PaulFitzwarryne

In a recent thread on the first car you owned, I said I had built my first, equivalent to a Lotus 6.

Out of interest I looked back at the specifications. 1.17 litre engine, 50bhp, 93mph top speed, 950lbs. I thought I was King of the Road!

50 years on my Gen 1 is 1.15 litre capacity, 250hp, 148mph, 2475 lbs. What a difference, and I am still King of the Road!

Lotus 6 General specifications

Country of origin Great Britain
Years of production 1952 - 1955
Numbers built around 110
Body design N/A
Weight 432 kilo / 952.4 lbs
Drivetrain
Engine Ford E93A Straight 4
Engine Location Front , longitudinally mounted
Displacement 1.172 liter / 71.5 cu in
Valvetrain 2 valves / cylinder, Sidevalve
Fuel feed SU Carburettors
Aspiration Naturally Aspirated
Gearbox Ford 3 speed Manual
Drive Rear wheel drive
Performance figures
Power 50 bhp / 37 KW @ 5000 rpm
Torque 77 Nm / 57 ft lbs @ 3000 rpm
BHP/Liter 43 bhp / liter
Power to weight ratio 0.12 bhp / kg
Top Speed 150 km/h / 93 mph
0-60 mph Acceleration 15.0 s

bliffle

I remember that Lotus, I think. Coventry Climax engine (developed as portable water pump engine for London air raids), design by Colin Chapman, sold as a kit to avoid the Purchase Tax.

purple82

The displacement of the rotary engine is always a big point of dispute. Anyway...

Sports cars certainly have evolved a great deal in the past 50 years, but have they actually improved? I contend that in driver entertainment and involvement, they are getting farther away from the things that make a sports car just plain fun to drive.

I've posted this before so forgive me for being redundant, but in comparing my '82 with my Boxster S, the Rx is much more communicative and entertaining to drive on a public road at a sane speed. There is no conceivable performance category that the Boxster couldn't leave the Rx far behind, but at the end of the day, it's the Rx that puts the bigger smile on my face. Why? Power steering, 400 pounds of sound deadening, airbags and electronics and big fat tires are the biggest offenders.

I suspect that if you still had that Lotus, you'd prefer it to the Rx-7 for similar reasons. At the end of the day, a sports car isn't about how fast it can get from A to B, it's the way it got you there.

Scott1982

Purple82, I am with you, I drive a BMW 525i which is really a neat car (because it is actually a rear wheel drive). It has brakes that are awesome, antilock that really works very well, and is comfortable to boot. But it is pretty boring to drive. Antiskid and traction control really take the fun out of life (at least for people that like to on occasion slide their butt end around).

The RX-7, while not greatly powered, is a ball to drive, specially after replacing all components on the front end and tightening up the steering box.

Scott

diabolical1

iTrader: (3)

count me in for the Gen I Rx-7 being a blast to drive. it's always been more fulfilling than my MR2 Turbo even if the suspension has been worn and damn near scary!

PaulFitzwarryne

Almost right! The Climax engine went into the Lotus 7 Mark 1. You could buy the kit with either a Ford engine or the Climax in the Super 7 and C models, 75hp all up weight 725Lbs.

Purple82 QUOTE "I suspect that if you still had that Lotus, you'd prefer it to the Rx-7 for similar reasons. At the end of the day, a sports car isn't about how fast it can get from A to B, it's the way it got you there." QUOTE

I agree the RX-7 is a civilised car while the Lotus 6 was open air fun.

You needed a special girl friend willing to be a passenger.
Thus, these days I would compromise with a Lotus 7 s3, still ultra-primative but 125hp with twin Weber 40s with 150hp from a tuned version is a motorbike on 4 wheels.

diabolical1

iTrader: (3)

[bragging]my girlfriend is still a willing passenger ...[/bragging]

bliffle

I used to work on a Cooper Monaco, sweet car. Remember the Lotus and the Elva Courier as competitive in the SCCA "GM" class.