December Car and Driver Preview 2005 Elise

[ivan1]

Just got my December C and D and there is a 2 page preview of the 2005 Elise.
Some quotes :
"Not much this side of an exotic supercar will keep up with it on a racetrack"
"....for those accustomed to the Rover-engined Elise, the Toyota-powered car is noticeably quicker.... Besides which it sounds terrific."
"will use a unique Yokohama tire" (I think we already knew this)
"the convertible top is from the '00 car" (is this good?)

If I give any more away the C and D people will probably come after me...
There are some pics - they are of a RHD car but with the radio and A/C in the center...

[jml1952]

Thanks for the heads-up. No doubt you have seen the November Road and Track issue.

[Derek]

Two word... POST IT

[ivan1]

I tried to post it but couldn't get the resolution good enough to read the text within the limits of uploadable file size. I am sure it can be done but I don't have time right now to play around with the settings. I am happy to e-mail it as a jpeg attachment...Just write me at ivan1@aol.com

[ivan1]

Here are some pics at least

[ivan1]

Notice on the first pic the openings for the exhaust are on the sides like the euro car but you don't see the exhaust tips nor do you see the center exhaust seen in the US car pics in Road and Track.

[L8BRAKR]

That second pic has the same stupid lump in the access panel we were told was a photographic anomaly in the R&T article.

[ConeFusion]

Looking at those numbers, they list the weight as 2000 lbs. And, at the risk of being shot down by the Performance Does Not Matter Mafia , 0-60mph at 4.9s, 0-100mph in 12.6s.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by ConeFusion
Looking at those numbers, they list the weight as 2000 lbs. And, at the risk of being shot down by the Performance Does Not Matter Mafia , 0-60mph at 4.9s, 0-100mph in 12.6s.

That does seem darn quick.

Hopefully the weight stops creeping up.

Next review we see it will be 2100 lbs and ends up on American shores as an SUV. P

0-100 mph, is that basically equivalent to 1/4 mile speed?

Is the 0-100mph time usually higher than 1/4 mile speed?

Trying to put this in a frame of reference compared to the R&T 12 second 1/4 mile time.

[Derek]

Originally posted by L8BRAKR
That second pic has the same stupid lump in the access panel we were told was a photographic anomaly in the R&T article.

OK... I see it now. Not sure how I missed it last time but I did.

What is that thing?

Is it just on the test mules or is it gonna make it way onto the finished car?

[ivan1]

It seems the 0-60 has been creeping up also...I don't think you can translate 0-100 time to 1/4 mile time...Two cars can have the same 0-100 time but different 1/4 mile times depending on how fast they are 0-30,30-60,60-100....

[Randy Chase]

Thanks ivan!

[ConeFusion]

Originally posted by Andreas
Is the 0-100mph time usually higher than 1/4 mile speed?

We're going to be in so much trouble for discussing this... I swear that I'm not obsessed with straight line speed, I'm just bored.

It depends. If the trap speed in the 1/4 mile is higher than 100mph (as you would expect for a relatively fast car), the 1/4 mile time would have to be higher than the 0-100mph.

Punching 2000 lbs and 190 HP into one of the online calculators gives a 12.8s @ 107mph 1/4 mile. That doesn't look perfectly consistent with a 12.6s 0-100mph, but it's not too far off. Some unscientific playing with numbers indicates that a 13.1s 1/4 mile time would go with a 12.6s 0-100mph.

[Arno]

Originally posted by L8BRAKR
That second pic has the same stupid lump in the access panel we were told was a photographic anomaly in the R&T article.

I suspect that the US Elise will have a similar arrangement like the S2 Exige pictures.

The front access panels on the S2 exige pictures also show them to be more horizontal than on the current S2 where they slope downward quite steeply.

My guess is that this is to make room for the brake booster under the panels. There is very little room and the un-assisted master cylinder on current models just fits..

This blue car is obviously a mule (the leftover holes in the rear for the euro-exhaust make that clear) and the 'bulge' is probably just a cover to gain enough room under the standard S2 access panels for the brake booster and ABS.

Bye, Arno.

[Vantage]

I'm not expecting anything better than mid-13's under clutch abusive conditions and maybe low 14's with a more reasonable start. Figures like 20-40, 30-60, 40-80, etc. interest me more. The start does matter a bit in Auto-X, but I don't remember the last time standing start acceleration mattered in canyon runs.

Are we talking about the slight bulge right in front of the windshield on the left side of the car, near the place that air passing through the radiator comes out?

[zvezdah1]

L8brkr,
I went back and looked at the R&T magazine. In the R&T article the top right pic on pg. 73, does indeed have a bulge. I can tell you the two US test cars I saw DID NOT have bulges.

Looking at the rear of the car, I lightened up the image, you can just see the hint of the tips coming out the bottom of the diffuser.
It also looks the like the 5 bolt speedster wheels on the back, but hard to tell for sure.
chris

[jahwerx]

I think its funny that R&T spotlighted the car while C&D shoved it to some back page in dramatic "ho hum" fashion

I was certainly excited to not read the article about the PONTIAC on the cover.

You know what that stands for right?
Pretty
Ordinary;
Not
Technically
Innovative;
Add
Cladding (Of course there is LESS cladding now)

[zvezdah1]

I think C&D probably downplayed it since they were thoroughly scooped by R&T.
Chris

[Lotus Fury]

Originally posted by ConeFusion
Looking at those numbers, they list the weight as 2000 lbs. And, at the risk of being shot down by the Performance Does Not Matter Mafia , 0-60mph at 4.9s, 0-100mph in 12.6s.

Don't worry about the 0-60 time, seconds over there are longer just like their gallons are bigger...

[babak]

Edited [ignore this posted to quickly, somebody beat me to it]

Originally posted by L8BRAKR
That second pic has the same stupid lump in the access panel we were told was a photographic anomaly in the R&T article.

Not an anomaly if you ask me, look at the R&T article, page 73, top right photo, it has the 'lump' (it's on the edge of the photo but you can see the leading edge very clearly)