The Lotus Cars Community banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,819 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi All,

I assume that the 111 in "Club111" and "Sector111" are related to the Elise 111R and 111S model names - but why are those models called 111 in the first place?

--Josh
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,819 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Great, thanks. I figured it was that. From reading that list I'm surprised that the redesign didn't net a new number. They seem to be somewhat inconsistent as to when a new number is pulled.

Thanks,

--Josh
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,262 Posts
From the another post along time ago:

S2.5

A full S3 would consist of significant chassis change, which didn't happen. The different engine setups had different model numbers - 111(*) , 135, 160, 190. So as everywhere except the US this model is considered the S2 111R.

2006, sadly, will bring the S3 chassis to meet the US DOT & NHTSA regulations. I doubt that the S3 will be as nice as the S2 or S1 Elise Chassis. Hopefully Lotus will surpise us.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,819 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
"2006, sadly, will bring the S3 chassis"

To confirm - Model Year 2006 will be this current generation, right?

--Josh
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,262 Posts
Er, yeah, Model year 2006 will be the same. But according to what we've seen on the exemptions Lotus said they would have a new Elise in 2006/MY2007.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,063 Posts
JWA said:
Great, thanks. I figured it was that. From reading that list I'm surprised that the redesign didn't net a new number.
Officially they do have separate numbers:

Original Elise S1 is type 111
Opel Speedster/Vauxhall VX220 is type 116
Elise S2 with rover engine is type 117

And now the toyota powered elises are (I think) type 120.

This type number is used in the parts list. On the S2 elise you see a lot of A117xxxxx parts, although there are also still a lot of A111xxxx (aka. S1 parts) on the car.

Bye, Arno.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,269 Posts
I remember reading that Porsche originally intended on calling the '911' by the sequence '901' but one of the French car makers, either Renault or Peugeot, claimed that they had the rights to all
three digit numbers containing '0' in the middle of the other two. I'm sure the French would have lost in a drawn out legal case, but Porsche didn't think it was that important for them to pursue it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Type 13 and 113 skipped intentionally. Good to know we still haven't managed to climb out of the caves yet.

Holy bejeesus!! I just walked under a ladder!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
223 Posts
Ridgemanron said:
I remember reading that Porsche originally intended on calling the '911' by the sequence '901' but one of the French car makers, either Renault or Peugeot, claimed that they had the rights to all
three digit numbers containing '0' in the middle of the other two. I'm sure the French would have lost in a drawn out legal case, but Porsche didn't think it was that important for them to pursue it.
It was Peugeot and they would have win the case because they had been using the the middle 0 for a much longer time, since 1930 infact and were a bigger company than Porsche.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,269 Posts
Toine said:
It was Peugeot and they would have win the case because they had been using the the middle 0 for a much longer time, since 1930 infact and were a bigger company than Porsche.
Some legal eagles I've spoken to said that something as basic as a middle '0', in between two other numbers, would never be awarded in a court action. Also, didn't BMW have a '507' years ago?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
Intel presented a similar challenge back in the days when all their processors were numerically designated and marketed 286, 386, 486... AMD and a few others were more than happy to use the same numeric designations in the names of their competing products. Intel sued and found out that you cannot trademark a number, hence the scrapping of the 586 and the introduction of the Pentium.

This of course may be completely irrelevant since this has nothing to do with European law.

Jim
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top