Mr. Bond, Your Esprit Is Ready

[YSSMAN]

Show me a BMW V8 in a roadcar thats better than the 4.2 V8 FSI tuned to 420hp and I will agree. I dont think BMW will outdo that engine till the M3 debuts with is rumoured 8500 rpm redline. Even then I dont think that engine will be a better overall engine, just better for sporting applications.

I could think of a better V8 that is neither from VAG or from BMW: The 6.0L LS2 from General Motors, with street applications from the factory available as high as 450 BHP. You find me a V8 that is lighter, more powerful, cheaper to build, and maintain, not to mention more reliable, and I'll send you chocolates.

...Of course, all of the Europeans would scream "Pish-posh! It comes from Detroit. It must be a lesser-engine! What do those Neanderthals in America know about building engines to power racecars and supercars?"

But ahhh, there is the problem. All we have to do is point to the trophy case with the various wins at LeMans, Sebring, Daytona, etc.

"But what about the supercars?" you may scream...

And then we would point to cars like the Mosler MT900S, Ultima GTR, Callaway C16, Elfin MS8, etc.

...We're all so quick to leave-out the "lesser" alternatives simply because we are stuck on the big names from Europe. Hell, they may surprise us all and continue their relationship with Toyota and throw in the Tundra's 5.7L V8. Now that would be rather funny...

But considering that they are under "New Management," I wouldn't find it all too surprising to see them dip into the VAG parts bin, but I find it unlikely that the given parts would come out any bit normal, as Lotus likes to tweak things ever so slightly.

 

[Poverty]

The thing about the GM's V8's is that most of them dont rev very high. I believe that a good sports car has to be a high revver, to not only be fast but more importantly fun to drive. The Z06 engine is a exclusion of the average american V8 as it does rev, and coincidentially or not people love it. I hope GM carrys on making V8's in that vein.

 

[YSSMAN]

I'm not certain why having high RPMs makes much of a difference or not. The LS7's redline is set "only" at 7000 RPM, just a few ticks ahead of the LS2 which sits at 6500 RPM. By comparison, lets take a look at the Porsche 911 Turbo, who's redline sits at 6600 RPM.

Does that have a "lesser" engine because it can't turn quickly?

Sure, it is fun to have an S2000 that spins up to 9000 RPM without a problem, but there is a difference between practicality and sport-driven power. The Esprit has to have a balance between the two, and arguably, I can't think of a powerplant better than the LS2 or hell the LS7 in the various categories that I had outlined before.

 

[Scaff]

...Of course, all of the Europeans would scream "Pish-posh! It comes from Detroit. It must be a lesser-engine! What do those Neanderthals in America know about building engines to power racecars and supercars?"

YSSMAN, please don't lump all of us over in Europe in the same camp, certainly not all of us share the same daft bias. I love a good engine no matter what its origins. The LS7 and it ancestors are superb examples of solid, well thought out engineering, with (as you say) a more than proven track record when it comes to performance.

Simply put Poverty like to open his mouth without full knowledge of the facts, he's just done it over the LS7, he did it a few pages back over the development of the Elise chassis and Lotus's Backbone Chassis. Quite simply if it doesn't have four rings attached to it, you run a fair chance that he will dismiss it (and he would do well to read Famine's post before continuing to do this in the future).

Regards

Scaff

 

[Poverty]

YSSMAN, please don't lump all of us over in Europe in the same camp, certainly not all of us share the same daft bias. I love a good engine no matter what its origins. The LS7 and it ancestors are superb examples of solid, well thought out engineering, with (as you say) a more than proven track record when it comes to performance.

Simply put Poverty like to open his mouth without full knowledge of the facts, he's just done it over the LS7, he did it a few pages back over the development of the Elise chassis and Lotus's Backbone Chassis. Quite simply if it doesn't have four rings attached to it, you run a fair chance that he will dismiss it (and he would do well to read Famine's post before continuing to do this in the future).

Regards

Scaff

How did I get things wrong about the lotus chassies?
And how did I get things wrong about the LS7

 

[Dave A]

First of all, I'm in agreement with Scaff once again, I don't care where the engine comes from, if it's a good engine it's a good engine.

How did I get things wrong about the lotus chassies?

You mean you didn't notice?

As for the backbone chassis I read that back when it was introduced it was the best thing since sliced bread, but that in this day and age its no longer number one.

As Scaff said, it's still widely used in motorsports. Your comment there was making out that it doesn't hold it's own against current chassis around, but it does. It's not number one, but as Scaff said, it's still got plenty of life left in it's legs before it becomes dated.

There is a similair story to Elise's chassis, although its still more or less in contention as being a class leader. The technology behind it however didnt originate from Lotus.

Again, you were wrong, twice in this quoted piece. The Elise chassis is still considered a leading chassis, and also the chassis was designed and built and tested by Lotus

 

[Poverty]

First of all, I'm in agreement with Scaff once again, I don't care where the engine comes from, if it's a good engine it's a good engine.

You mean you didn't notice?

As Scaff said, it's still widely used in motorsports. Your comment there was making out that it doesn't hold it's own against current chassis around, but it does. It's not number one, but as Scaff said, it's still got plenty of life left in it's legs before it becomes dated.

Again, you were wrong, twice in this quoted piece. The Elise chassis is still considered a leading chassis, and also the chassis was designed and built and tested by Lotus

1. I dont care where a engine comes from either, I just stated that I like high revving engines. Above 7000rpm and im happy. None of this 5500rpm stuff for me

2. We were talking roadcars, not race cars. The backbone chassis is not a suitable for a mass production aplication. It is not strong enough for bigger, heavier cars, and its not very good for crash protection.

Lotus supplied De Tomaso a backbone chassis for their Magnusta and that experienced chassis flex. Not good. Therefore I wasnt wrong.

Race cars design is very different to road cars. We were talking roadcars.

3. I never said that the chassis wasnt designed and built by lotus. What I said was that the technology behind it, that allowed lotus to build their chassis so, and what made it so special, didnt originate from lotus.

Also the lotus elise chassis is good depending on what is required of it. Its not a space efficient chassis, and it requires a high door sill. The design of a car might have to be altered to accomodate it. Carbon fibre monocoque chassies are better also, making the lotus chassis not a class leader. so no, I wasnt wrong at all.

 

[bennyrrr]

If they do continue a Toyota relationship, throw in the new Tundra motor. 381 HP, 400 FT Lbs. Reliable as hell.

 

[Tornado]

1. I dont care where a engine comes from either, I just stated that I like high revving engines. Above 7000rpm and im happy. None of this 5500rpm stuff for me

Corvette engines have revved to at least 6300 RPM since 1996.

Lotus supplied De Tomaso a backbone chassis for their Magnusta and that experienced chassis flex. Not good. Therefore I wasnt wrong.

That's a terribly funny completely untrue post. Few people realise what a pioneer Alejandro DeTamaso actually was in his car development. He designed the backbone chassis for the Vallelunga at the same time Lotus was developing theirs. The reason it was bad in the Mangusta was that the chassis put in the Mangusta was NOT designed for the Mangusta. The chassis they put in it was just the chassis designed for the Vallelunga. The problem with that was that the weight balance was atrocious in the Mangusta (32:68, when compared to the 47:53 of the Vallelunga) and the car also weighed twice as much as the Vallelunga.
The problem with the Mangusta wasn't that the chassis was bad. It was that it was designed for a car that was far, far lighter and much better balanced.
So, therefore, you were wrong.

 

[Scaff]

1. I dont care where a engine comes from either, I just stated that I like high revving engines. Above 7000rpm and im happy. None of this 5500rpm stuff for me

But the LS series are capable of reving above 5,5k, what you said was

The thing about the GM's V8's is that most of them dont rev very high

Sorry but by any measure engines capable of 6.5 to 7k are most certainly reving high.

2. We were talking roadcars, not race cars. The backbone chassis is not a suitable for a mass production aplication. It is not strong enough for bigger, heavier cars, and its not very good for crash protection.

Lotus supplied De Tomaso a backbone chassis for their Magnusta and that experienced chassis flex. Not good. Therefore I wasnt wrong.

Race cars design is very different to road cars. We were talking roadcars.

I don't believe that anyone chose to distiguise between road and/or race cars other than you (I wonder why that is), as for not being suitable for bigger heavier car, can you please provide some proof behind that.

You have also just been shown to be incorrect with the De Tomaso as well.

3. I never said that the chassis wasnt designed and built by lotus. What I said was that the technology behind it, that allowed lotus to build their chassis so, and what made it so special, didnt originate from lotus.

Also the lotus elise chassis is good depending on what is required of it. Its not a space efficient chassis, and it requires a high door sill. The design of a car might have to be altered to accomodate it. Carbon fibre monocoque chassies are better also, making the lotus chassis not a class leader. so no, I wasnt wrong at all.

The technology behind the Elise chassis was most certainly from Lotus, the entire concept of using adesive bonding on a road car was theirs, they did not farm this side of it out. The only part farmed out was the extrusion of the aluminium pieces, a process that at the time no car manufacturer was capable of.

As for carbon-fibre monocoques, I though you only wanted to talk about road cars, hardly the staple design of the majority of road cars, or even the majority of race cars for that matter. However you want to use it as an example, which is fine by me, lets have a look at the first F1 car to run a monocoque chassis shall we (aluminimum honeycomb at the time - long before carbon fibre), and it was the Lotus 25. That's right, the example you try and use to discredit Lotus chassis work is a chassis whose entire principal was invented by Colin Chapman and Lotus!!!!!!!

Now you may ask have Lotus been involved in any other areas of chassis development, well yes they have, in 1957 in the Lotus Elite a GFRP unit construction method was employed (i.e. a car without a separate chassis), the same basic method that is used to produce almost every road car currently produced. Now Lotus did not invent this production method, but they are generally credited with getting it to work. Hence the reason they are one of the most respected consultancy firms in this area that exist today.

Are you honestly saying that the Elise chassis is not a good design and does not play a major part in the reputation fo the Elise as one of the finest handling road cars in existence?

Scaff

 

[YSSMAN]

YSSMAN, please don't lump all of us over in Europe in the same camp, certainly not all of us share the same daft bias.

I don't mean to pick on you guys too much, but I was reacting in preparation to a presumed attack based on that statement. You among others seem to be pretty level-headed when it comes to things such as this, however it could also be said that I have more to fear from some Americans than Europeans with that kind of thought.

...Good thing I didn't pick on Honda or Nissan engines...

 

[jammyozzy]

*Attempts to swerve back on topic.*

If this car isn't the Esprit, and it is R8's chassis under there, what the hell is it?

Personally my mind is running with the Veyron look-a-like tail lights and saying this is a new Bugatti, but I've dismissed that as tiredness talking.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Show me a BMW V8 in a roadcar thats better than the 4.2 V8 FSI tuned to 420hp and I will agree. I dont think BMW will outdo that engine till the M3 debuts with is rumoured 8500 rpm redline. Even then I dont think that engine will be a better overall engine, just better for sporting applications.

Heh. What the hell else is Audi planning on using an 100hp/litre engine for other than sporting applications? Engines like the RS4's and the next M3's are made just for that.

Are we really going to go down the engine topic road? BMW obviously knows a thing or two about engines if the arguably greatest modern supercar (Macca F1) had a Bimmer engine as its basis. And even with the Veyron, I have yet to hear anybody singing its praises as an engine to lust for, to want to hear. I just hear about it having a huge shove. Hmmm, with eight litres and four turbos, it better.

 

[Dave A]

1. I dont care where a engine comes from either, I just stated that I like high revving engines. Above 7000rpm and im happy. None of this 5500rpm stuff for me

You steriotyped American engines as being low revving, your the person who decided to bring origin into this.

2. We were talking roadcars, not race cars. The backbone chassis is not a suitable for a mass production aplication. It is not strong enough for bigger, heavier cars, and its not very good for crash protection.

And who decided that, as far as I'm concerned me and other members have not been talking about specifically road cars. Since alot of road car chassis technology and know how comes from race programmes, I think it's perfectly acceptable to discuss what Lotus has done for race cars as well as road cars in that area.

Lotus supplied De Tomaso a backbone chassis for their Magnusta and that experienced chassis flex. Not good. Therefore I wasnt wrong.

Yes you were.

3. I never said that the chassis wasnt designed and built by lotus. What I said was that the technology behind it, that allowed lotus to build their chassis so, and what made it so special, didnt originate from lotus.

Again, what part of "the engine was designed, built and tested by Lotus", did you not understand?

Also the lotus elise chassis is good depending on what is required of it. Its not a space efficient chassis, and it requires a high door sill. The design of a car might have to be altered to accomodate it. Carbon fibre monocoque chassies are better also, making the lotus chassis not a class leader. so no, I wasnt wrong at all.

How many cars in the Lotus Elise' market have a carbon fibre monocoque chassis? Secondly, you can't say that type of chassis is better than this, an almost perfectly engineered alluminium chassis paired with the right car can be ten times better than a carbon fibre monocoque in the wrong car. Your argument is flawed, the facts are, Lotus are class leaders in many aspects of car handling and chassis engineering and development, the Lotus Elise and Exige also have class leading handling capabilities, the only car that came close was the VX220, and you know what that ran on don't you.

 

[exigeracer]

But considering that they are under "New Management," I wouldn't find it all too surprising to see them dip into the VAG parts bin, but I find it unlikely that the given parts would come out any bit normal, as Lotus likes to tweak things ever so slightly.

VAG bought a share in Proton's manufacturing division. It's never been confirmed if this has any effect at all on Lotus or what VAG can do with them. It is deifnitely not a new management at Lotus.

Scaff - good call tapping in on Michael Sands' internet anthology of Lotus and Elise history. He's an incredibly knowledgable and kind individual, and a tremendous contributor to the North American Lotus community.

I miss a weekend and this thread becomes a complete comic act.

 

[YSSMAN]

I miss a weekend and this thread becomes a complete comic act.

Its what happens when Audi or BMW becomes a part of the conversation...

 

[Scaff]

Scaff - good call tapping in on Michael Sands' internet anthology of Lotus and Elise history. He's an incredibly knowledgable and kind individual, and a tremendous contributor to the North American Lotus community.

His work is indeed first rate, particularly in regard to the Elise; and in that lies my single biggest problem with Poverty's approach. Its not like accurate information on these subjects is hard to find or that you need to spend money on books, DVDs, etc (although I personally do). All you need is a brain and google, so I don't see the reason why speculation and opinion (more often than not) gets posted up as fact.

Its quite simple to find out (if you did not already know) that Lotus developed the concept and techniques for the Elise chassis, forming partnerships with the companies capable of extruding aluminium and producing adhesives to bond it. In this regard its not much different to the approach taken by McLaren when they developed the first Carbon Fibre monocoque, they had to approach a company outside the motor industry to work with the carbon fibre (Hercules Inc of Utah to be exact - a company that specialised in missile components). That McLaren had to take this approach does not change the fact that they developed and designed the first Carbon Fibre monocoque, and by the same token it does not change the fact that Lotus designed and developed the Elise chassis and the concept of its construction. They had already decided on the construction method. All information that is freely available.

This piece for example spells it out quite clearly...

The bonding technique was developed by the UK sports car company in partnership with Ciba Polymers of Switzerland and Hydro Aluminium, of Denmark.

When Lotus Group engineers set about developing the chassis of the new Elise sports car, the decision had already been taken that it should be made, as far as possible, from aluminum extrusions

http://www.sandsmuseum.com/cars/elise/information/technical/asauto.html

Regards

Scaff