STANDARD (LOW) POWERED ENGINE COMPARISON

Anything goes in here.....

Moderators: robin, pete, Shug, campbell, simon, ed

ScottJ-PS
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 6:03 pm
Location: Bearsden

STANDARD (LOW) POWERED ENGINE COMPARISON

Post by ScottJ-PS » Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:59 pm

So starting a new thread from something Campbell mentioned on TG thread.

“The 1.6 was a great concept, but never quite quick enough. I think EU emission regs killed the 1.8 134bhp engine, which had better torque and needed only 5 ratios to get the best out of it.
Having driven both in close proximity to a K series S1, the 1.8 134 was very close in character indeed. The 1.6 needed the knackers revved off it and all 6 gears otherwise felt lacking.”

Originally the Elise was a lightweight lowish powered car making use of power to weight. Now that the 1.6 Toyota is no more the least powerful model is the 220SC which takes us far away from the original concept, what will the new Series 4 be like ?

So I have a 120bhp K series 2004. The car is now my daily driver and I love the low down accessible torque. As a daily I had thought of trying to get a 2011 onwards 134 bhp Toyota which comes with airbags, ABS, traction etc. Drove Murrays demo 1.6 last year and was underwhelmed. Yes there were no rattles and squeaks and it is far safer on paper anyway, but the driving experience didn’t give me anything. Would cost thousands to trade up so I haven’t. If anything the 1.6 Toyota was more like my 2.0 MX5 in character, in that the revs were higher up, needed revved, and the 6 speed box.

So if you have driven a standard K series, a 1.8 134bhp Toyota, and a 1.6 134 bhp Toyota, let’s hear your comments on pros and cons .

User avatar
campbell
Posts: 15401
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 12:42 pm
Location: West Lothian
Contact:

Re: STANDARD (LOW) POWERED ENGINE COMPARISON

Post by campbell » Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:25 pm

The 1.8 drives closely in character to a standard S1 K series car. It's 10% down on power:weight, and you can feel that higher up the rev range. But for 95% of road driving it's a worthy successor. *

I nearly bought one actually.

The 1.6 is, well, lacking in torque everywhere and revving it seems almost cruel!

I wanted to buy one, as the Club Racer version looked real cool.

I climbed back in my (sympathetically improved) S1 and was glad I still had it. End of, really.

* - rumour has a 2bular exhaust and downpioe will release another 10-15% power and torques. That would be my perfect S2. Albeit at a price...
http://www.rathmhor.com | Coaching, training, consultancy

User avatar
j2 lot
Posts: 7410
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: Strathaven / Glasgow

Re: STANDARD (LOW) POWERED ENGINE COMPARISON

Post by j2 lot » Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:58 pm

I always thought my brothers 1.6 was as near as you could get to the original S1 but realistically everything has moved on and it is actually a retrograde step to get something so like the original, that isn't the original. If you have never experienced an Elise before the 1.6 would be a good place to start but from every other perspective you would quickly feel short changed.
2011 Triumph Bonneville
2013 Vauxhall Mokka SE
2015 Lotus Evora
2017 Jaguar XE

User avatar
smitstui
Posts: 465
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:31 pm
Location: Montrose
Contact:

Re: STANDARD (LOW) POWERED ENGINE COMPARISON

Post by smitstui » Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:56 am

:withstupid

I have had both. The 1.6 CR is a great car for the road. You really can properly rag it without silly speeds.
But, imho, the S1 is the original and still the best and I agree whole heartedly that the 1.6 is trying to get back to this, but isnt quite there.

However, even looking at the best S1 examples, its still an old car and will likely have more problems that the very reliable 1.6, so its horses for courses.

1.6 definitely needs sports exhaust and filter to make it sound better.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Elise S1
Elan SE (M100)
Chimaera 450
Fulvia 1.3s

User avatar
campbell
Posts: 15401
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 12:42 pm
Location: West Lothian
Contact:

Re: STANDARD (LOW) POWERED ENGINE COMPARISON

Post by campbell » Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:23 am

Very good point on reliability!

But I think the original exam question is between 1.6 and 1.8 Toyota engined cars.

So the 1.8 still just edges it?
http://www.rathmhor.com | Coaching, training, consultancy

User avatar
scott_e
Posts: 1823
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 5:13 pm
Location: Broughty ferry

Re: STANDARD (LOW) POWERED ENGINE COMPARISON

Post by scott_e » Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:34 pm

Interesting thread. I have considered a 1.6 , looks good and the price is more digestible but really all i have to compare it to to date is the Exige N/A 190 which was bloody hard work to keep on the 2nd cam but a lot of fun if the weather was dry. Expect the 1.6 would really be disappointing in comparison, more like the MR2 mark 3 just better looking. Think its probably a choice between 220 SC derivative and Exige V6 for me at the moment. At the back of my mind is the 2020 Elise though but with no spec or price its a waiting game I guess.

User avatar
campbell
Posts: 15401
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 12:42 pm
Location: West Lothian
Contact:

STANDARD (LOW) POWERED ENGINE COMPARISON

Post by campbell » Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:23 pm

Some say...the Elise 220 is THE all-time all-rounder Elise. Robin's one sure impressed me.

The 1.6 is not a driver's Elise. I thought they could have done something with the Club Racer edition. Go even lighter and fit a true sports exhaust for another 15bhp. But nope. Gutted.

Although I believe the Club Racer later became avail with the 220 engine. Tasty...
http://www.rathmhor.com | Coaching, training, consultancy

User avatar
Dark
Posts: 590
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:12 am
Location: Broxburn, West Lothian

Re: STANDARD (LOW) POWERED ENGINE COMPARISON

Post by Dark » Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:37 pm

campbell wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:23 pm
Although I believe the Club Racer later became avail with the 220 engine. Tasty...
Did it now..... interesting!

The first Elise I drove was a 1.6 and it was very disappointing, the 1.8 is night & day better! :)
2006 Lotus Elise S (Ardent Red)

User avatar
campbell
Posts: 15401
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 12:42 pm
Location: West Lothian
Contact:

Re: STANDARD (LOW) POWERED ENGINE COMPARISON

Post by campbell » Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:42 pm

Agreed Mark. I am seriously impressed by yours
http://www.rathmhor.com | Coaching, training, consultancy

User avatar
ferg f
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:21 pm
Location: Ayrshire

Re: STANDARD (LOW) POWERED ENGINE COMPARISON

Post by ferg f » Sun Apr 15, 2018 2:59 pm

I'm reasonably new to the Lotus world and I jumped in and bought a 1.6 Toyota engine 10 plate Elise last September.

Travelled to south Wales to buy it and I will be quite honest, I was very impressed with the handling on the way back up the road through all the Welsh back roads.

The sound from the engine was disappointing and there is no getting away from that, a sports car needs that tone! When I got home even the missis said it was missing the exhaust note! So a 2bular was very quickly fitted along with a air filter, sounds a lot better now.

Ok there are going to be a lot saying its not fast enough, well maybe I'm getting old and sensible...... I have been round fast cars and my last beast was a 520bhp Evo, great fun to drive but, and this is a huge but, way to fast for the road and could terrorise other road users. It was fantastic on the track and was at home at Knockhill.

With the Elise, I have decided my days for track are past to be honest and for the road I am finding the 1.6 good fun.

I mentioned the handling being good, well it was recently in at Ken Brown for service and he noted the camber was not what he would recommend so getting it back after the full geometry having been done its handling a lot better.

Looking forward to some dry summer runs as this wee engine car with the handling can be a lot of fun and a good amount of fun on the twisties, in my humble opinion.

I'll stand by to be shot down in flames :D

User avatar
campbell
Posts: 15401
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 12:42 pm
Location: West Lothian
Contact:

Re: STANDARD (LOW) POWERED ENGINE COMPARISON

Post by campbell » Sun Apr 15, 2018 8:16 pm

No Ferg you are spot on.

Don't misunderstand my review. Many of us here have been around Elises of every single variant for up to 20 years. The formula remains brilliant and it's the steering and handling that define the Elise. Period.

But naturally people have varied requirements for power and my relatively plain S1 was perfect for me.

If I had the choice of a 1.6 Elise or none ever, I'd take it no prob

Your exhaust and airbox are worth a psychological 15bhp so enjoy!

Pics and audio clips too pls
http://www.rathmhor.com | Coaching, training, consultancy

User avatar
j2 lot
Posts: 7410
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: Strathaven / Glasgow

Re: STANDARD (LOW) POWERED ENGINE COMPARISON

Post by j2 lot » Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:03 am

:withstupid
Nothing wrong with a 1.6 and smiles for money it makes much sense. There is something satisfying in wringing the performance out a car without being ridiculously over the limit, that owners of higher powered Elises will not be able to experience if they want to keep their licences :wink:
2011 Triumph Bonneville
2013 Vauxhall Mokka SE
2015 Lotus Evora
2017 Jaguar XE

User avatar
smitstui
Posts: 465
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:31 pm
Location: Montrose
Contact:

Re: STANDARD (LOW) POWERED ENGINE COMPARISON

Post by smitstui » Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:17 am

As I said above, I loved my 1.6 because I could really rag it. But with a TRD filter and exhaust it was fine, almost good.

Campbell, how new was the one you tried? could it still of been tight? I am not suggesting it’s a rocket ship, but it was adequate for fun. But more important than power, it felt quite keen to rev and the pops and bangs were awesome (until Craig had to replace the back box, under warranty, when it disintegrated)

I am looking for the 220CR, or maybe a cup, now and it does worry me about the speed it will be able to do on the roads. I would go for the Exige, but I think its too much for the road.

I have never tried the 1.8 low powered Toyota (must be the only variant I haven’t tried) and now feel I need to drive it to compare :)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Elise S1
Elan SE (M100)
Chimaera 450
Fulvia 1.3s

User avatar
campbell
Posts: 15401
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 12:42 pm
Location: West Lothian
Contact:

STANDARD (LOW) POWERED ENGINE COMPARISON

Post by campbell » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:19 pm

Yep it was a demo so prob quite tight.

A 220CR is indeed, ahem, too fast for the road

But streets ahead of a 1.6CR in terms of all round driveability. TDI mode is comedy gold round town

Small detail but, on trackdays, a 1.6 is going to spend a lot of time moving over...
http://www.rathmhor.com | Coaching, training, consultancy

User avatar
smitstui
Posts: 465
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:31 pm
Location: Montrose
Contact:

Re: STANDARD (LOW) POWERED ENGINE COMPARISON

Post by smitstui » Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:43 pm

I did track the 1.6 cr. On the Murray track night it was great no problem with speed against Evoras or anything else. At that point I thought this isn’t too bad.
The next one I did was a SIDC one and I felt all I did was pull over to the side.
It was purely the difference in who attends the event, first timers vs experienced drivers.

All that said, I had that n/a Exige with strange wing things on it at the next sidc day. It felt outclassed next to all the supercharged Elises. I really noticed a step change in trackday speed since the V6 Exige and Elise 220s came out. There were always faster cars before but now the majority are faster.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Elise S1
Elan SE (M100)
Chimaera 450
Fulvia 1.3s

Post Reply