Elise S3 1.6 owners - thoughts?
Discussion
I like my CR really quite a lot. Certainly, it's not as quick as previous cars I've had (see profile). Quicker than my wife's Cooper S though.
I test drove one and a super-charged, and preferred the slower car. It has to be driven - meaning foot on floor most of the time, gears stirred, but that's all part of the fun, and getting quickly round those bends. I felt the SC was much more "point and squirt", or even "too quick" - for what I wanted, anyway. I'm not a maniac!
Car has a rattle - which went away, and now is back - but it's a minor thing and not audible with the top off ! ;o)
I didn't driven the old 1.8R, but I doubt the 1.6 is slower in the real world, so much being down to the driver to catch the revs, keep the speed round the bends etc.
Anyway, like I say, great fun. I don't keep track of mpg but certainly a fill up with 95 unleaded is cheaper than I'm used to and seems to go quite a long way.
I test drove one and a super-charged, and preferred the slower car. It has to be driven - meaning foot on floor most of the time, gears stirred, but that's all part of the fun, and getting quickly round those bends. I felt the SC was much more "point and squirt", or even "too quick" - for what I wanted, anyway. I'm not a maniac!
Car has a rattle - which went away, and now is back - but it's a minor thing and not audible with the top off ! ;o)
I didn't driven the old 1.8R, but I doubt the 1.6 is slower in the real world, so much being down to the driver to catch the revs, keep the speed round the bends etc.
Anyway, like I say, great fun. I don't keep track of mpg but certainly a fill up with 95 unleaded is cheaper than I'm used to and seems to go quite a long way.
daveknott5 said:
V interesting. Lotus claim that with a suitably light foot, an owner could achieve 500 miles on one tank in the 1.6 - over 50mpg! Now that would be impressive!
40mpg and 300 miles is easily achievable in an S1 if that thing floats your boat. Not sure what size fuel tank is in the latest cars, but you'd have to drive like a vicar to get 500 miles IMO. Not really the point of the car and a bit of a waste.
Even pushing on, however, it's still better than anything else with comparable performance.
Coming from an Elise SC (which i sold at great loss after just 3 months as it was too slow...) personally I'd struggle to see how the 1.6 could deliver.
Fantastic handling is great, being left behind by a diesel hatchback is not...
I replaced the SC with a VX Turbo, same chassis, but with nitrons for much better handling, and 300bhp / 360ft lb, enough to leave 911's & M3's in its wake, and its abilitys through corners are far greater than mine!
And the best bit... £14k so for a 'toy' youve not got a huge amount of your money tied up sitting in the garage!
Fantastic handling is great, being left behind by a diesel hatchback is not...
I replaced the SC with a VX Turbo, same chassis, but with nitrons for much better handling, and 300bhp / 360ft lb, enough to leave 911's & M3's in its wake, and its abilitys through corners are far greater than mine!
And the best bit... £14k so for a 'toy' youve not got a huge amount of your money tied up sitting in the garage!
Edited by MrSimba on Wednesday 21st March 21:49
Not an owner, but wrote a bit of a review on one last year: http://www.seloc.org/articles/driven/elise-1-6/
Was sunny when I took it out, so can't comment on water tightness, but the S2 roof design is far better than my S1 and the build quality is absolutely streets ahead. Pro-bax seats are a lot more comfortable for long distances (got some in my car now) and it feels like a car you could more easily live with day to day.
Was sunny when I took it out, so can't comment on water tightness, but the S2 roof design is far better than my S1 and the build quality is absolutely streets ahead. Pro-bax seats are a lot more comfortable for long distances (got some in my car now) and it feels like a car you could more easily live with day to day.
I found my experience left alot to be desired even if it can achieve 40mpg+.
+ point is it looks great IMO and interior was fresher / nicer place to be than my 4 year old R.
- point was it felt far more detached than my cable throttle R, didn't have a bark like my car and was slightly slower without being driven hard.
What I would say driving the sc improved it but the cost is silly just plain silly fancy coming back to the fold in a Exige or a S3 but considering how much car I have in my Z4MC and the price I'd get for it (sigh) I can't justify having to put down a further 10k to get into one.....
+ point is it looks great IMO and interior was fresher / nicer place to be than my 4 year old R.
- point was it felt far more detached than my cable throttle R, didn't have a bark like my car and was slightly slower without being driven hard.
What I would say driving the sc improved it but the cost is silly just plain silly fancy coming back to the fold in a Exige or a S3 but considering how much car I have in my Z4MC and the price I'd get for it (sigh) I can't justify having to put down a further 10k to get into one.....
Captain Muppet said:
What proportion of diesel hatchbacks do 0-60 in 6 seconds?
I suspect its a very tiny number.
I think it's more to do with in gear performance and higher speeds. The Elise is still quick off the line, but 3rd is a bit too long and above 60mph you'll get higher powered cars pulling away.I suspect its a very tiny number.
If you're used to the 111R or SC then it'll feel underpowered because, well it has a lot less power. The flip side is you can feel like you're using more of it's potential more of the time. When I drove a 111R a couple years back I found the engine pushed you to be carrying more speed than I was really comfortable with on the public road to keep it on the second cam.
If I had to go back to one car to use as a daily driver it would either be a 1ZZ-engined Elise S or the Elise 1.6.
car95 said:
I test drove one and a super-charged, and preferred the slower car. It has to be driven - meaning foot on floor most of the time, gears stirred, but that's all part of the fun, and getting quickly round those bends. I felt the SC was much more "point and squirt", or even "too quick" - for what I wanted, anyway. I'm not a maniac!
That a good point. The SC cars can be a bit quick when cornering on the roads. The secret is to change up a bit earlier before it gets manic. Obviously better on track when other road goers are not as big a concern. But I totally understand where you are coming from.MrSimba said:
Coming from an Elise SC (which i sold at great loss after just 3 months as it was too slow...) personally I'd struggle to see how the 1.6 could deliver.
Fantastic handling is great, being left behind by a diesel hatchback is not...
I replaced the SC with a VX Turbo, same chassis, but with nitrons for much better handling, and 300bhp / 360ft lb, enough to leave 911's & M3's in its wake, and its abilitys through corners are far greater than mine!
And the best bit... £14k so for a 'toy' youve not got a huge amount of your money tied up sitting in the garage!
You must mean for track work surely. An SC is more than enough for the road. Interesting point about the money. I agree, but a VX. No thanks. Not after a Lotus.Fantastic handling is great, being left behind by a diesel hatchback is not...
I replaced the SC with a VX Turbo, same chassis, but with nitrons for much better handling, and 300bhp / 360ft lb, enough to leave 911's & M3's in its wake, and its abilitys through corners are far greater than mine!
And the best bit... £14k so for a 'toy' youve not got a huge amount of your money tied up sitting in the garage!
Edited by MrSimba on Wednesday 21st March 21:49
"Elise SC too slow" rather sets the bar pretty high for a quick car!
The attractions of the slower car have been set out well by others above. It is genuinely fun trying to wring everything out of a car. I'm used to cars that are so bleedin' quick the fun wears off. Well, ok, it's fun going super-quick too, but a different kind of fun.
Diesel hatchbacks are not a problem!
And yes, the fun is at road-legal speeds, especially country back roads. There are a lot of cars quicker in a straight line, down the motorway etc., especially "above 60" (ahem), but that's not the point of the Elise.
The attractions of the slower car have been set out well by others above. It is genuinely fun trying to wring everything out of a car. I'm used to cars that are so bleedin' quick the fun wears off. Well, ok, it's fun going super-quick too, but a different kind of fun.
Diesel hatchbacks are not a problem!
And yes, the fun is at road-legal speeds, especially country back roads. There are a lot of cars quicker in a straight line, down the motorway etc., especially "above 60" (ahem), but that's not the point of the Elise.
I'm not a fan of the 1.6, downsizing the capacity of the engine and overall power of an already underpowered car was a big mistake, when everyone elses sports cars are getting quicker the answer is not to make yours slower
The original S1 made 120hp and went up against a cheaper MX5 that made around 130hp and a more expensive Boxter that made 200hp, Performance wise the base car was quite decent for it's time, and the faster varients were quite fast
Here in 2012, the S3 or 2.5 or whayever you want to call it makes 130hp, and goes up against a cheaper MX5 making near 170hp and a more expensive Boxster making 265hp, Performance wise the base car is quite slow now, relative to todays sporty cars
To keep up with Rivals, this is how things should have gone for the base car
S1 118hp
S2 130hp
S2 Yota 1.8S 150hp
S2.5 a SC 1.6 170hp
Here's how they went
S1 118
S2 120
S2 Yota 1.8S 130hp
S2.5 1.6 130HP
Not good enough IMO and a big reason why sales of the base car model, that used to make up a very significant total of Elise sales, now make up just a tiny trickle, depsite it being the only one on the market, because at the end of the day who wants a slow Lotus??
The original S1 made 120hp and went up against a cheaper MX5 that made around 130hp and a more expensive Boxter that made 200hp, Performance wise the base car was quite decent for it's time, and the faster varients were quite fast
Here in 2012, the S3 or 2.5 or whayever you want to call it makes 130hp, and goes up against a cheaper MX5 making near 170hp and a more expensive Boxster making 265hp, Performance wise the base car is quite slow now, relative to todays sporty cars
To keep up with Rivals, this is how things should have gone for the base car
S1 118hp
S2 130hp
S2 Yota 1.8S 150hp
S2.5 a SC 1.6 170hp
Here's how they went
S1 118
S2 120
S2 Yota 1.8S 130hp
S2.5 1.6 130HP
Not good enough IMO and a big reason why sales of the base car model, that used to make up a very significant total of Elise sales, now make up just a tiny trickle, depsite it being the only one on the market, because at the end of the day who wants a slow Lotus??
peter450 said:
I'm not a fan of the 1.6, downsizing the capacity of the engine and overall power of an already underpowered car was a big mistake, when everyone elses sports cars are getting quicker the answer is not to make yours slower
Too right, it would be madness to introduce a smaller engine with less power.peter450 said:
S2 Yota 1.8S 130hp
S2.5 1.6 130HP
Oh. So they didn't. S2.5 1.6 130HP
daveknott5 said:
Any S3 owners on here? If so, how are you finding the car? Is it quick enough to raise a smile? Can you really get 45mpg? Has build quality at Lotus improved enough that the car doesn't rattle to buggery, leak like a sieve and get irritating to live with day-to-day?
I just bought a new one and so far (only 500 running-in miles) it hasn't rattled or leaked despite being used in some very heavy downpours in early March. Aircon kept it mist free too. It feels very well screwed together and as the last of the line I'd expect it to.I calculated the mpg at the second refill and I got 39mpg. Obviously not yet driving it hard, but not too easy or any steady state long runs yet either due to running it in.
I don't really understand where people are coming from when they say the 1.6 is slow. It may not be the best in a straight line but there is more than enough for an enjoyable A-road blast and I've not personally felt the need to pin the throttle to the bulkhead.
The driving experience, level of involvement and reward for precise driving is second to none though. For me this is more important than cracking 60mph in 4 seconds.
It is a bit noisier than I expected, even with a hard-top and touring pack but the seats are very comfortable and the driving position perfect. It's much nicer to drive with the roof off though.
I've used it for daily commuting and it's no more bother than any other small car. You soon get the hang of getting in and out and as you only do this (typically) twice per journey it's not as big a deal as some make out.
peter450 said:
It has less torque throughout most of the range, so yes it is less powerful
But it has a 6 speed 'box, with slightly lower ratios so the torque at the wheels is greater. I read somewhere that the 1.6 was 2 sec/lap quicker round Hethel than the 1.8.Whether the 1.6 is a bit less torquey or not doesn't matter though. The driving characteristics of the engine suit the car; it is revvy and makes its peak power at peak revs, sounds good above 5,000rpm and is very quiet and economical when just bimbling along.
Gassing Station | Elise/Exige/Europa/340R | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff