Saw a Lotus Elise up close and personal today

[Unknown Soldier]

A local magazine has a shootout with a lot of fast cars recently and the elise and Subaru and Mitsubishi were featured going around a race track.

The Subaru and Mits did identical times and the elise was slower.

US

 

[Phil]

The data is not enough to conclude that the 0-100km time is due to insufficient cooling. What is the standard Exige's 0-100km time? Was the gear ratios on the SC Exige optimized for the new torque curve or did it use the same as the standard Exige? Did they keep the cam change switchover point the same? The SC Exige is 40kg heavier and the SC also robs power from the engine due to it being a SC vs a turbo. There're just too many factors involved to pinpoint a problem.

Standard Exige: 0-100km in 5.3s
Torque: 181Nm at 6800rpm
Weight: ~915kg (depending on options)

The gear ratio from the standard Exige and the 240R are identical (it's identical with our SC Exige as well).
Cam switchover in the 240R happens at 4000rpm (Standard Exige at 5800).

As I already said, I was aware that the cooling is a problem - and this and other road-tests is but all the confirmation I need to conclude that it's what's hampering the 240R performance. You can either still dismiss it or take the information as displayed. No one's forcing you. Just thought I'd finish of my rant with the road-test results, so feel free to draw your own conclusions (based on god knows what kind of information) from there...

Fact is, the Exige 240R failes to deliver the performance Lotus claims. [/rant]

 

[Phil]

A local magazine has a shootout with a lot of fast cars recently and the elise and Subaru and Mitsubishi were featured going around a race track.

The Subaru and Mits did identical times and the elise was slower.

US

US, out of curiousity, to you remember what specific models of Elise, WRXs and Evo's participated in that road test?

I assume it's an American magazine - did the Elise 111R / Exige S2 launch over there yet? As far as I can see from the official American Lotus website they haven't, though I hear they have?

thanks

 

[PC-Engine]

Standard Exige: 0-100km in 5.3s
Torque: 181Nm at 6800rpm
Weight: ~915kg (depending on options)

The gear ratio from the standard Exige and the 240R are identical (it's identical with our SC Exige as well).
Cam switchover in the 240R happens at 4000rpm (Standard Exige at 5800).

As I already said, I was aware that the cooling is a problem - and this and other road-tests is but all the confirmation I need to conclude that it's what's hampering the 240R performance. You can either still dismiss it or take the information as displayed. No one's forcing you. Just thought I'd finish of my rant with the road-test results, so feel free to draw your own conclusions (based on god knows what kind of information) from there...

Fact is, the Exige 240R failes to deliver the performance Lotus claims. [/rant]

If the 0-100km times are identical then Lotus is probably lying about their hp numbers for the SC. I doubt it has anything to do with intercooling since SC don't even need intercoolers to work well. My guess is that they tuned the SC to not produce too much torque to reduce wear on the car's components. Since the SC is a factory option warranties are at stake which can factor into the design.

 

[Phil]

I doubt it has anything to do with intercooling since SC don't even need intercoolers to work well. My guess is that they tuned the SC to not produce too much torque to reduce wear on the car's components. Since the SC is a factory option warranties are at stake which can factor into the design.

What ever!

 

[PC-Engine]

What ever!

Go ahead and laugh but guess why TRD's prototaype SC for the Celica only nets you 20hp? In case you didn't know the Celica is a front engined car and the TRD SC was designed to not compromise engine durability so that it would not void the factory warranty. Any idiot can crank up the hp gains with a SC or turbo, but the question is, can they maintain the same durability while getting those massive gains. And just in case you didn't notice the 2ZZ is a high compression engine that was not designed for FI. In other words trying to add a bunch of hp through FI would surely compromise engine durability.

With that aside why do so many bolt-on SCs put out impressive hp figures without an intercooler?

Do you have a dyno plot of the hp/tq curves for the 240R to show that at lower rpms it isn't getting much hp boost?

Why would it put out 247PS sitting still on a dyno with ZERO air movement then get beat by a 190PS Exige to 100km with more air? Doesn't make sense and unfortunately craps all over your hypothesis of poor cooling.

 

[Phil]

Go ahead and laugh but guess why TRD's prototaype SC for the Celica only nets you 20hp? In case you didn't know the Celica is a front engined car and the TRD SC was designed to not compromise engine durability so that it would not void the factory warranty. Any idiot can crank up the hp gains with a SC or turbo, but the question is, can they maintain the same durability while getting those massive gains. And just in case you didn't notice the 2ZZ is a high compression engine that was not designed for FI. In other words trying to add a bunch of hp through FI would surely compromise engine durability.

With that aside why do so many bolt-on SCs put out impressive hp figures without an intercooler?

Do you have a dyno plot of the hp/tq curves for the 240R to show that at lower rpms it isn't getting much hp boost?

Why would it put out 247PS sitting still on a dyno with ZERO air movement then get beat by a 190PS Exige to 100km with more air? Doesn't make sense and unfortunately craps all over your hypothesis of poor cooling.

The fallacy of your logic is that you're comparing the engine's performance on a dyno opposed to real-world performance on a testing track. We don't know on what kind of dynamometer the engine testing was conducted on, as what kind of factors could have influenced the results: how much air could reach to the engine, how cool was that air, how warm was the air in the engine bay etc.

While the engine curve looks good on paper, it should perform better on the track - yet contrary to the results, it doesn't. This is an integral part in motorsports - engine power data is one part of the story, how the package performs on the track when it is influenced by realworld influences like air-density (heat), engine heat / heat in the engine bay, traction, tires etc is another. Air density plays a significant role in how much air can be forced into the engine - as such, its performance is very dependant on it. If the air forced into the engine is not cooled properly, engine performance will decrease. And I can assure you, being an Exige owner, I know for a fact that the engine bay does heat up significantly, especially during track-usage.

I also regret to inform you that it wasn't my hypothesis in the first place - but from Lotus engineers themselves. But hey, can't blame you can I? Obviously you haven't seen (or spent a good deal of time with) an Exige in real-life nor do you seem to have contact with representable Lotus engineers, so I can't really expect you to understand what's so plainfully obvious about using an insufficient air-intake (a mock-up really, as it's just there to look good) for the intercooler. Dreams are ment to be rosy, right?

 

[PC-Engine]

The fallacy of your logic is that you're comparing the engine's performance on a dyno opposed to real-world performance on a testing track. We don't know on what kind of dynamometer the engine testing was conducted on, as what kind of factors could have influenced the results: how much air could reach to the engine, how cool was that air, how warm was the air in the engine bay etc.

It's only a fallacy because you've completely missed the point. A dyno is designed to give accurate power figures corrected for temperature and barometric pressure differences. Done correctly the engine should be at peak operating temperature. It's also usually done with only a fan. Now unless the SC Exige was tested under the same ambient conditions on the track then the power figures will either go up or down on the track. This applys to any car whether it's SC or not. Of course this is common sense and was never argued. The point is how can a 190PS Exige get the same 0-100km time under the exact same conditions with 50PS less??? For this to happen the SC Exige would have to lose 40PS on the track which is rediculous. If your conclusion points to the poor cooling then why include an intercooler or SC in the first place if it doesn't increase performance compared to the normally aspirated version?

Is it possible that the 240R was tested under sub optimal conditions while the standard Exige was tested under ideal conditions? What RPM did they launch at? How many launches did they do? Was it a wet track? Ever wondered why different car magazines get different 0-100km times testing the same car? Yes that's right different drivers with different ambient track conditions. Heck the time variations can be as high as 1 sec for the same car.

Or maybe it's just a marketing poly by Lotus to sell the 240R for double the price without actually improving performance? That theory is as good as your cooling issue theory.

And I can assure you, being an Exige owner, I know for a fact that the engine bay does heat up significantly, especially during track-usage.

LOL, I don't think a person needs to actually own an Exige to know this. Every engine bay in every car gets hot under track usage.

I also regret to inform you that it wasn't my hypothesis in the first place - but from Lotus engineers themselves. But hey, can't blame you can I? Obviously you haven't seen (or spent a good deal of time with) an Exige in real-life nor do you seem to have contact with representable Lotus engineers, so I can't really expect you to understand what's so plainfully obvious about using an insufficient air-intake (a mock-up really, as it's just there to look good) for the intercooler. Dreams are ment to be rosy, right?

With all due respect, I don't think you've yet established enough credibility to actually have others believe your claims and supposed contacts.

FWIW my friend owns a tuning shop and he has a FI MR2 that goes from 0-100km in 5 sec. MR2's have no hood scoops and they weigh a lot more than Exiges. You telling me Lotus engineers cannot achieve what my friend has?

Finally since the Exige is coming to America along with the factory SC option, I'll wait for more road tests. I hear the Skyline GTR will be available in the US in a couple of years and if it's around $50K, I will have to choose between that and the 240R.

http://www.gtrproto.com/

On a side note have you guys seen the new VW EcoRacer? It's pretty sweet.

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/picture_library/dir_44/car_portal_pic_22221.jpg

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/picture_library/dir_44/car_portal_pic_22220.jpg

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/picture_library/dir_44/car_portal_pic_22222.jpg

Too bad it doesn't look like it's coming to America anytime soon.

 

[Reverend]

I've driven one as well (my client's car). The looks are too feminine for my taste but it handles very well, almost perfect for zipping about in light traffic and the acceleration from 2nd to 3rd is a great feeling.

 

[PC-Engine]

I think it looks more on the masculine side.:smile:

 

[Unknown Soldier]

US, out of curiousity, to you remember what specific models of Elise, WRXs and Evo's participated in that road test?

I assume it's an American magazine - did the Elise 111R / Exige S2 launch over there yet? As far as I can see from the official American Lotus website they haven't, though I hear they have?

thanks

Hi Phil

I'm not sure what version of the Elise it was .. but I know the WRX Sti was this years model and the Evo was VIII which I also take is this years model(since they said they were testing all the latest fast cars). I'll have a look to see what model the Elise was.

This is a South African publication (TopCar - October)

They went around the race track and the Evo did it in 1:59.30 the WRX Sti in 1:59.69 and the Elise was 2:02.xx

The Elise was faster 0-160-0 though .. 12.xx secs versus the Evo and WRX 13.xx secs

Please note that these tests were done at high altitude and so the cars are a bit slower than they would be if tested at sea level.

US

 

[Reverend]

I think it looks more on the masculine side.:smile:

<shrug> Some like cars that have a lot of curves. I don't.

 

[PC-Engine]

<shrug> Some like cars that have a lot of curves. I don't.

Just curious but do you consider a Dodge Viper feminine?:smile:

 

[Phil]

The point is how can a 190PS Exige get the same 0-100km time under the exact same conditions with 50PS less??? For this to happen the SC Exige would have to lose 40PS on the track which is rediculous.

I take it you've never actually driven a supercharged car that is overheating? I think you'd be surprised how much performance it'll take away, especially factoring in that the supercharger is already an added resistance to the engine.

If your conclusion points to the poor cooling then why include an intercooler or SC in the first place if it doesn't increase performance compared to the normally aspirated version?

Because while the intercooler does help, it's still not performing optimal and is damned to 'cause problems when it starts to overheat.

Is it possible that the 240R was tested under sub optimal conditions while the standard Exige was tested under ideal conditions? What RPM did they launch at? How many launches did they do? Was it a wet track? Ever wondered why different car magazines get different 0-100km times testing the same car? Yes that's right different drivers with different ambient track conditions. Heck the time variations can be as high as 1 sec for the same car.

Thanks for enlightening me to the obvious. I actually have read multiple reviews of the 240r - and while the data does vary little, I decided to go with the best-case data for the 240R. Whatever the reason for the lackluster performance of the 240R, my only gripe is that they managed to make a car failing on their claim while defying the whole point of the Exige itself: track usage.

With all due respect, I don't think you've yet established enough credibility to actually have others believe your claims and supposed contacts.

As I said, no one's forcing you to believe what I have stated. As a matter of fact, I thought especially you as a potential Exige buyer would be interested about this information, but (no offence) it's quite obvious that you are more concerned about how good you look while driving topless in an Exige without the roof... I suppose I'm arguing with the wrong person.

FWIW my friend owns a tuning shop and he has a FI MR2 that goes from 0-100km in 5 sec. MR2's have no hood scoops and they weigh a lot more than Exiges. You telling me Lotus engineers cannot achieve what my friend has?

MR2's have a broader range of tuners specialized - I also take it that they're employing a very similar approach as the one used in our supercharged Exige (which btw, is also built in by a Toyota specialized tuner). As you see, our SC Exige doesn't fetch air from the hood scoop either but from the front of the car. Many MR2 tuners do it this way and IMO, this is the best way to do it as you won't be limiting the performance of the charger by the cooling-air it can fetch through a mock-up hood scoop as is done with the 240R.

Finally since the Exige is coming to America along with the factory SC option, I'll wait for more road tests. I hear the Skyline GTR will be available in the US in a couple of years and if it's around $50K, I will have to choose between that and the 240R.

This is news to me - I take it you're not refering to any official SC option? I do know for a fact though that the new Exige's (2006 model) have traction-control and have a electronic-accelerator system beyond other small changes. Meh.

 

[Phil]

Hi Phil

I'm not sure what version of the Elise it was .. but I know the WRX Sti was this years model and the Evo was VIII which I also take is this years model(since they said they were testing all the latest fast cars). I'll have a look to see what model the Elise was.

This is a South African publication (TopCar - October)

They went around the race track and the Evo did it in 1:59.30 the WRX Sti in 1:59.69 and the Elise was 2:02.xx

The Elise was faster 0-160-0 though .. 12.xx secs versus the Evo and WRX 13.xx secs

Please note that these tests were done at high altitude and so the cars are a bit slower than they would be if tested at sea level.

US

Oh excellent, thanks. Given the times, I would actually think it's the older Elise (with the K-Series engine). Minimally faster on the straight but slower on the track than the STi and Evo VIII (this would be roughly in line with the results by Topgear's powerlaps). The equivilant Elise to the Exige, while good at cornering too, is quite significantly slower than an Exige on the track because of the decreased downforce, tires and the suspension is not as stiff...

BTW; I think you got those numbers of 0-160-0 wrong... 12.xx seconds from 0 to 160kmh and back to 0 would be very quick, in fact spectacular. The record was broken a few years ago by the Caterham Superlight R500 that did it in 11.44 seconds and beat the McLaren F1 by 0.06 seconds. The R500 however has a power-to-weight ratio of 2kg/ps - in other words, 500bhp per tonne and is one of the fastest accelerating cars even today. I think 12.xx seconds would be a little bit too quick for an STi, Evo or an Elise. Maybe you ment 0-100-0 km/h?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

hehe .. erm ye km/h

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The fastest car on that specific test was the Noble(UK car manufacturer but the car is built in SA. did the track in 1:4x.xx, the second fastest was the BMW M5 (1:57)then the Merc SL55 AMG(1:58 I think) then the Evo and WRX then the BMW M3 with a 2:01 then the Elise was 7th fastest (3 secs slower than the Evo).

US

 

[AAlcHemY]

Given the times, I would actually think it's the older Elise (with the K-Series engine). Minimally faster on the straight but slower on the track than the STi and Evo VIII (this would be roughly in line with the results by Topgear's powerlaps).

Now why would the K powered Elise automaticly be slower then a STi or Evo?

Also, never look at the the laptimes on Topgear for comparing different cars. ( because of the different weather conditions )

 

[Phil]

Now why would the K powered Elise automaticly be slower then a STi or Evo?

Also, never look at the the laptimes on Topgear for comparing different cars. ( because of the different weather conditions )

IMO because the Elise doesn't have the grunt to keep up with the STi and Evo which are both remarkable track-cars (especially the evo). It really depends on the track though...

BTW; I'm assuming we're talking about the standard Elise, with ~120bhp, not the 111s.

 

[AAlcHemY]

IMO because the Elise doesn't have the grunt to keep up with the STi and Evo which are both remarkable track-cars (especially the evo). It really depends on the track though...

BTW; I'm assuming we're talking about the standard Elise, with ~120bhp, not the 111s.

Indeed, the track makes a huge difference. But if the speeds are <90~100mph, it is very competitive.
I agree though, at higher speeds it lacks a bit of power.

A standard K owner.