GTP Cool Wall: Series 1 Lotus Elise. Voting Closed

[Scaff]

So 40 pounds for an A/C system and they don't include it? That's pretty obnoxious and really sullies my view of the car. It still weighs just over 1500 pounds, so 40 more is not going to do anything. You might as well not put your own fat ass in it if you're that concerned about weight!

I just don't get why you think its obnoxious at all?

40 pounds does do something, it adds 40 pounds to a car that majors on its power-to-weight ratio.

Just to set the record 100% right, the S1 Elise did have A/C as an option in some markets, and the Federal Elise has it as standard but it can be deleted if required.

The S1 also did without power steering to keep down the weight as well.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Tornado]

The S1 also did without power steering to keep down the weight as well.

For that matter, for a car that light power steering isn't that necessary anyways.

 

[exigeracer]

So 40 pounds for an A/C system and they don't include it? That's pretty obnoxious and really sullies my view of the car. It still weighs just over 1500 pounds, so 40 more is not going to do anything. You might as well not put your own fat ass in it if you're that concerned about weight!

40lb is huge! When you're shaving weight off a track-focused sportscar, you're talking about a couple pounds being a significant difference. Some people spend thousands of dollars to save that kind of weight in things like carbon fibre body panels, which don't even tax engine power the way AC does.

You can't praise it for being a no-frills sportscar, like you did in your first post, then claim that attention to saving weight, what makes the Elise so special, taints its appeal.

 

[Giancarlo]

I just don't get why you think its obnoxious at all?

40 pounds does do something, it adds 40 pounds to a car that majors on its power-to-weight ratio.

Just to set the record 100% right, the S1 Elise did have A/C as an option in some markets, and the Federal Elise has it as standard but it can be deleted if required.

The S1 also did without power steering to keep down the weight as well.

Regards

Scaff

40lb is huge! When you're shaving weight off a track-focused sportscar, you're talking about a couple pounds being a significant difference. Some people spend thousands of dollars to save that kind of weight in things like carbon fibre body panels, which don't even tax engine power the way AC does.

You can't praise it for being a no-frills sportscar, like you did in your first post, then claim that attention to saving weight, what makes the Elise so special, taints its appeal.

I don't think saving weight is foolish or obnoxious, and of course i recognize the importance of power to weight with this car, but we're talking about +2.5% of it's total weight. For comparison's sake, an average male driver would account for +10%. Such ridiculous attention to detail would come off as snobby to me. Glad to see it actually was an option, so i guess that makes my point moot. I wouldn't want A/C if i actually drove this as a track car. But i probably wouldn't, so i can't totally take that into account to formulate my own opinion, you know?

I just wouldn't want to imagine driving this car in my city at any point between January to November. The heat radiating from the road alone, coupled with the exhaust from SUVs that would be hitting me squarely in the face, is enough to make me feel queasy even before considering the temperature from weather itself.

 

[Jetboy.]

Sub-zero

The end

Amen.


Cheers,
Jetboy

 

[Jim Prower]

While I agree that if you want aircon in this car, you're missing the point, I live in Central Illinois...one of the most humid non-tropical places in summer. So humid, that you're still sweating top-down at eighty.

I just roll the windows down and take it, though, considering my car has nothing but heat, either.

 

[TheCracker]

I don't think saving weight is foolish or obnoxious, and of course i recognize the importance of power to weight with this car, but we're talking about +2.5% of it's total weight. For comparison's sake, an average male driver would account for +10%. Such ridiculous attention to detail would come off as snobby to me. Glad to see it actually was an option, so i guess that makes my point moot. I wouldn't want A/C if i actually drove this as a track car. But i probably wouldn't, so i can't totally take that into account to formulate my own opinion, you know?

I just wouldn't want to imagine driving this car in my city at any point between January to November. The heat radiating from the road alone, coupled with the exhaust from SUVs that would be hitting me squarely in the face, is enough to make me feel queasy even before considering the temperature from weather itself.

The point of not having a/c isn't one of being 'snobby' in an attention to detail kind of way. Colin Chapman was a cheap skate, and although he hasn't run the company in a long time, his ethos still exists at Lotus today. Perhaps not in quite the same way as Chapman was. The Elise was built as a cheap sportscar, to compete against cars like the MX-5, MGF and MR2 etc. It was a little more expensive than any of them, but not by much. To keep it cheap, but to also keep it far better than any of them, it's spec, and therefore it's weight was kept to a minimum. It was also built for markets where A/C isn't really necessary. You don't need to worry about driving one where you live in the middle of summer because the S1 Elise has never been sold there so you can't.

 

[Giancarlo]

Is the new Elise currently sold in the US really all that different?

 

[exigeracer]

Is the new Elise currently sold in the US really all that different?

Yes. They share the same chassis, which means basic driving dynamics are similar. You can tell they're related, but a lot was done to make the second generation more livable (read:sellable) everyday cars. We're talking a 500lb difference (30% increase, these are big changes), different rear subframe, powerplant, dimensions etc.

 

[Jetboy.]

Yes. They share the same chassis, which means basic driving dynamics are similar. You can tell they're related, but a lot was done to make the second generation more livable (read:sellable) everyday cars. We're talking a 500lb difference (30% increase, these are big changes), different rear subframe, powerplant, dimensions etc.

To extend upon what he said, besides the weight discrepancy as a concrete number, the powerplant changed from the Rover unit (because it wouldn't pass California Emissions) to the 1.8 Twin-cam out of the Toyota Celica GT-S. The 1.8 was tweaked for a better torque curve, power delivery, freer-revving, and higher rpm range (Redline changed from 7800 to 8300 IIRC). The wheelbase was extended, also.



Cheers,
Jetboy

 

[Irons]

What other sports cars would you be referring to? Perhaps the Porsche Boxter, but the proper 2.7 one rather than the 2.5 the car started as? Well, that's over half a second slower to 60mph even though it has almost double the power and cost around twice as much. In fact, you would have had to buy the 3.2 "S" version to match the Lotus on acceleration. Though the trouble is then that you'd pay even more, and be using a third more fuel. Which is a bit embarassing when the Boxter can't even outhandle the Lotus either.

Perhaps then something a little more hardcore? An S2000? Same story I'm afraid - more expensive, and slower off the line until you're up into treble figures. And early S2Ks aren't exactly handlers either according to most reviews. I'd say that's another scalp for the Lotus.

Perhaps something American? Maybe a Camaro, or a Mustang from the same period? Erm, well without spending a significant amount of money on either, neither would see which way an Elise went on anything but a freeway or a very open race track. And even then they'd struggle on the track.

I'm failing to see which sports cars an Elise would be weak against without having to pay significantly over twice as much? Or something that'd be more fun without having to pay even more than that?...

Oh, and I probably forgot to mention, but I'm still referring to the very base S1 Elise here. Every single other Elise model is quicker and more advanced, and would make any of the above look even sillier on the roads that matter.

Little Euro toy? I'll take a dozen, please.

What I call weak is the fact that it's just a little 118 BHP engine powering this thing. Sure, it's light, I'll give you that one. But that's about it. As for the pricing, I managed to dig up some price figures for the above cars from 1999 and the 1999/2000 Lotus Elise...

1999/2000 Lotus Elise
1999 Ford Mustang
1999 Chevrolet Camaro

and for the Porsche Cayman, I'll use the 986 Boxter, its 1999 equivalent...

1999 Porsche 986 Boxter

It seems to me that the Mustang, Camaro, and Boxter are just a wee bit cheaper than the Lotus of the same period, not to mention the power from the three opposing cars surpass Lotus's (or should I say "Rover's") little Cuisinart. Oh wait, that's right. I don't live in England. The price figures wouldn't exactly be the same, since we have to pay a little bit more than you do to get the car because we have to import them rather than you guys because it's a domestic. And vice versa for the two American cars.

Bottom line, besides the fact that I believe it's a ugly, bug-eyed car, I don't like this car because I don't feel that 118 horsepower is worth $35,000.

Little Euro toy? I'll take a dozen, please.

Go ahead, they're yours...

 

[Joey D]

Wow, more "small engines are crap" attitudes coming up. The Elise can run with cars with several hundred more horsepower under the bonnet. Not everything is about power. An Elise will easily beat a Mustang and a Camaro around a track.

 

[Tornado]

Camaro and Mustang?

 

[JCE]

Seriously, the Camaro maybe but not the Mustang.

 

[AERO_HDT]

Ol' Col Chap would be rolling in his grave if he could read this thread...

Elise = COOL

It's a giant-killer. David Vs Goliath.

David wins.

 

[niky]

So 40 pounds for an A/C system and they don't include it? That's pretty obnoxious and really sullies my view of the car. It still weighs just over 1500 pounds, so 40 more is not going to do anything. You might as well not put your own fat ass in it if you're that concerned about weight!

Believe you me... in a car that small, the difference between a half-tank of gas and a full tank of gas is pretty hard to miss... so yes, 40 pounds will do something.

It's that "fat man on a bicycle" thing.

Or... even better... if you have any experience as a runner... you'd know that the extra five pounds a pair of jeans weigh over a pair of shorts can make all the difference in the world... even if five pounds out of two hundred is a mere two percent of your weight.

-

Engine/schmengine. 118 hp is plenty enough if you have a light enough car.

Don't think of it as a sportscar with "just" 118 ponies. Think of it as a 118 pony sportsbike with two seats and four wheels.

And sportsbikes are always cool. Except when they're not.

 

[TheCracker]

Seriously, the Camaro maybe but not the Mustang.

Seriously, they both have inferior power to weight ratios. Round a track they wouldn't see which way it went.

 

[homeforsummer]

What I call weak is the fact that it's just a little 118 BHP engine powering this thing. Sure, it's light, I'll give you that one. But that's about it.

I don't think you quite understand how important low weight is to every single aspect of performance barring perhaps top speed. Better acceleration. Less work for the tyres and suspension to do so immediately improves handling. Better ride because they don't need to make the suspension ridiculously stiff to make it grip/steer/change direction well. Easier on the brakes. Less inertia in any manoeuvre.

As for the pricing, I managed to dig up some price figures for the above cars from 1999 and the 1999/2000 Lotus Elise...

1999/2000 Lotus Elise
1999 Ford Mustang
1999 Chevrolet Camaro

and for the Porsche Cayman, I'll use the 986 Boxter, its 1999 equivalent...

1999 Porsche 986 Boxter

It seems to me that the Mustang, Camaro, and Boxter are just a wee bit cheaper than the Lotus of the same period, not to mention the power from the three opposing cars surpass Lotus's (or should I say "Rover's") little Cuisinart.

Firstly, you're debating the wrong year of car anyway. And I'm not sure where you got the Cayman from (as I mentioned the Boxter, not the Cayman, in the first place).

Secondly, the power doesn't matter. I've already stated that all the cars I compared the Elise with above are actually slower accelerating unless you spend some serious green or until you're getting into some pretty illegal speeds.

And thirdly:

Oh wait, that's right. I don't live in England. The price figures wouldn't exactly be the same, since we have to pay a little bit more than you do to get the car because we have to import them rather than you guys because it's a domestic. And vice versa for the two American cars.

An Elise back in 1996 was roughly £21k as far as I can remember. A Boxter would set you back over £30k at the time, or at least one that could get anywhere near an Elise in a sprint. If you wanted to get a faster one you're looking towards £40k.

Bottom line, besides the fact that I believe it's a ugly, bug-eyed car, I don't like this car because I don't feel that 118 horsepower is worth $35,000.

Final thing: Ugly is subjective of course so I'll give you that one, but how exactly does the price and the power make it uncool? It just seems like you've fallen into the usual old trap of assuming that just because it doesn't have a lot of power it's automatically crap...

 

[Encyclopedia]

Cool. A great example that power isn't everything.

 

[Boffin]

What I call weak is the fact that it's just a little 118 BHP engine powering this thing. Sure, it's light, I'll give you that one. But that's about it.

I direct ye, to Top Gear series 11 episode 6 - where there was a allied v axis race.

Do you know what? I seem to remember an Atom with around 300hp won the DRAG RACE against a 980hp Porker, an LP640, an Evo X FQ360, a supercharged Callaway Corvette.

Bottom line, besides the fact that I believe it's a ugly, bug-eyed car, I don't like this car because I don't feel that 118 horsepower is worth $35,000.

I could direct you too the moon buggy - but that had a special purpose, so I won't.

The car is expensive because of import taxes. They sell standard V8 Mustang cabrios (with no bells and wistles) here for $150k. And just because its so down on power does that make it less fun and less fast? I've already proven that less weight is much better than more power - it ends up being how fast the car goes and the Elise is a pretty brisk car.

And besides - you not liking the price doesn't really have to do with not liking the car. Otherwise you favourite car would be some cheap honda sitting on the side of the curb with a "4 sale" sign on it.

 

[Irons]

Okay then... you've got me nicked.

But, if I were given the option to change my vote I still wouldn't on the account that I don't like the styling, and I shall leave it at that.

 

[TheCracker]

Okay then... you've got me nicked.

But, if I were given the option to change my vote I still wouldn't on the account that I don't like the styling, and I shall leave it at that.

That in itself is reason enough to vote uncool, if you are inclined to do so. No one can argue with that.

It's when someone gives a reason that doesn't add up logically that others will question that decision.

 

[C-ZETA]

Oldie was great. Newie is equally great. I will give this Sub-zero.