the E86 Z4 lasted two years, but that's not the point.

My point is that they should have done the facelift before planning the Evora and made it into production. Then again, if the Elise had a facelift in 2006 and the Evora is produced in 2012, the most recent facelift will not exist this time. Even with this time, the Evora will not make it to Gran Turismo 5 as well.

I am now infuriated with this Elise. Evora-esque, Lotus said? Look at the Hennessey Venom GT.
 
I know, but the Elise has been the same for over how many years?! Eight. What did you get on this Elise? An overdue facelift. At least the E85 Z4 lasted six years and the E86 Z4 lasted two years, but that's not the point.
The difference is the Z4 is in a very image dominated market. The Elise' main factor has, and will always be, it's performance in corners. An area it still dominates to this day. Lotus are still a small company with a big financial backer. This financial backer has asked they expand their product line this has gone badly (europa) and well (evora) and is still in the process of producing an "Esprit" replacement. So be forgiven if the Elise format is being put to the side, while continuing to sell well.

My point is that they should have done the facelift before planning the Evora and made it into production. Then again, if the Elise had a facelift in 2006 and the Evora is produced in 2012, the most recent facelift will not exist this time. Even with this time, the Evora will not make it to Gran Turismo 5 as well.
This paragraph is abit confusing. But if you're saying the Evora won't be in GT5, I'm pretty sure it's already been in demos and such.
 
What a disgrace of a Lotus. The whole car is the same Elise all over again, minus the headlights. If I see this on the streets of Las Vegas, I will laugh at the person who owns it. Really, the headlights resembles the Ferrari California. Thanks a lot, Proton.

Are you trying to be ignorant today? First the daft comment in the Juke thread and now the work of genius above...

Also, the money is Proton's. The car is Lotus's work with a bit of Toyota.
 
Sorry about that, I was being ignorant yesterday. I mean I like Lotus, but I didn't want the Elise to look like this for the 2011 model, and then again, it's still okay. On the Nissan Juke thread, I was bashing Nissan and the car itself. Yes, I am a car design freak. Meh, I rather get the 2006 Exige S instead.
 
Back