2013 Lotus Evora,solar Yellow/black,tech,prem,msrp:$79k on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Lotus Type 133 sedan caught testing in China

Before the Lotus Eletre battery-electric SUV debuted in March, Chinese car spotters snapped photos of prototypes in testing. The same has happened again with the Lotus codenamed Type 133. An image of the tester parked along a curb showed up on the Chinese site Weibo, with a camouflaged Eletre in the background left and an uncamouflaged Eletre parked opposite. The Type 133 is a four-door sedan being developed as a driver's car, benchmarked against and planning to take on the Porsche Taycan as well as the Audi E-Tron GT. Slated for a reveal next year, recent Lotus trademark applications for the names Envya and Etude lead watchers to believe the Type 133 will adopt one of those monikers for its debut in March, Envya getting the short odds. Lotus SVP of design Peter Horbury said the 133 wouldn't be just a smaller Eletre, we'll need to wait until the covers come off to know the truth of it. What we can tell for now is that the sedan doesn't look far off the kind of four-door we'd have expected from Lotus if the English maker had got into family sedans before the electric age. Peeking through the window, the driver's area gives off the same vibes as in the Eletre thanks to a squared steering wheel and minimalist instrument panel. An earlier spy shot picked up by Car News China shows a rear door with pillarless window. The biggest surprise is how long it looks. Some of that length could be a trick of the angle and the camera lens; even so, this won't be a wallflower. And why should it be? Said to sit on the same Electric Premium Architecture (EPA) as the Eletre — a derivative of parent company Geely's Sustainable Experience Architecture (SEA) that supports the Polestar 4 and the new Smart range — we expect overlap in powertrain possibilities. That could mean an entry-level battery pack of 92 kilowatt-hours juicing a dual-motor drivetrain with 595 horsepower and 524 pound-feet of torque, and a 120-kWh pack powering four motors producing 893 hp and 727 lb-ft. That latter model should get the Type 133 from standstill to 62 miles per hour in under 3 seconds. After the sedan debuts, the Type 134 SUV isn't anticipated until 2025, a challenger to the Porsche Macan EV. The following year, Lotus returns to its roots with the Type 135 sports car that will usher the current Emira into retirement. Related video:

Lotus' new position: Much improved, if Volvo's experience is a guide

Out today is the news that Geely Holding will acquire controlling interest in British sports car maker Lotus Cars. While some 20 years ago the Chinese acquisition of a British automaker might have inspired grumbling from aggrieved Brits (and the handful of Lotus enthusiasts), the world has moved on. And so – thankfully – can Lotus. To suggest Lotus' business history has been checkered is to broaden the definition of "checkered." With its beginnings in the early '50s as a maker of component cars for competition, Lotus founder Colin Chapman – in a manner not unlike his postwar contemporary, Enzo Ferrari – was always hustling, living a hand-to-mouth existence in the production of road cars to support a racing program. Regrettably, Chapman never found a Fiat, as Ferrari did toward the end of the 1960s. Lotus had Ford in its corner for racing and as a resource for powertrains, and later benefited from the corporate support of both GM and Toyota for relatively short periods. Lotus Cars, however, never enjoyed the corporate buy-in that would have allowed Chapman to race and let someone else build the cars. Regardless of what Consumer Reports or Kelley Blue Book might have thought (if they had ...) about those early Lotus cars, a great many are now regarded as classics. My first knowledge of a production Lotus was when Tom McCahill, the 'dean' of automotive journalists in the US, tested an early Elan for Mechanix Illustrated. While we're still not sure, some 50 years later, how McCahill's XXL frame fit into the tiny roadster, he had nothing but praise for the Elan's athletic chassis and now-timeless design. In today's Lotus portfolio, the Elise and Exige continue that light, athletic tradition, while the larger Evora seems to strike wide – literally and figuratively – of the "less is more" ideal. With the Toyota-powered Evora, more is more. But in an eco-sensitive era demanding more of the original Chapman mantra – add lightness – there's little reason that Lotus can't regain relevance if given the financial resources. Geely's acquisition of Volvo, the fruits of which appear regularly not only in the news but on the streets, suggests the Chinese investment will provide strategic vision (along with money) while allowing Lotus talent to do what it does best: Create an exciting product. And while at various periods in its history the product has been worthy, Lotus in the US has been ill-served by a flailing dealer network.

European commission investigating F1 finances and anti-competitive accusations

The Kingdom of Formula One reminds us of renaissance Florence - ruled by a singular chieftan behind a mask of representative involvement, rife with spectacularly convoluted machinations, awash in innovations that help define our world and far-flung, vindictive misery. If we found out Bernie Ecclestone's real last name was de Medici, well, it would explain a lot. Now after a bit of back-and-forth, the European Commission (EC) has taken aim at the kingdom, investigating whether F1 is anti-competitive and if the FIA has abused its antitrust agreement. The reason for EC scrutiny is that a British member of the European Parliament who represents an area in southwest England, Anneliese Dodds, has fielded complaints from engineering companies in her constituency that recent moves in F1 have put them out of business. She wrote to the EC to question why the FIA now has a stake in F1 when it signed an agreement in 2001 to be solely a governing body and abdicate any stakeholding in the sport. She also questioned the F1 Strategy Group, a group of the six top teams in F1 that makes decisions about the direction of the sport; she says that the Strategy Group not only appears to be a case of the F1 shirking its rule-making duty, it has resulted in unfair treatment of the small teams that aren't in the group. Dodds has a bit of a point. In 2001, the FIA sold F1's commercial rights to Ecclestone for 100 years for a sum of $313.7 million. That was done to placate European regulators who insisted that "the role of FIA will be limited to that of a sports regulator, with no commercial conflicts of interest." Although the rights are ultimately owned by the FIA and bring in a $10M fee every year from Formula One, those rights bring in $1.6 billion each year to Formula One Management (FOM), the company that owns F1. When Ecclestone was trying to get the new Concorde Agreement signed in 2013 that governs the running of the sport, the FIA wouldn't sign, saying it wanted F1 to share a larger slice of its revenue – the FIA has been losing money for years, see. To the get the FIA to sign, Ecclestone sold it a one-percent stake in F1 for $460,000 and gave the FIA a $5M signing 'bonus;' whenever F1 has its IPO, that stake is estimated to be worth about $120 million - not a bad return. Yet, according to the aforementioned 2001 agreement, the FIA can't have that equity stake.