Lotus Elise, Rover v Toyota engine.
11 February 2005, 09:13 PM
#1
Lotus Elise, Rover v Toyota engine.
http://www.sandsmuseum.com/cars/elis...ine/kingk.html
I found the above article whilst trawling the net, perhaps the change to the Toyota engine in the Elise wasnt quite as much of a win/win situation as everybody seems to think, it contains a lots of 'if's' and 'buts' but did raise a good points, such as the lack of torque and increased weight it brought with it.
I found the above article whilst trawling the net, perhaps the change to the Toyota engine in the Elise wasnt quite as much of a win/win situation as everybody seems to think, it contains a lots of 'if's' and 'buts' but did raise a good points, such as the lack of torque and increased weight it brought with it.
11 February 2005, 09:26 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by J4CKO
http://www.sandsmuseum.com/cars/elis...ine/kingk.html
I found the above article whilst trawling the net, perhaps the change to the Toyota engine in the Elise wasnt quite as much of a win/win situation as everybody seems to think, it contains a lots of 'if's' and 'buts' but did raise a good points, such as the lack of torque and increased weight it brought with it.
I found the above article whilst trawling the net, perhaps the change to the Toyota engine in the Elise wasnt quite as much of a win/win situation as everybody seems to think, it contains a lots of 'if's' and 'buts' but did raise a good points, such as the lack of torque and increased weight it brought with it.
11 February 2005, 09:57 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2000
Location: MY00,MY01,RX-8, Alfa 147 & Focus ST :-)
Posts: 10,371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go and test drive a 111R - I did. What an amazing car. Goes like stink and when the cam profile changes - bloody thing launches itself down the road 
The guy makes some good points, although the principle reason for changing the engine was US emission controls. There was no way the K series would meet the new regs and the US is a hugely important market for Lotus.
Lotus have written their own engine management profile for the Toyota engine - somethings that the Toyota engineers were extremely impressed about. There are also a lot of owners having the 111R remapped after the warranty runs out (it's only a year) and changing the cam profile, so it cuts in much earlier than the normal 6200 RPM.
None of these engines produces huge amounts of torque, but in such a light car (and it is still a light car), it is less noticable. The RX-8 is often criticised for being low on torque (about 160 lbs on the 230 HP version), but I was following one this evening on the M25 and it didn't seem to make that much difference!
Chris
The guy makes some good points, although the principle reason for changing the engine was US emission controls. There was no way the K series would meet the new regs and the US is a hugely important market for Lotus.Lotus have written their own engine management profile for the Toyota engine - somethings that the Toyota engineers were extremely impressed about. There are also a lot of owners having the 111R remapped after the warranty runs out (it's only a year) and changing the cam profile, so it cuts in much earlier than the normal 6200 RPM.
None of these engines produces huge amounts of torque, but in such a light car (and it is still a light car), it is less noticable. The RX-8 is often criticised for being low on torque (about 160 lbs on the 230 HP version), but I was following one this evening on the M25 and it didn't seem to make that much difference!
Chris
13 February 2005, 11:39 AM
#5
I suspect the writer of said web page is a Rover fanatic - he doesn't actually say he's driven teh Toyota equipped Elise 
Weight!!! don't make me laugh....45odd kilos!!
Put it this way...I weigh 72kilos. The average MCDonald's frequenting bloater carries 40kilos on the waist alone!
The toyota unit also has more emission control = more wieght...1 extra catalyst, an air injection system, Dual length air inlets (one for low revs, one for high). Variable valve timing control, twice the amount of valve gear (for the variable lift). A cam-chain. The engine block is also far more stronger too, so it does have the ability to cope with even more power.
I'd hazard a bet that get both engines, strip them of all the ancilaries, induction, headers, and emissions. The weight of the engine block and heads with cam's and pistons etc is about the same as a K-series...it could even be lighter!
This bloke is comparing modded k-series to standard Toyotas, there's nothing stopping a toyota unit getting modded too He says teh Toyota engine has no scope for modification. My Toyota dealer says that one of their customer's cars has 250bhp, weather this is just talk or BS I don't know, even I'm cynical - as much as he says a K-series can do 300bhp without being gutless and needing a rebuild every 1K miles
The Toyota's low down torque and BHP below 6000rpm is bang on average for a 1.8 engine, so saying it has very little torque is incorrect...it's basically average torque.
This bloke also harps on about the bane of iron liners
WTF?? Almost every car on the road has iron cylinder liners...the only exception is nikasil liners...which we all know about how reliable they are when there is a bit of sulphur is in the fuel.
I've not driven a Toyota engined Elise yet. But have driven a Celica VVTLi. This is a far heavier car...yet it will wheelspin very easily in the wet in both 2nd and 3rd gear BELOW 3000rpm! So saying it's completely gutless is wrong.
What I don't like about the Toyota engines is they have to thrashed to the redline in every gear, and kept on the boil by lots of gearshifts to keep it in its magic powerband. Not good for a road going Celica...but for a track going Elise, well it shouldn't be a problem.
The Toyota is "SO" heavy
Put it this way...I weigh 72kilos. The average MCDonald's frequenting bloater carries 40kilos on the waist alone!
The toyota unit also has more emission control = more wieght...1 extra catalyst, an air injection system, Dual length air inlets (one for low revs, one for high). Variable valve timing control, twice the amount of valve gear (for the variable lift). A cam-chain. The engine block is also far more stronger too, so it does have the ability to cope with even more power.
I'd hazard a bet that get both engines, strip them of all the ancilaries, induction, headers, and emissions. The weight of the engine block and heads with cam's and pistons etc is about the same as a K-series...it could even be lighter!
This bloke is comparing modded k-series to standard Toyotas, there's nothing stopping a toyota unit getting modded too
He says teh Toyota engine has no scope for modification. My Toyota dealer says that one of their customer's cars has 250bhp, weather this is just talk or BS I don't know, even I'm cynical - as much as he says a K-series can do 300bhp without being gutless and needing a rebuild every 1K miles The Toyota's low down torque and BHP below 6000rpm is bang on average for a 1.8 engine, so saying it has very little torque is incorrect...it's basically average torque.
This bloke also harps on about the bane of iron liners
WTF?? Almost every car on the road has iron cylinder liners...the only exception is nikasil liners...which we all know about how reliable they are when there is a bit of sulphur is in the fuel.I've not driven a Toyota engined Elise yet. But have driven a Celica VVTLi. This is a far heavier car...yet it will wheelspin very easily in the wet in both 2nd and 3rd gear BELOW 3000rpm! So saying it's completely gutless is wrong.
What I don't like about the Toyota engines is they have to thrashed to the redline in every gear, and kept on the boil by lots of gearshifts to keep it in its magic powerband. Not good for a road going Celica...but for a track going Elise, well it shouldn't be a problem.
Last edited by ALi-B; 13 February 2005 at 12:07 PM.
13 February 2005, 01:40 PM
#6
Wheelspin in 2nd and 3rd below 3000 rpm, would suspect that there is either a suspension problem or duff tyres, my Fiat Coupe did that when it was on buget tyres, a switch to Continentals banished the wheelspin to all but complete brutality in the wet in first, that had 260 bhp and probably double the torque, I suppose it had a Torsen diff that helped a bit.
I think the guy was a Rover nut, I am currently struggling with a Rover VVC engine with a Head Gasket problem so I am defintely not biased, I think if they had sorted the head gasket issue, as an engine its would be one of the best units available. But I suppose if and buts dont cut it when your stranded on the motorway in a pool of steaming green water.
As for the weight thing, Indeed the difference between drivers could account for the difference but its something that you can do nothing about, the car got heavier so regardless of who is in it, its heavier compared to the earlier model, 50 kilos is quite a chunk of weight to haul around in a lightweight motor, I would however rather have a working 150 kilo motor than 100 kilos of scrap alloy
I think the guy was a Rover nut, I am currently struggling with a Rover VVC engine with a Head Gasket problem so I am defintely not biased, I think if they had sorted the head gasket issue, as an engine its would be one of the best units available. But I suppose if and buts dont cut it when your stranded on the motorway in a pool of steaming green water.
As for the weight thing, Indeed the difference between drivers could account for the difference but its something that you can do nothing about, the car got heavier so regardless of who is in it, its heavier compared to the earlier model, 50 kilos is quite a chunk of weight to haul around in a lightweight motor, I would however rather have a working 150 kilo motor than 100 kilos of scrap alloy
13 February 2005, 03:09 PM
#7
The celica is VERY short geared, so think of 2nd as 1st and 3rd as 2nd and no LSD Belive me I'm a suprised as you, even after been shod with a full set of new Yoko's (not that briliant in the wet admittedly) it still does it coming off islands enthusiastically.
In my view, k-series in it's day was and to some extent still is a good engine....ignoring the usual faults
But for that bloke to say a design that is well over 15years old using technolgy that the Japs and many others were already using - mainly in race cars or non-road going prototypes, then saying it is superior to current new design engines and that everyone copied them is going a little too far.
There were very good reason why other manufacturers didn't bother putting this design into mass production. Mainly cost: Ford was used a comparison...in 1990, when the K series was launched, Ford used iron pushrod engines in their cars - a block design which started life in an Anglia. The new Zetec used American CVH designs. The reasoning was minimal tooling and production modifications to make the new engines in other words it was cheap.
Rover probably didn't have a current engine design worth modifying to put in production, so built a new engine from scratch, where other manufacturers just modified existing designs. It was a well thought out move because due to emissions and greater need to save weight, almost every car manufacturer had to follow suit 10 years later anyway.
One thing that always bugs me with the K-series, is that bloody head gasket. Something that could be sorted by decent composits and minor modifications, yet for 13 years Rover ignored it. Much like the Rover v8 (they also had head gasket problems too which could be very easily fixed ) They ignored almost all of the engine design flaws for a staggering 30years.
From Lotus's point of view how can you rely on a engine maufacturer who can't be bothered to fix well known problems or design flaws in their engines?
Take Subaru's piston slap for example, many UK cars had engines and pistons replaced. The design problem was addressed and fixed, as did Jaguar and BMW with their nikasil issues. If it was Rover (or General motors - another story ) nothing would have been done. Funnily, the K-series engines are quite slappy when cold - especially high milers. Makes me think...could it be a problem? I know it isn't a problem on these engines - but if it was, I doubt Rover would have sorted it
Belive me I'm a suprised as you, even after been shod with a full set of new Yoko's (not that briliant in the wet admittedly) it still does it coming off islands enthusiastically.In my view, k-series in it's day was and to some extent still is a good engine....ignoring the usual faults
But for that bloke to say a design that is well over 15years old using technolgy that the Japs and many others were already using - mainly in race cars or non-road going prototypes, then saying it is superior to current new design engines and that everyone copied them is going a little too far. There were very good reason why other manufacturers didn't bother putting this design into mass production. Mainly cost: Ford was used a comparison...in 1990, when the K series was launched, Ford used iron pushrod engines in their cars - a block design which started life in an Anglia. The new Zetec used American CVH designs. The reasoning was minimal tooling and production modifications to make the new engines in other words it was cheap.
Rover probably didn't have a current engine design worth modifying to put in production, so built a new engine from scratch, where other manufacturers just modified existing designs. It was a well thought out move because due to emissions and greater need to save weight, almost every car manufacturer had to follow suit 10 years later anyway.
One thing that always bugs me with the K-series, is that bloody head gasket. Something that could be sorted by decent composits and minor modifications, yet for 13 years Rover ignored it. Much like the Rover v8 (they also had head gasket problems too which could be very easily fixed
) They ignored almost all of the engine design flaws for a staggering 30years.From Lotus's point of view how can you rely on a engine maufacturer who can't be bothered to fix well known problems or design flaws in their engines?
Take Subaru's piston slap for example, many UK cars had engines and pistons replaced. The design problem was addressed and fixed, as did Jaguar and BMW with their nikasil issues. If it was Rover (or General motors - another story
) nothing would have been done. Funnily, the K-series engines are quite slappy when cold - especially high milers. Makes me think...could it be a problem? I know it isn't a problem on these engines - but if it was, I doubt Rover would have sorted it
Last edited by ALi-B; 13 February 2005 at 03:11 PM.
Trending Topics
13 February 2005, 04:15 PM
#8
I think Rover were to busy staying afloat and changing owners.
Due to this design flaw I now have a 200 BRM sat here p1ssing water out, I am ordering the bits next week and when the weather is better I will change the Gasket for a competition one, rather than send it into a garage I am going to do it myself, have done gaskets before but nowadays cant be arsed but the reasoning being that if I keep it and it goes again I will be able to change them in about 5 hours, maybe Rover should include a free course at your local College in how to swap a K series gasket !
In the meantime, due to Rovers design problem I have a very rubbish Peugeot 106 Mardi Gras, I thought it may be a fun chuckable zesty little car, its not, its crap, it handles like a much bigger older car, I think there is something amiss with the suspension, I now appreciate how much better the old 200 is, Head Gaskets notwithstanding !
I think Ford still actually sell the old pushrod in the Ka, I drove an Escort 1.3 with that engine and what a wheezing old pile of poop that was, truly revolting whereas the equivalent (when it works) Rover 214 actually drags its carcass around with some measure of performance, The escort will however get progressively more horrible but keep going.
I had a mk1 Capri with a Crossflow in it, first car, rose tinted spectacles but it was a peach of an engine, overbored to 1700, big weber carb, pancake filter, hot cam, at the time it would stay with an XR2, so I dont know what ford did to the old crossflow, must be the process of making it meet emission regs, the Escort had all sorts of air injection gubbins.
Due to this design flaw I now have a 200 BRM sat here p1ssing water out, I am ordering the bits next week and when the weather is better I will change the Gasket for a competition one, rather than send it into a garage I am going to do it myself, have done gaskets before but nowadays cant be arsed but the reasoning being that if I keep it and it goes again I will be able to change them in about 5 hours, maybe Rover should include a free course at your local College in how to swap a K series gasket !
In the meantime, due to Rovers design problem I have a very rubbish Peugeot 106 Mardi Gras, I thought it may be a fun chuckable zesty little car, its not, its crap, it handles like a much bigger older car, I think there is something amiss with the suspension, I now appreciate how much better the old 200 is, Head Gaskets notwithstanding !
I think Ford still actually sell the old pushrod in the Ka, I drove an Escort 1.3 with that engine and what a wheezing old pile of poop that was, truly revolting whereas the equivalent (when it works) Rover 214 actually drags its carcass around with some measure of performance, The escort will however get progressively more horrible but keep going.
I had a mk1 Capri with a Crossflow in it, first car, rose tinted spectacles but it was a peach of an engine, overbored to 1700, big weber carb, pancake filter, hot cam, at the time it would stay with an XR2, so I dont know what ford did to the old crossflow, must be the process of making it meet emission regs, the Escort had all sorts of air injection gubbins.
13 February 2005, 05:26 PM
#9
The problem with the K series stems from the fact it was only designed to be a 1.4, as soon as they started to stretch the engine size it started to show problems much quicker.
Rover had serious problems with continuity of ownership, BAE sold them down the river when they were starting to work well with Honda and then flogged them off to BMW, that was a disasterous mistake for the company which resulted in the breakup of its engineering facilities and the interuption of its future platform developments. It's such a huge waste of a potentially viable company.
It makes a lot of sense to go for a more bullit proof engine, even at a weight disadvantage on the Elise. You could compare it to my Westfield Cosworth Turbo and a Caterham R500. My westie was heavier but had a lot more power/torque to make up for that, so on the track they were very closely matched, running them as practical cars was a very diferent matter, the westie would go for 100K miles between engine rebuilds so you could use it all the time and drive it to all the tracks, the R500 would need very expensive regular rebuilds so was only practical as a trailered to the track, keep the road miles down car.
You can see this happening again now with the Radical Bike engined V's XTR4 Audi Turbo engine cars, Radical is a faster track car but the XTR4 should go on for ever so is more sensible to own long term.
The Elise in this kind of company is a bit of a heavyweight anyway, so it makes even more sense to go for the reliable options rather than the lighter weight, based on what use it will be seeing, which will be mainly as a practical on the road fun sportscar, not an out and out track car.
Rover had serious problems with continuity of ownership, BAE sold them down the river when they were starting to work well with Honda and then flogged them off to BMW, that was a disasterous mistake for the company which resulted in the breakup of its engineering facilities and the interuption of its future platform developments. It's such a huge waste of a potentially viable company.
It makes a lot of sense to go for a more bullit proof engine, even at a weight disadvantage on the Elise. You could compare it to my Westfield Cosworth Turbo and a Caterham R500. My westie was heavier but had a lot more power/torque to make up for that, so on the track they were very closely matched, running them as practical cars was a very diferent matter, the westie would go for 100K miles between engine rebuilds so you could use it all the time and drive it to all the tracks, the R500 would need very expensive regular rebuilds so was only practical as a trailered to the track, keep the road miles down car.
You can see this happening again now with the Radical Bike engined V's XTR4 Audi Turbo engine cars, Radical is a faster track car but the XTR4 should go on for ever so is more sensible to own long term.
The Elise in this kind of company is a bit of a heavyweight anyway, so it makes even more sense to go for the reliable options rather than the lighter weight, based on what use it will be seeing, which will be mainly as a practical on the road fun sportscar, not an out and out track car.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
