Scottish Elises

Watching 5th Gear the other night and VBH mentions that the Pug 205 GTi weighs circa 800kg and is powered by a 1.9 130 bhp engine...

Mmm, I think, that almost indentical to an Elise S1/S2... so why is it an Elise is MUCH quicker to 60? Gears?

Weird.

I'd imagine gears will have a bit to do with it, but how many of those 130 horses will have run away from the Pug 1.9 engine over time?

Also, the torque and where it's available in the range will come in to play. I'd also say that the Elise can get off the line far quicker because of the weight over the rear wheels.

Just my 2p.

The 0-60mph is for a 'hypothetically' new Pug. Plus, the 205 has it's engine weight over it's driven wheels too- although at the front...

See what I mean?

How often do you 'drastically' break traction in the Lotus getting off the line (in the dry)? Much easier to do that in FWD imo. Fatter wheels at the rear of the Lotus also, so more rubber on the ground.

1. I think the elise (S1 anyway) is maybe a bit lighter
2. Over 50ishMPH aerodynamics start playing a factor, the elise gaining some more time there.
3. As others mention; traction. As the car accelerates, the weight gets thrown to the rear, putting more weight over the driven tyres in a Liz, and less over the fronts on the pug. (will make biggest difference in 1st gear when acceleration is the greatest)
4. It also depends where the 130 BHP is in the power range; how usuable it is.. and hop much torque there is to back it up.
5. Could also be down to gearing, (a tall 1st gear would mean a slightly sluggish start / short gears would mean needing to change to 3rd before 60: taking more time).

Any of the above factors alone would make little difference, but collectively, could add up to the 1.5 / 2 secs difference in 0-60 times...

All IMHO... i'm no expert

If power (or more correctly torque) and weight were the only variables, then the 205 would hammer an elise. The 1.9 205 is an 8 valve engine, so won't produce horsepower like a 16v - it'll be a more low-down torquey delivery, therefore will require more torque than an elise to produce 130 bhp (horsepower being a calculation of torque and revs)

Simple fact is the 205 is wrong wheel drive - all the weight is lifted off the fronts when you accellerate, just as you need the weight over them. Try a full bore start in a 205 and it'll wreath you in smoke - in the elise, it usually burns the clutch.

The 1900 Gti is pretty long geared in the first couple of gears; the mi 16 has the same 1st & 2nd ratios but a 20% shorter final drive ratio for comparision.

Also, an ordinary 205 may be about 800kg, but thats by far the lightest I've heard of a GTi being quoted as, I'd say it'd be closer to 900kg for the 1900.

Dominic wrote:5. Could also be down to gearing, (a tall 1st gear would mean a slightly sluggish start / short gears would mean needing to change to 3rd before 60: taking more time).

IIRC the 1.9 205 would hit 68 in 2nd - a mate had one back in the early 90s and the fact it almost hit motorway speeds in 2nd was a big deal to us back then (like woody says, long geared).

And the engine had buckets of torque

Std S1 will do almost 65mph in 2nd at a heady 6500rpm...

woody wrote:The 1900 Gti is pretty long geared in the first couple of gears; the mi 16 has the same 1st & 2nd ratios but a 20% shorter final drive ratio for comparision.

Also, an ordinary 205 may be about 800kg, but thats by far the lightest I've heard of a GTi being quoted as, I'd say it'd be closer to 900kg for the 1900.

Exactly what I was gunna say - there's no way a standard 1.9GTI is 800kg...