A&Q about Lotus
Q:
I can't get over this. Why do cars weight so damn much?
The elise is the lightest current production car in the US, but it still weighs 400lbs more than this:
That plane can carry about 700Lbs, has space for 4, a decent size trunk, and it weighs 1500Lbs.
I understand that cars need stuff that planes don't, but the wings alone have twice the square footage of an elise.
...And it was designed around 40 years ago!
A:
Apples and Oranges.
The airplane has a thin aluminum skin (I mean thin - punch it with your finger to dent it). It's mostly empty space inside it. It doesn't' have to deal with the "safety" stuff that our car deals with. It has an air cooled engine - no water, radiator, or heating circuits and associated hoses. Doesn't need a cooling fan (it has a big one on the front). Plastic windows (don't have to worry much about safety glass or clean bugs hits off of it) which significantly less than glass. The list goes on.
It costs a lot more to build than an Elise.
A:
Here's one to think about.
The weight of a 1990 Honda CRX is just a tad over 2100lbs. This is done w/o an aluminum tub and without fiberglass everywhere. With carbon fiber hood, 12lb wheels, and interior striped along with the SPARE TIRE, many have been able to get their Honda CRXs below 2000lbs, which is a HARE above the 1984 as the Elise's listed weight.
So really, where is all the weight on the Lotus Elise?
A:
Originally Posted by cpforyou
So really, where is all the weight on the Lotus Elise?
In my case, a good portion of it is in the driver's seat.
It's pretty easy for the drive to represent 10% of the weight of the combined package.
A:
someone will have to strip their elise down and weigh every part.
A:
When you think about it the 1984lbs doesn't seem that impressive when you consider that a Scion xB only weighs 2,400lbs and it doesn't have an exotic bonded aluminum chassis or plastic body, has twice as many much larger seats, a ton more glass, and all of the same safety equipment. It's also super-mass-produced and cheap, so you know there's no exotic construction techniques or materials involved.
Given the dimensions you'd almost have to assume that if it were cut down to the Elise's size it would be around the same weight even though it's steel.
A:
I'd question their "safety" gear though in comparsion
A:
Originally Posted by ®ob
I'd question their "safety" gear though in comparsion
Meaning that the Elise's is better or worse? Safer or not? Heavier or lighter?
A:
Remember, the cost if "lightness" is not linear. It would be much easier to drop a few hundred pounds off a Mustang than an Elise. I suspect eliminating 400+ lbs from a Scion xB may pose much more difficult than it appears.
With all the pressure on car manufacturers to increase mileage, if it was cheap and easy to reduce some weight, they'd do it.
A:
I think there was about a 200lb differential between the toyota and rover Elises.
Some of it...
weight gain of toyota engine and tranny vs rover engine and tranny
added steel engine subframe extensions
airbags
brake servo assist unit, abs system
1 gallon larger fuel tank
start button
A:
Originally Posted by cpforyou
Here's one to think about.
The weight of a 1990 Honda CRX is just a tad over 2100lbs. This is done w/o an aluminum tub and without fiberglass everywhere. With carbon fiber hood, 12lb wheels, and interior striped along with the SPARE TIRE, many have been able to get their Honda CRXs below 2000lbs, which is a HARE above the 1984 as the Elise's listed weight.
So really, where is all the weight on the Lotus Elise?
As the owner of an '89 CRX I have considered this many times. Your points are good ones, and I'll add to them that the '89-'91 CRXs have passive seatbelt restraints, ie seatbelts mounted to the door instead of the B-pillar. The required reinforcements make the doors VERY heavy, and the '88 CRX is almost 100lb lighter. The two cars have a very similar footprint and height, so here's my crude assessment, CRX vs. Elise:
- smaller motor and gearbox
- no airbags, ABS, Side Impact Protection\
- smaller wheels, tires, and brakes
- no oil coolers
+ much more glass area, and a very heavy hatch
+ sunroof
+ uh, well it's made out of STEEL
Bottom line I get is that that the motor, gearbox, and motor mounts must be adding a lot of weight. Ignoring that the Elise should be at least 300lb less than the CRX.
A:
My '79 Scirocco had a weight on the door of 1,888 lbs. It was, in every way, as solid [feeling] as any car I've ever driven. The doors closed solid, it was quiet, handled well, etc... That was a car built in 1979. I'm not sure how safe they really were.
Light cars are possible. It's mostly a matter of competing with what's out there; safety, luxury, capacity, etc...
A:
Originally Posted by cpforyou
The weight of a 1990 Honda CRX is just a tad over 2100lbs. This is done w/o an aluminum tub and without fiberglass everywhere.
Yes. Similar story for the orignal VW Golf BTW.. The current one weighs about 1.5 metric tonne, which is almost twice the weight of the original Mark 1 GTI.
So really, where is all the weight on the Lotus Elise?
You're comparing apples to oranges.
The CRX quoted (or any older car) for instance compared to an Elise has the tortional rigidity of a wet paper towel. (even the modern Scion is most likely pretty bad there, but that's OK as it's not required to be super stiff)
If you were to beef up the 'chassis' (well.. you know what I mean) of a CRX to be comparable to the 11000N/mm rigidity of the Elise chassis you'd be welding in huge amounts of steel reinforcements.
That would make the base difference already quite a bit bigger.
And then there's simply the change in consumer expectation that makes it hard to compare current cars to older ones.
Take apart a CRX or a Golf of this era and you'll find that most parts are pretty crude and simple. They work, no doubt about that, but are not that good looking or wel finished/fitting. Current consumers don't accept that anymore. (well.. Actually they do if the car is cheap enough!)
The fed-Elise is also positively 'luxurious' compared to the original S1 with much, much more sound deadening, covers on many parts, padding (you think the current seats have little padding??? Original S1 ones have pretty much NONE, just a leather skin over the fibreglass shell), radio and speakers, etc. etc.
So for a good comparison between a CRX and the Elise you'd need to:
- Upgrade the CRX to comparable figures (strenght, power) as the Elise
- Strip down the Elise to S1 standards (1996)
And then compare again..
Because of some changes to the Elise with the fitment of the Toyota engine (eg. the large steel rear subframe compared to the rover versions) it will remain somewhat above the S1 weight level.
Also.. It is absolutely possible, with the right engineering, to build steel cars that are as light as an Elise. VW has shown this with some of their prototypes.
But the problem is that this is only feasible for large manufaturers, as the tooling to make steel cars is hugely expensive and only pays itself back if you make many many cars.
The reason why Lotus uses aluminium and fibreglass is also because this process is cheaper for them to use on such small production figures.
It's great to think/feel that Lotus strives for 'low weight' everywhere, but the reality is that they have to work within tight economical restraints and as such have to make a lot of tradeoff decisions.
Bye, Arno.
A:
My '82 Honda Civic hatchback weighed around 1500 lbs. :-)
A:
Originally Posted by Arno
But the problem is that this is only feasible for large manufaturers, as the tooling to make steel cars is hugely expensive and only pays itself back if you make many many cars.
The reason why Lotus uses aluminium and fibreglass is also because this process is cheaper for them to use on such small production figures.
It's great to think/feel that Lotus strives for 'low weight' everywhere, but the reality is that they have to work within tight economical restraints and as such have to make a lot of tradeoff decisions.
Bye, Arno.
Arno,
Your posts are always outstanding!!!