Talk:Lotus Elan

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Automobiles Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Brands Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Production Figures

"Production numbers are a highly debated topic, with some claiming that there were less than 4,000 vehicles ever produced, while Ann Talbot of Lotus USA cited US sales of 1,500 units in 1991, and Lotus Cars USA issued a statement that they sold more than 2,000 cars in the US in 1991 and 1992. "

Taking this point by point.

Production figures direct from the archivist at Lotus are definitive. Examination of the VIN numbers and month by month production figures shows that as far as Elan production is concerned precisely 3855 series 1 cars were produced together with 800 Series 2.

Total Lotus production of Elans in 1991 was 2060 with a further 495 in 1992, bear in mind that 1991 was the highest year of Elan production when a huge proportion of UK and Euro deliveries were made.

During 1991 Lotus also produced 56 Excels and 125 Esprits During 1992 the production figures for these models were 15 and 173 respectively. During 1991/2 the $ /£ exchange rate severely hit Lotus sales in the USA and the majority of sales were in the UK/Euro/Australian/Japanese markets. Elans in particular were priced at close to the levels Lotus were charging for the Elise almost a decade later.

The evidence is overwhelming that:

a) "Ann Talbot" is wrong (1500/2241) = 66% of year 1991 sales in the USA is massively off target.

b) 2000 cars in the USA in 1991/1992 = 68% of year 1991/92 sales in the USA, again massively off target.

Even in the best year for Elise sales in the USA they were absolutely nowhere near that level.

M100 23:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

I suppose this is what you are calling a "relavent talk page" in your vulgar and profane message delivered via the Wikipedia website. (Not faulting spelling, but I can find nothing with that title or various spellings of that title on the Wikipedia website). Worry not, I have already forwarded your vulgar message to the website administrators.

I have internal memos and paperwork issued by Lotus Cars USA (several of which were issued by Ann Talbot herself) to support my corrections to the Wikipedia page, and highly suggest that you consult Lotus Cars USA directly.

Further, the erroneous and overly deflated numbers often cited are form a single non-manufacturer source, of dubious origin, and have been disproven by other sources that you and others have chosen to ignore.

Additionally, I have prefaced my contribution with the statement that the production numbers are a hotly debated topic, as you yourself illustrate, by immediately using profanity when you disagree with someone else.

I would also point out that you have arbitrarily deleted other content that I added to the page, which does not relate to the production numbers: The 4XE1 engine used in the Elan came from the Gemini RB/I-Mark JT, not the Impulse. Lotus became familiar with the engine (and transmission) while suspension tuning the Gemini and I- Mark in 1987. The order for engines was speced and made in 1988 and 1989, and included original hydraulic lifters, smaller water pump, smaller oil pump, first generation cam timing/sprockets, first generation camshaft lobe profile, etc. The engine was certainly tailored for Lotus by Isuzu, as is evident by the British Standard Pipe Tapered (BSPT) thread used on the blow off valve fitting in the intercooler pipe for the top mounted intercooler, which Lotus later changed to a front/side mounted intercooler. This clearly indicates this is a second generation of this engine. The British Pipe Thread remained as a palimpsest in the third generation engine that was later used in the 1991 Impulse RS and Gemini JT191S (this is the only British pipe thread on those vehicles). The third generation engine was upgraded with solid lifters, larger water pump, larger oil pump altered camshaft timing, altered camshaft lobe profile, etc. Most importantly is the simple fact that the "engine from the Impulse" could not be used in the Elan, because the Elan went on sale two full years before that engine was used in the Impulse. Additionally, the use of the Isuzu transmission in addition to the Isuzu engine, which is significant to the discussion, because both were claimed to be faults by original reviewers, and have subsequently proven to be the strongest and most dependable mechanical pieces on the Elan.

I would remind you, as the Wikipedia administrators will likely also remind you, that you are not the only contributor to the Wikipedia website, and you have no right to unilaterally and without cause, remove the contributions and additions of other Wikipedia users.

Contributing does not mean erasing the factual information contributed by others simply because you disagree with it.

—The preceding

) .

---

+Your edits on the engine I agree with, indeed they are probably the only proper online summary of the engines origins BUT the production figures you quote are absolutely and positively incorrect, there is no doubt about them. They have been verified by the manufacturer of the vehicle (not some independent importer such as Lotus USA was at the time) nor have they come from "a single non-manufacturer source, of dubious origin" Not that Lotus have ever officially put them into the public domain but on request from Lotus HQ anyone can verify them as being correct.

Also anyone with access to the 1994 issue of the Official Lotus Published Service Parts List and referring to the "Elan Model History" near the front of that manual would see the overall production figures for the Elan and Elan S2 together with the number of Elan NA's.

In additon if you look at the Autoweek interview in June 2004 with the then Lotus USA CEO Arnue Johnson he states "Johnson believes the best year for Lotus here was roughly 1000 cars. He isn't sure, because it came during the Europa era in the early 1970s when there were "still five distributorships. "

and

"The Giugiaro-penned Esprit ...... in 1977, Lotus sold 700 copies. ......Sales tanked....They never came back, says Johnson. There was a spike to 330 with the Esprit Turbo, but the average has been about 150."

Arnie Johnson was at Lotus USA in 1991/92

Lotus had HOPED to have sold many more Elans in the USA than they did but the plain facts are they didn't, hence the huge suplus stocks of Federal only parts that have been dumped to landfill or sold off cheap by Lotus in the UK for the past 10 years or so.

To suggest that out of 3855 Elans produced from 1989-1992 more circa 2000 are in the USA is ridiculous in the extreme.

—The preceding

) .

---

Lotus Cars USA was and is the authorized and licensed importer and seller of Lotus vehicles in the US, and has been so for a very long time. Your use of the word "independent" may be technically accurate, however, your inference that the continued rights to import and sell cars and license of the Lotus trademark indicate a level of control over the distributor by the vehicle manufacturer which you wish to dismiss out of hand. Lotus Cars USA holds a great deal more authority over the subject than you. Your absurd allegation that Lotus Cars USA and their employees, including Ann Talbot whom you acknowledge as a Lotus employee, are fabricating sales numbers, is just that, absurd.

Your quote from Arnue Johnson does little to support your assertions, and really adds more to the disagreement on the matter, because Arnue Johnson was not Lotus CEO in 1991, 1992, 1993, or 1994, a time when the company CEO would have been very familiar with the production numbers of the then current models. Additionally, Arnue Johnson specifically uses the word "roughly", indicating that even he is unsure of what he is stating.

It is very nice to cite your believed numbers for Esprit and other models, however, the Elan was conceived and executed as a mass production model, while ever model you cite (and ever other Lotus model ever built) was conceived and executed as a hand built model.

Sir, to quote you and direct your own words toward you: "the production figures you quote are absolutely and positively incorrect".

Any entry for the Lotus Elan in the Wikipedia database which does not include the US sales numbers stated by Ann Talbot and Lotus Cars USA is unacceptable and dishonest.

—The preceding

) .

Lotus UK issue the VIN numbers for all cars under strict conditions regulated by UK and European law, all Elans without exception were produced in the UK. VIN numbers are not issued by Lotus Cars USA and neither have any Elans been produced there. Cars for sale into the USA however do have a different VIN sequence produced in accordance with US legislation.

Contiguous build records exist for every 1990's Elan regardless of market are stil held by Lotus UK indicating the vehicle configuration, date of build and other relevant information. It is from these records the total production and US export production are obtained.

The facts are Lotus Cars only produced cars in the numbers previously stated, Lotus USA, their employees and rep[resentatives can say all they want but the numbers recorded by the factory are absolute and verifiable, your "Ann Talbot" quote was retained for the reader of the article to consider in context.

No one, least of all me removed "Any entry for the Lotus Elan in the Wikipedia database which does not include the US sales numbers stated by Ann Talbot and Lotus Cars USA is unacceptable and dishonest." If you look with your eyes you will notice It is still included. Unlike the verified production figures which you obviously felt at liberty to remove as not fitting your version of "history".

M100 17:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As further "evidence" provided by none other than the NHTSA

go to http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/recalls/recallresults.cfm?start=1&SearchType=DrillDown&type=VEHICLE&year=1991&make=LOTUS&model=ELAN&vehtype=UNK&typenum=1&component_id=146&prod_id=82766&PrintVersion=YES

Which is the information on the fuel tank recall on all USA Elans, initiated by Lotus Cars USA. Notice the "Potential Number Of Units Affected " = 546 Nowhere near 1500 or 2000. Please note this was a "total production recall" and not a selective one. I could explain the difference between the 546 quoted by the NHTSA and 559 quoted by Lotus but that would only confuse you even further.

M100 17:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JT191Said "The engine was certainly tailored for Lotus by Isuzu, as is evident by the British Standard Pipe Tapered (BSPT) thread used on the blow off valve fitting in the intercooler pipe for the top mounted intercooler, which Lotus later changed to a front/side mounted intercooler. This clearly indicates this is a second generation of this engine. The British Pipe Thread remained as a palimpsest in the third generation engine that was later used in the 1991 Impulse RS and Gemini JT191S (this is the only British pipe thread on those vehicles). "

It's over two decades since I started working on this project but I can categorically assure you that no one at Lotus had any input whatsoever to the engine in the Isuzu Gemini RB/I-Mark JT. The British Pipe Thread you referred to is indeed the exact same dimensions and tolerances as a British Pipe Thread but it's not British it is a JIS Pipe Thread, a widely used Japanese Industrial Standard. There was some input by Lotus to the powertrain specification used on the Elan but this is already very accurately documented elsewhere. As far as the Lotus involvement on the Isuzu Gemini, the extent of the input wouldn't ever be to change thread forms of an established design, especially on a vehicle on which Lotus were contracted for minor input to the chassis tuning and absolutely nothing on the powertrain. I emphasize that Lotus were not contracted at any point to do any work on the powertrain, nor did we do any work as it was completely outside our remit, the engineering team involved was comprised only of chassis engineers, and in any case there would be absolutely no point either from a financial or engineering view of making such a change (not that there was anything to change, the thread forms being identical)

P.S. Your rants about production figures are humourous but ill informed and without any basis in fact, the figures quoted by the UK factory will always be accurate, the error level is zero and while production might sometimes be internally absorbed in staff cars every one is very clearly documented. Cars simply don't leak out the works, ever. Talk of thousands of sales per annum to the USA are very wide of the mark and anything else you quoted in support of your argument is quite clearly marketing hyperbole released to the press by persons unknown at Lotus USA 78.105.243.21 (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose that this single page be broken out into three separate pages - the Lotus Elan, Lotus Elan +2, and Lotus Elan M100 (or something like that). I feel that each major car should have its own page, car specs, history, and relevant information.

Alternatively, of course, three distinct sections could be made on this page. Anyone have any comments, thoughts, or other suggestions?

Heggalek 23:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any need to split this page. The article is still of a very manageable size, realistically the page doesn't need to cover everything and nor could it, for that the various cars would need a wiki all of their own. M100 00:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your comments on production numbers (guesstimates by Johnson, that are DEMONSTRABLY wrong) have no place in an encyclopedia) I do believe that the M100 should be split off and given its own page. The two Elans have NOTHING in common beyond their name - there is no connection or resemblance. 1960s vs 1990s, front wheel drive vs rear, massive success vs commercial failure......... unsigned comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.2.150 (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 340R was a production car. But I can't change that table, so if someone knows how... —The preceding

]

62.136.2.150 (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The front drive version of this "Lotus" did not receive any positive or even mixed reviews from the mainstream motoring press. By an large, this car was (justifiably) regarded as a complete joke totally undeserving of the Louts name. A Pontiac Fiero re-badged as a Ferrari would have in fact been vastly more credible. It was no more a real Lotus than Chrysler's TC by Maserati was a real Maserati. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.73.57 (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a load of nonsense. The M100 had some great reviews, along with some that were more mixed. More importantly, the car was every inch a Lotus - lightweight and innovative, however much the hairy-chested macho men can't see anything with front wheel drive as being valid. A Lotus does not have to have rear wheel drive, a mid-mounted engine, or a big engine, but it does have to have great handling, good performance and innovative engineering. The M100 had all of these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.46.61 (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article to reflect the cancellation of the new Elan project.Mr Tangle (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Plus 2 needs fuller treatment and a less flowery description (the current one reads like a bad advert). I shall write something when I have a spare few minutes.Mr Tangle (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's right - needs a precis and clean up - the 'Emma Peel' reference has become considerably displaced!--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which transmissions were used except my memory of my Father's 68 Elan. I am pretty sure it was a 4 speed, definitely manual. I can't find any mention of it in the article and wanted to see if anyone could provide that information.Mechans (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The usual 5 speed upgrade (popular in the 1980s) was to use internals from (of all bizarre things) the Austin Maxi. Several other gearboxes appeared, including the Ford 2000E. Web search for it - plenty of people still support the early Elan. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(May 26, 2018)

I have just submitted a large change to the segment on the 1960s/1970s Elan. This is my first big Wikipedia edit, so I hope I haven't messed up too badly.

All the original text for this segment has been retained, with some reorganization and associated minor edits. I updated the Overview, Production and Owners sections, and added sections on:

• Reviews
• Influence
• Racing
• Construction (with subsections)
• Major Component Suppiers (I'm not sure if this section is needed)
• Weight
• Performance
• Price
• Collectability

+2 Segment: I added minor additional content to the +2 segment, and broke it into Overview, Construction, Performance and Production sections.

Also added a couple of gallery pictures and fixed up the Type 26 Register external link.

(M100 Segment: I made no changes to the M100 segment, except: added a reference to the Vigato, which was marked "Citation required," and clarified one sentence that referred to the 1960s/1970s Elan.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenadille (talk • contribs) 12:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(October 31, 2018)

Several updates:

1960s/1970s Elan section:

• NicholasLeeHansen updated the Front & Rear suspension sections a while ago (thanks - it was needed!). Tweaked the text to (hopefully) improve the flow and add a bit more detail.
• Added a newly found weight from an original 1500 Elan brochure.
• Minor revamp of the Performance segment. Added a new table using Robinshaw/Ross data, shortened the overly long Sprint table.
• Added a new segment - "Series (model) differences" - to tabulate how the S1-Sprint models differed. Not particularly happy with the result, but the table is needed so it's a start.
• Realized that there were two Bibliography segments, so coalesced them into one.
• Added Brian Buckland's book the to the Bibliography and used it as a reference in the Series differences segment. How it has been missing for so long is a mystery.
• A few other trivial fixes.

+2:

• Nicholas corrected the MacPherson strut references to double wishbone references in the 60s/70s segment. Fixed up the +2 segment to match.

M100:

• No changes

Grenadille (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(26 December 2018)

Lotus Elan 1500, 1600, S2, S3, S4, Sprint:

Update to make the page more consistent with the standards suggested at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions

This primarily involved changes to the Power/Torque/Performance tables.

• A few typos fixed.
• A few minor details added to the Suspension/steering/brakes, Major component suppliers, and Series differences sections.

Elan +2:

Typo fixed.

M100:

No changes

Grenadille (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(14 March 2019)

Recent discussions in www.lotuselan.net make it clear that Wikipedia entry gets the combinations of Type 36/45 & S3/S4/Sprint completely wrong and this is verified in Robinshaw & Ross. This has been wrong for a very long time, a mistake made by an early contributor (not me!) using Michael Sedgwick & Mark Gillies A-Z of Cars as the reference point. I've never seen this book so can't be sure. Anyway, I fixed the page up per Robinshaw & Ross, a highly reliable source.

Several other minor fixups while I was at it. New references from GQ magazine, YouTube and www.thetruthaboutcars.com.

Grenadille (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no expertise to share on this, but you deserve to be thanked for tidying the thing up. So thank you. And success Charles01 (talk) 08:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(7 September 2019)

Finally got around to improving the Gallery for the Elan and +2 sections. Having attended LOG 39 (the US Lotus Owners Group annual meeting) in Sturbridge, Massachusetts in August, 2019 I was able to take pictures of a wide range of Elans.

The only wrinkle is that they were all left hand drive cars, which is a shame for an English built car, but hopefully the updated gallery is better than nothing (even the London Science Museum's Elan rolling chassis exhibit was left hand drive). In an attempt to balance things I have included a few RHD photos from Wikimedia Commons. Anyway, somebody else can add their photos.

I moved the previous "Lotus Elan 1500, 1600, S2, S3, S4, Sprint" Infobox photo (in the right hand side-panel), which was of a rather bland S2, to the Gallery and replaced it with a photo of a much sharper S4. The old photo was low resolution and cluttered with another car in the background. Wikipedia advises using a high resolution photo with minimal background clutter. So I guess it's worth trying to do this for the Infobox photo, at least.

Other changes:

• Split the Elan gallery into sections (e.g. one for each Series)
• Added Harry Metcalfe and his Elan Youtube video to the Owners section
• Added door/bonnet/boot weights, because I happen to have them
• Added door dimensions, comparing Elan with E-Type and MG-B
• Updated the Pricing section to reflect that some kits apparently needed the rear suspension to be installed by the purchaser (which can't have been fun). Included a reference to an article on kit construction
• Removed a broken reference to the Lotus Elise
• Created a small Gallery for the +2 section
• Fixed a trivial Wikipedia html markup convention error in the M100 section

Grenadille (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]