Lotus 340R
One of the many ongoing themes here at Car Lust is cars that strip away all unnecessary features--as well as some necessary ones--in the continuing pursuit for the holy grail of weight minimization. As we've discussed here ad nauseum, weight is the enemy of driving excellence. It stunts acceleration, softens handling, decreases fuel economy, and increases the emission of pollutants.
The vicious weight cycle is hard to break. If the car is too heavy, it needs a bigger, more powerful engine; this addition of weight and inertia forces bigger brakes and a more robust suspension, which in turn increases weight while further impacting fuel economy and emissions.
On the other hand, pursuing the virtuous cycle of weight reduction can result in hugely compelling mighty mites like the Caterham Super Seven, Smart Roadster, Ariel Atom, and Vauxhall VX220--small giant-killers with exotic all-around performance without leviathan size, horsepower ratings, or prices. The Lotus 340R is very much of the same spirit.
Based on the Lotus Elise--itself not exactly an opulent cruiser--the 340R is as dedicated a performance car as Lotus has ever produced. Considering Lotus founder Colin Chapman's status as the premier acolyte in the church of light weight, and taking into account Lotus' stellar history, that's saying something. The 340R isn't quite as stripped down as the Ariel Atom, but like the Atom it is nearly a four-wheeled motorcycle or a grown-up go-kart.
With 187 horsepower, the 340R has respectable power but less than many of today's family sedans. No, what makes the 340R special is 1,550-pound curb weight. Not only does this mean the 340R has incredibly quick reflexes, but each horsepower has only 8.3 pounds to haul around--better than such serious straight-line scorchers as the Audi RS4 (8.6) and Dodge Charger SRT-8 (8.9) and within spitting distance of a standard C6 Corvette (7.95). And, unlike those cars, the 340R's acceleration is only a sidelight to its face-distorting cornering capabilities.
Also unlike those cars, though, don't expect much utility. There's just enough car necessary to make it fast and no more. If you head to the supermarket for some produce, you'd better strap the bag into the passenger's seat. To my eyes the 340R looks exciting but not beautiful. Its smooth but smirking front gives way to a dune buggy aspect in the rear; not that this matters when you're behind the wheel. In terms of pure quickness and agility in service of driving pleasure, the 340R has few equals. Factor in its limited production--only 340 were made--and you have the makings of an all-time classic.
--Chris H.
Mochi Mochi on August 11, 2008 at 12:36 PM
1550Lbs - be still my beating heart. This is SO RIGHT! Concept and execution directed around the efficiencies of weight reduction. It makes so much sense.
Is it beautiful? No. Does it look like a dune buggy? Yes. As a kid did I like dune buggies were cool and do I still think they are? Hell yes!
The Super7 is not a pretty car. The 340R is not a pretty car. But they are both really appealing in a stripped down and tuned for speed kind of way.
I don't love every decision that Lotus implements. But I do respect those decisions and their execution. In almost every case they are brilliant and really at the cutting edge of today's automotive design - far more so than any other manufacturer. Lotus seems to be taking risks and designing ideas and philosophies into their cars - things that express ideas and ideals - not just marketing or technology goals. It's been a long time since that kind of thing has happened in the car world. It's great to see Colin Chapman's legacy boldly doing today the kind of thing he was famous for 30 or 40 years ago.
Hucbald on August 11, 2008 at 04:31 PM
Surely you meant "two-door motorcycle" and not four-door.
I'd rather have the Elise. That thing might have stellar performance, but it looks like a Corgi Toy. The Elise is beautiful.
Zero on August 11, 2008 at 04:43 PM
Hi there. The link to the Ariel Atom seems to be incorrect. I believe this is the one that gets you there:
http://www.carlustblog.com/2008/04/car-lust--ariel.html
Rob the SVX guy on August 11, 2008 at 04:51 PM
Mochi, to be fair, they're only as daring as their target demographic allows them to be. For instance, Buick could not build a car like this. Nor does Lotus build a car that would be able to be used year round, or on longer trips, or ... does even the Espirit have a backseat?
seguin on August 11, 2008 at 06:01 PM
Honestly, I think the Atom is a better execution. It looks like Lotus tried too hard to carry over the big lotus style onto this stripped down version. Once you go to open wheel styling, imho more stuff has to change along with it.
Mochi Mochi on August 11, 2008 at 07:59 PM
Rob: "they're only as daring as their target demographic allows them to be" you are right about that otherwise they would be out of business. But at the same time having worked with many clients on design projects, it is rare to find companies who boldly determine to appeal to their target market and not other markets. So often manufactures of all kinds want to throw a net to catch the widest middle portion of the bell curve. Or they want to not offend adjacent market demographics. Hence mainstream blandness. It is bold AND smart business to decide that you are at the fringes of the bell curve and then press your market in ways that are unexpected - even by them. Lotus was founded by a structural engineer and maverick businessman, with a bit of a temper. In his time Colin Chapman broke all kinds of ground, and he largely did it because he wanted to. His company succeeded based on the success of his innovations. That success on the track and the street carved out his market. When Chapman passed away the company slid into a mire of exotic luxury cars that, while great, lacked the rough genius of Chapman's original design work and stewardship.
I'm not a slave to lotus. I don't own one, but I would if I did not care about money. But I do count my pennies and I think I can have a lot of fun on the cheap. I respect Lotus' early work, and now I feel like we are starting to see a rebirth of interesting ideas about structure and materiality. And I like it in part because it opens doors for other manufacturers, by softening the ramp up for the mainstream car buying public. No, Buick will never make this car. But they might get inspired by it and end up with a lotus look-a-like, in the same way they had a Maserati look-a-like. It will be different but more affordable and really good. Or they may take cues from what Lotus does with manufacturing and materials.
We're not Lotus buyers, but we may some day benefit from the successful risk taker's efforts - where ever those risk takers reside. The ideal pairing for me is Lotus and Honda. The combination would be spectacular. Imagine a Lotus influenced CRX. Not that Honda has not taken risks, I think if we look back a decade or two we can see a lot of quiet risk taking on Honda's part.
Innovation is not inherently good, but it can be. But the way that Honda and Lotus pursue innovation in their individual ways is really great. I was not really interested in Lotus for a few years, but I'm getting excited about Lotus now - not because they are affordable, but because they are making interesting "super-ish" cars that are different from mainstream super-cars.
Rob the SVX guy on August 11, 2008 at 08:41 PM
I guess what I'm saying is that it's easy to be daring and bold when you're designing something for a very small, very wealthy group of people. It's a lot harder to be bold and daring when you're designing something for a more middle class, larger group of people. I see it all the time at school. Someone designs something ridiculously expensive and their target market board is filled with shots of young, incredibly rich people cut out from magazines. Um. Okay. I guess, but I just don't see any of that as as all that relevant. To me, the success of Mini is more interesting than Lotus. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have a Lotus, but the design/marketing/execution of Mini is reaching a huge number of people, the cars get driven everyday in rain or shine, they get good gas mileage, they're built reasonably well, and the last few months, they've been some of the only ones actually selling MORE vehicles than ever. To me, something like that is a LOT harder, a lot more complex, and a lot more impressive.
hunter on August 11, 2008 at 08:59 PM
Rob: The new Lotus Evora (aka Eagle) has a back seat and a boot :)
Mochi Mochi on August 11, 2008 at 10:27 PM
I think we are probably in more agreement than difference. Its the spectrum of cars and audiences. And yeah, a specialized sports car is different than a family sedan. But like everything there are different touch points. To me the Mini is more of a marketing phenomenon than a piece of great design - and it's price is way too high. I appreciate that it is small, but its a bruiser next to a Lotus. If it weren't for the value of the Dollar against foreign markets the Lotus would actually almost be affordable. It's not because of where our economy is right now. And the Mini, while a great car, is not carving out any new territory. The story of the Mini is the story of a brilliant marketing campaign that uses visual design as a lever. Not a bad thing at all, but not really innovative either. The success of the Mini was never in question - and it was never a risk.
Supercars aren't really good for much. The only reason why I am even remotely defending Lotus in this particular case is because in the world of super cars they build drivable light vehicles that are more sports cars than super cars. They do embed a philosophy that goes a little deeper than most. There are a lot of reasons I'd feel better about owning a lotus than a Ferrari. And If I wanted to I could get a really nice old lotus for money equivalent to a Mini. Lotus has a guiding philosophy that is relatively eco friendly - it gets down to basics. I look at the 340R and find myself thinking about it as a new version of the 7. If you are going to build expensive sports cars they do it lighter and better than anyone else. And in terms of corporate assets I'm not worried about Lotus becoming a super power :)
But as far as new practical sports vehicles go - you are right - the mini is excellent. Anyone who has the price of a Buick can buy a Mini, get great handling, and good gas milage. Almost as good as a 90 EF Civic :)
Rob: "It's a lot harder to be bold and daring when you're designing something for a more middle class, larger group of people. I see it all the time at school. Someone designs something ridiculously expensive and their target market board is filled with shots of young, incredibly rich people cut out from magazines." You are dead on. And there's nothing more annoying that elitist design. That's why I mentioned Honda above. The Mini is really following the original Mini and the Civic. But it's not exactly middle class either... a Fit is middle class. A Mini is not.
Lotus has always built race cars and sports cars. That's their gig. They are not trying to be anything else, they don't want to, and they know it would be stupid to try. They are in the upper range of design. Very specific and very targeted. Competing with Porsche and Ferrari and in a number of ways out doing both of these titans with much less. In that world of super sports cars they are kind of a David against Goliath. They are also one of the first manufacturers to integrate green materials and production technologies in the fabrication of their cars. Not just superficially - their plans run quite deep and look at the broad impact of materials and production.
If the dollar weren't in the toilet you'd be able to buy a Lotus for not much more than the cost of a "well appointed" Mini S. :) If that were the case I know what I'd do... keep my Civic and get the Lotus :)
wjr on August 11, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Please! This dune buggy is ugly as sin and only appeals to green wannabes. Give me an Elan any day. And, possibly, Mrs. Peal in her heyday as well.
Mochi Mochi on August 12, 2008 at 12:22 AM
Completely agree about the Elan and Mrs Peel. Your justified excitement explains and forgives all three identical posts;) I have a friend who's selling a beautiful Elan for about $30K - its in mint condition - want his number? Its gorgeous and affordable. As much as I like the Elan though, I'd rather have a Europa S2 or Type 47. I'd also happily live with a Lotus 23.
Basically older cars are so much more interesting than newer cars. But all that said there are interesting and positive things happening in the contemporary new car scene and they are worth noting. Yeah the Dune Buggy is ugly. So is the Caterham Super 7 - wonderful car, but not really pretty. Not Elan pretty. Definitely not Mrs Peel pretty. Still makes for an amazing ride. Lotus is interesting for yet another reason. They make beautiful cars and ugly ones two, but seem to put some great stuff into everything they make.
As for green-ness - I don't think the 340R is making any green claims. Lotus has been trying to employ more green manufacturing technologies - more than other car manufacturers. But they are not marketing the 340R as a green machine or any sort.
PersonFromPorlock on August 12, 2008 at 05:17 AM
Green? Emma Peel? Emma Peel in a green velvet jumpsuit, ARRGGHHH!
Chris Hafner on August 12, 2008 at 09:42 AM
Thanks for the corrections, everybody. I must be getting sloppy in my old age.
I'm not sure I understand the debate between Rob and Mochi. It's definitely easier for a specialized company like Lotus to make a car like the 340R, and certainly it would take a lot more guts for a mainstream company to make it. But that's not really news - mainstream companies are typically in the business of making mainstream cars, and specialty companies are in the business of making specialty cars. I like both. :-)
I think the Mini is hugely compelling in its own right - probably more impactful because it has touched more people than the 340R - but it's a different car.
Ian on August 12, 2008 at 09:54 AM
wjr: "This dune buggy is ugly as sin and only appeals to green wannabes."
Well, call me a green wannabe, then.
Chris Hafner on August 12, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Yeah, I'm not sure I get the green thing. All things being equal, light weight helps fuel economy and emissions; but the 340R's purpose is intestine-stirring performance, not the sacrifice for fuel economy. The fact that it is probably more efficient than other cars that perform at the same level is just a bonus.
Mochi Mochi on August 12, 2008 at 11:21 AM
The "green" thing is actually nothing about the car itself - and probably nothing about this car at all. Lotus as a company is experimenting with cars that are produced under "greener" manufacturing and materials conditions. For owners it means a few details that show off the materials and give Lotus a little marketing boost. For auto production in general there are actual in-roads that Lotus is making which will have long term positive effects on the environment, IF adopted by other larger manufacturers. These production techniques use high strength natural and renewable materials and water based binders and paints. Water based means fewer volatile pollutants released into the atmosphere where they are either breathed, collect, or react to form even more destructive compounds.
Is Lotus using this to increase awareness and sales? you bet. The materials use is completely obvious to customers and it is elegantly handled. What does that mean? It means that other manufacturers are going to likely follow suit if for no other reason than it presents an interesting differentiator and attractor for certain types of cars - and for certain demographics. Is Lotus ahead of other manufacturers on this? Yes. From what I can tell this is positive innovation that works well. Lotus has a history of employing really interesting ideas about structure, materials, fabrication, and fasteners.
I don't think there's much of a debate here. More like contrary attitudes at work. Rob and I largely agree on almost all specific points. The only place where we differ is in giving Lotus some points for being innovative and taking some risks. This is a trivial different. I don't see any large manufacturers taking risks today, but they used to because they did not have established demopgraphic testing methodologies. It can be argued that Lotus is not taking risks either because they have a loyal following and a niche market. But there are counter arguments to that point too, that validate Lotus as a risk taker and innovator.
This question of risk taking extends in my opinion that there was a time when automotive design was less calculated and not as well tested. Currently car designs are evaluated years in advance of their release for market compatibility and sales success. The Mini is a prime example of this. If ever there were a car that was designed to sell it was the Mini. The story behind its design and marketing is full of careful planning and strategic wrangling.
Is it risky to make an unusual or even ugly car? For a large manufacturer, yes without a doubt. One can argue that it is less so for a manufacturer with a very loyal following. But a small manufacturer still has to make a profit off their cars and they can't alienate their buyers any more than a large builder. If anything a failure is more costly.
I personally like to give Lotus some props for playing an edgy game even in their market segment. If someone wants to disagree that's fine. This is all just opinion and semantics. But using an example like the Mini is just a specious argument.
Chris you are right. The Mini has way more market affect than the Lotus. It will touch many more people. And it is a cute fun-to-drive car that gets really good gas mileage. But aside from its skin, its formal representation, it does not distinguish itself in any significant way from legions of highly successful preceding cars. It follows a formula known for success that has been well established worldwide by: the original mini, the civic, the rabbit, the golf, etc. It includes some high-end options not available on more affordable similar cars but that's not really pushing an envelop. Great car but...
The mini's success was assured by the success of the beetle redesign and by the careful planning and testing that was done to make the Mini a success. The success of the mini will show other manufactures that there is a strong market for small fun to drive cars that have a design edge in their skin - and people are willing to pay a premium to acquire those cars.
But I don't think any of that detracts from the interesting ideas and riskier ventures that Lotus puts forward in their cars. Marketing departments will be looking at the Mini for sales inspiration (a good thing). I'm guessing the designers are more likely to look at Lotus for inspiration in terms of materials and structure than they are the Mini since the mini is largely repeating an established formula. The things that Lotus is doing are not being done in other vehicles and these ideas are applicable to anything from a luxury sports car to a modest economy car. Lotus is delivering innovative ideas that are not high-end throw-aways or one-offs. When those ideas start to filter into mainstream auto production we'll all be better off for it.
A few months ago we had a debate here about making a car light (less than 2500 lbs) and safe under today's crash and safety standards. There were two camps, those that believed that cars could not be made lighter and still meet regulations, and those that believed they could but weren't. Lotus while not a perfect example is certainly an example of how this can be done in a car that weighs much less than 2000lbs. At a time when we have to be concerned about vehicle weight and safety, it seems like Lotus is a good touch stone for inspiration - risky or not.
One Way Truck Rental on August 13, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Lotus 340R is a cute car but I don't want to own something like that because I think it will not survive in the road with lots of other big vehicles to might accidentally hit it.
Rob the SVX guy on August 15, 2008 at 05:36 AM
By that rational we should all get stupid SUVs. I'm glad there are more people NOT like you, Truck Rental guy.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on August 15, 2008 at 06:25 AM
Truck Rental Guy appears to be Comment Spam Guy in disguise.