The Lotus Elite was a big step for little Lotus, in an effort to expand its offerings beyond the ultra-light sports cars it had mostly built its reputation and business on. In some ways, it was very much in tune with the times. But its price and ambitions to be a world class GT with a 2 liter four cylinder engine was a stretch. $16,000 ($72,000 adjusted) was serious money back then, like Porsche 911 Carrera money. And the 911, also a 2+2, could run circles around the Elite. No wonder the Elite was only marginally successful.Â
I had a hard time getting excited about the Elite at the time; its design just didn’t resonate with me, despite its general similarity to other contemporary 2+2s like the Lamborghini Espada. Perhaps it was its scale, or just knowing that there was only a four cylinder under the hood.
The Elite’s rear end was particularly unhappy in my eyes, having a very amateurish resolution to its wedge body. But then it’s not an easy brief, and a number of cars at the time had similar issues.
O-60 in 11.1 seconds. Well, it was 1975, but even a Chevy Nova V8 could do better; never mind a 911.
0-60 acceleration isn’t too bad considering the equipment needed to meet U.S. safety and emissions requirements.
I don’t think this car complied with US emissions standards. Lotus said they achieved clean emissions “without resorting to the usual crutches.” My interpretation is that Lotus gave Road & Track a car with a European spec engine and told them it was clean enough for the 1974 model year. The fuel economy returned by the Lotus point to it being completely unhobbled by emissions controls. Few 1974 cars ran on 91 octane leaded fuel in California spec, which is how Road & Track generally tested cars.
To put the performance claims in perspective, the power, weight, and torque curves of this Lotus are almost exactly equal to a Honda Civic LX 5-speed Car and Driver tested in 2006. That Honda hit 60 mph in 7.7 seconds.
2006 Honda V 1967 Vauxhall Victor thats where lotus got that engine Lotus DOHC head replacing the Vauxhall Sohc buts its still very old tech compared to that Honda howevder the honda would not keep up around a corner.
All the Lotus 900 series engines used aluminum blocks in production form, while the Vauxhall short-blocks they used when developing the 16-valve heads were cast iron. The Honda Civic LX was a 4 door sedan that sold for 16,000 2006 dollars, so not having the most exotic chassis or tires might be taken for granted. That being said, the Honda’s rear suspension makes the Chapman struts in the Lotus look like something off a Morgan. If you can find a forty year old Lotus Elite that runs, I’d happily drive circles around you in my 2007 Civic sedan, considering how many Grand Am championships the eighth generation Civic won in fairly stock form.
My point in mentioning the Civic was that the Lotus doesn’t perform like a 140 hp, 2,600 lbs car with a five-speed should perform. 0-60 in 11.1 seconds is indicative of something closer to 100 hp.
I wouldn’t assume torque curve looks like the Honda engine’s, though, since the Honda had i-VTEC. The text here notes the peakiness of the engine being a great annoyance; peak torque is similar to the Honda’s, but the Honda engine had variable valve timing and a variable-length intake manifold to fatten up the lower end of the torque curve, where the Lotus engine was weakest. Also, while I’m not sufficiently motivated to look up the Civic’s gear ratios, but I am reasonably certain its final drive ratio was at least 10% shorter than the Elite’s, possibly as much as 20%, which is significant when torque is at a premium.
If the 119 mph top speed is an actual observed maximum, not an estimate or manufacturer’s figure, the engine had more than 100 hp. However, if the Cd claim is to be trusted, I agree that it’s not 140 hp — maybe 120 or 125 hp. The issue is not the 0-60 time so much as the quarter mile figures and the 0-100.
An interesting counterpoint is to compare the performance to the (somewhat later) Datsun 280ZX or Mk3 Ford Capri 3000, both of which had 135–140 net horsepower. The Datsun, with gearing very similar to the Elite’s, about the same claimed horsepower, and what would seem likely to be inferior aerodynamics, was at least 4 seconds faster than the Elite to 100 mph and had very nearly the same top speed. Likewise the Essex-engined Capri, whose aerodynamics were improved over the Mk2 Capri, but still not so good.
The 280ZX and Capri had a bunch more torque, but that wouldn’t help in top speed. So, either the Elite’s claimed 0.30 Cd was hogwash or its engine wasn’t making a full 140 hp or both.
I’m leaning toward “both,” myself. The European Porsche 924 was just as fast as the European Elite (which claimed 155 PS DIN) with 30 fewer horsepower and a significantly higher claimed Cd (0.36).
But this was a performance car not your mums Nova. Yes for the money the car was crap.
I never knew they were in 911 price range in the US.
I’m pretty sure the 911 price range stared out considerably lower. The Carrera mentioned was a limited production, top-of-the-line model.
According to NADA, the base price of a 1975 Porsche 911 in the US was $11,900.
It’s a very ’70s ‘wedge’ (and in a suitably bright yellow) which is a bit of a love/hate thing anyway. The door handles are actually off the Morris Marina, equally as humble and lambasted as the AMC Gremlin, but easier for Lotus to buy.
The flimsy interior is unforgivable in what was supposed to be a high-end car.
I actually think this is quite a good-looking car, but I have to admit I don’t get a lot of the cars Lotus used to build. A road-legal track machine is one thing. Weight is bad for handling and since racing is class-based small, super-high output engines make sense.
But this is a road car. On the road, a few hundred pounds make very little difference, but some added displacement and solid (metal) body construction sure do. Why not stiffen the whole thing up a bit and stick in an engine worthy of 17k 70s bucks, something in the 3-liter class, and walk away a winner instead of selling to weird niche buyers.
The funny part is how the author of the article seemed to think that rich people would be buying fewer powerful GT cars because of higher energy prices and taxation. Why would rich people care about energy costs? Do Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio want punitively costly energy to discourage their own private jet use? There still isn’t a market for lightweight sports cars, but there are buyers fighting over two-ton, 600 hp rocket sleds that would lose an autocross to a Porsche 914.
The immediate impact of the first OPEC embargo was the fear that availability of fuel was vulnerable — it’s not that rich people were concerned with how much it cost to fill the tank, but the prospect of waiting in line with the peasants at the gas station or only being able to fill up on alternating days was something else. It hasn’t yet come to that again, but it was something on people’s minds in 1974–75.
Mmmm dat glass. On the doors it’s taller than the sheetmetal. Love it!
Lotus:
Lots Of Trouble, Usually Serious.
I’ve always been fond of the shape of these, but the decision not to give it more engine is something of a puzzler at that price point.
Lotus only had one engine. They turbo’d it later and maybe that could have worked here too.
I like these in that same quirky 70’s way I like the Roger Moore Bond films.
For that money though? And that performance? Forget it.
Agreed on both counts. The interesting thing is, one could have bought two used 1968 or ’69 AMX coupes with far more get-up-and-go, as well as two cherry used Toronados or Rivieras (one of each, preferably) with plenty of oomph and all the creature comforts for the money one would spend on that one Lotus.
If that car had been closer to the $9000 price point it might have done well, even with only that four-banger. However, In the 1970s USA one expected more than a nameplate for that kind of money – and both AMC and GM offered more than Lotus could. Not as technically advanced, to be sure, but they fit the bill for the time and the place.
I think the Porsche 924 is probably an instructive comparison — comparable straight-line performance, decent economy, similar utility, no sacrifice in handling, probably notably better build quality, less awkward styling — and the price (in MY1977) started around $9,300 in the U.S.
Oh, the British. I loved my MG’s, both bought used and over 8 years old, so I was willing to tolerate knobs falling off, carpets and sun visors not fitting properly and various quirks and foibles that come with the territory. But $17K in 1975 was a bucket-load of money to pay for “Traditional British Quality”. Thank goodness the Brits finally came to understand that manufacturing technical goods just wasn’t their forte’.
Well there are still some manufacturers in Britain, for example… Lotus?
Lotus always struck me as overpriced plastic kit cars with a few rare exceptions(like the original Elan and Esprit…somewhat). Everything in between like this makes me dumbfounded that Lotus is still manufacturing road cars today, a new Elise isn’t any cheaper afterall and garounteed there’s dozens of lesser cars that would whoop one of those too. The styling of this one actually reminds me most of a mid-80s Honda Civic hatchback, probably just as fast too.
0-60 times are not why you get a Lotus.
Quick! Somebody get Malcolm Bricklin on the phone!
Not a bad idea, but you’ll have to find a way to graft some gullwing doors on this thing, or he’s not biting. 😉
Oh, it’ll be fine; Malcolm Bricklin always brought plenty of his own graft.
I had a Tomica diecast of one as a kid; it offered the metal body and Japanese build quality the real thing lacked, for a lot less than 17 grand.
It was probably equally comfortable as well, if the review is any indication.
Sorry but, this steaming pile makes a Gremlin look good.
A classic example of a car for a person with more money than sense.
Any hope of getting a scan of the last page of the article? I enjoy these features, but I’m curious what their conclusion was.
Updated now with missing page.
It ends up looking sort of like a more angular Volvo 1800ES or a wedgier Reliant Scimitar GTE. The latter obviously wasn’t offered in the U.S., but for a British buyer, the Scimitar seems like the way to go; better visually resolved, just as quick, more practical, and I think a fair bit cheaper.
Found my 1976 Buyers Guide /Annual. Here is the Last page.
I just added it to the post.