Why the Lotus Elan is all British car with the isuzu motor

[jello]

And then there was Japan: in 1918, Wolseley signed a contract with Tokyo's Ishikawajiama Ship Building and Engineering Co – which had recently ventured into car production – giving the Japanese company exclusive production and marketing rights for Wolseley products in the Far East. Several Wolseley employees were sent over to Japan to assist in setting up the operation, and in December 1922 the first Japanese-built Wolseley model entered production. By 1929, the company was also building cars to its own designs, and by 1949 had changed its name to "Isuzu Motors Ltd"; still going strong today, Isuzu has been part of the GM empire since 1981.

[M100 TWO]

because GM owned Lotus and Isuzu at the time and raided the parts bin

[ailwyn]

because GM owned Lotus and Isuzu at the time and raided the parts bin

I think that Jello was implying that as Isuzu has a tenuous link to Britain in it's heritage, the engine does not detract from the britishness of the car.

Now how to explain away the french rear light clusters

The car was designed and built in britain, the constituent parts don't really count, otherwise the Elan would be the illegitimate child of several nations.

Ailwyn

[Doug]

don't forget the Ford vents in the interior . . . .

[GeoffSmith]

And I though GM were American

Let's face it, a few engineers used the best that they could get hold of with some innovative design and composite fabrication techniques using foreign investment & parts and put together one hell of a car.

[Nige]

Yep!

[Aurora40]

I tend to find this stuff interesting, so I apologize if it's too trivial. If I were to guess, I'd guess that the reason for using an existing powertrain was for cost reasons. In the US the Elan already sold for over $40k when new, which was quite expensive for a car then (that's about a $60k car in today's dollars). And that was without any new powertrain. Imagine the cost if they had to both engineer and manufacture a new powertrain for the car.

I do wonder if the Isuzu motor was chosen because of it's "flavors" with or without a turbo, or if it was smaller, or if the turbo was seen as higher tech? At the time GM also had available the Quad4, that made up to 190hp from a 2.3L DOHC all-aluminum motor. It was even available with a 5-speed with limited slip on select models of cars. It also came in "flavors" from around 140hp up to the 190hp model that I believe was exclusive to the Olds Achieva SCX W-41 that did so well in SCCA World Challenge/Firehawk competition.

So at the time the Quad 4 appeared to be the General's top 4-cylinder motor, and it had racing pedigree to back it up. I wonder if it was a matter of size or weight or something that had the Isuzu motor going in the Elan, or if it was something altogether different like corporate politics, or the Isuzu design or manufacturing process being more accomodating for Lotus to make some special changes to, or purely cost, or what?

[nitroman]

The Quad-4 takes up a lot more space than the Isuzu engine, and that is the most likely reason. It is a fine engine in its own right to be sure, as I have driven many rental cars with them. Remember that it is 2.3 litres & its only slightly altered "update" 2.4 litres.

The major problem GM had with this motor was that it lacked 2-cylinders, a marketing thing. Even though GM's 6-cyl engines were not state of the art engineering consumers had decided in advance that is what they wanted to buy. Welcome to the US market!

[GeoffSmith]

I tend to find this stuff interesting...

I wonder if it was a matter of size or weight or something that had the Isuzu motor going in the Elan, or if it was something altogether different like corporate politics, or the Isuzu design or manufacturing process being more accomodating for Lotus to make some special changes to, or purely cost, or what?

There's a piece in Mark Hughes' book (well worth getting) about the decision to go with Isuzu who had a westernised attitude, were at the right stage of development and the size was right. Toyota had been involved but withdrew after the GM tie up and Opel's 2 litre unit was less free revving and too big, although at the right stage of development.
Apart from the politics of the Toyota situation, the decision seems to have been pretty much based on sound engineering, as Lotus were not required to limit themselves to the GM group.

[Dico]

Any pics John?

[GeoffSmith]

Wondered how long it would take!

[Dico]

You know what Geoff, I'm so funny I make my own sides ache.

errm, back on topic - I heard/read somewhere Lotus chose a 1600cc engine so to keep a similar spec to the original Elan. (Mark Hughes probably) Good choice anyhow

[GeoffSmith]

Incoming..............

[Dico]

I wonder if it was a matter of size/ and the size was right.

looks like i've repeated what you said

New i'd read it somewhere.

[Aurora40]

The major problem GM had with this motor was that it lacked 2-cylinders, a marketing thing. Even though GM's 6-cyl engines were not state of the art engineering consumers had decided in advance that is what they wanted to buy. Welcome to the US market!

Do you mean the problem with the Quad 4? GM did have a state-of-the-art V6 in 1991. It was called the Twin Dual-Cam V6, and displaced 3.4L. However, I don't know that it would have fit in the cars GM used the Quad 4 in.

Back then the various divisions still had their own motors to a degree, so there was a fair amount of variety to be had.

Just a note, but the Ecotech is not an enlarged Quad 4. The 2.4L that was used up until about 2002 was a derivative of the Quad 4 but the Ecotech is quite new, and quite a bit more durable, etc. The Quad 4's seem to suffer from a weak headgasket. I guess on the plus side it's a 4-banger, thus not quite as hard to change...

[Aurora40]

There's a piece in Mark Hughes' book (well worth getting)...

Curious, what's the book? I did an amazon search on Mark Hughes as an author. There appears to be one called Lotus Files, and one called Lotus Elan that might be it, though neither had a description, and of course the 1990's Elan isn't necessarily the one the Elan book is about.

[Doug]

. . . and of course the 1990's Elan isn't necessarily the one the Elan book is about.

well it certainly is !

is there some other kind of Elan

[nitroman]

Just a note, but the Ecotech is not an enlarged Quad 4.

Who said anything about an Ecotech? That is way outside of the Elan's space/time continuum!

The only V6's offered as an upgrade to the Quad-4 were the old 3.1 & 3.4L pushrod motors... both with slightly more torque but usually less HP than the 4-banger. For the $750 or so premium I would expect more, but lots of people simply have it in their heads that only economy-cars have 4-bangers. Perhaps they should have actually driven one. That GM in the base models paired the 4-cyl with a old non-electronic 3spd automatic speaks further to the fact that engineers were not in charge.

It is interesting to note that in 1992 Isuzu started offering a 4spd auto which will bolt right to our engine. I would like to see someone do that just as an experiment. Many turbos are faster as automatics because the revs never drop on a shift, so the turbo continues to spin at max RPM. That was the case with my Maserati. The magazine tests proved it.

[GeoffSmith]

Curious, what's the book?

My bible

[Aurora40]

Who said anything about an Ecotech? That is way outside of the Elan's space/time continuum!

I thought you did. You mentioned it being enlarged to 2.4L. For the 2.4L Twin-Cam of the 1990's this is true. For GM's 2.4L Ecotech, this is not true. But then you said "litres" and not "liters" so maybe we're talking about two different things!

The only V6's offered as an upgrade to the Quad-4 were the old 3.1 & 3.4L pushrod motors... both with slightly more torque but usually less HP than the 4-banger. For the $750 or so premium I would expect more, but lots of people simply have it in their heads that only economy-cars have 4-bangers. Perhaps they should have actually driven one. That GM in the base models paired the 4-cyl with a old non-electronic 3spd automatic speaks further to the fact that engineers were not in charge.

Are you speaking only about specific models? Because, as I'd mentioned, GM had a 3.4 liter DOHC all-aluminum V6 in 1991 that made 215hp. On models like the Achieva, the high-output Quad 4 was the top engine, in spite of a V6 being available (mostly on 4-door models). The 190hp Quad 4 was the engine of choice for the Achieva SCX W-41. It was also the hot motor offering on cars like the Beretta GTZ, and Grand Am. In later 2.4L Twin-Cam form, it went on to completely replace a V6 offering on the redesigned Cavalier Z24 and Sunfire GT.

I hear you on 3-speed transmissions, but keep in mind this was 15-20 years ago. 3-speeds were much more common. In terms of basic/volume motors, the Quad 4 was below most of the V6's. In regular output form the V6's would perform better due to a broader power curve. And as you said, V6's are perceived to be better than 4-bangers. So it makes sense that as GM made the move from 3-speed autos to 4-speed autos, they would do so on higher end cars first. And the high-output versions of the Quad 4 only came with a 5-speed Getrag manual (which along with their tendancy to be in two-doors is probably why so few of them were sold).

On perceptions of 4 vs 6 vs 8 cylinder engines, though, I'll just say that this isn't without cause. When you compare any random 4 to 6, sure there is overlap where the 4 is better. But not when you look at the top motors. Within GM, the 190/180hp Quad 4 was the top of 4-bangers. The 215hp Twin Dual Cam and 240+hp Turbo 3.8L were tops for V6's, and in V8's you had 250-300hp pushrod V8's, a 295hp 4.6L Northstar in 1993, and a 375hp LT5 in 1990. More commonly were motors like the anemic "Iron Duke" 2.5L 4-banger that I think at it's best made about 120hp, the 150hp Quad 4, the 135hp 2.8L V6, 170hp 3.8L V6, and ~200hp 5.0L variants of the pushrod V8. So there is a progression of power as you go up the scale.

I will say that I think GM's pushrod V6's have been the slowest to develop over the years, which isn't necessarily good since they are probably the most common motors. But motors like the 3800, especially with a supercharger, they produce power and economy that is hard to fault (especially given the low price of the motor), in spite of the ancient origins and "low tech" design. It has a bad appearance more than a bad reality, which I'd say speaks to having rather competent engineers who recognize making a good product is a series of compromises. On cost, economy, and power, GM's motors don't compromise much at all.

It is interesting to note that in 1992 Isuzu started offering a 4spd auto which will bolt right to our engine. I would like to see someone do that just as an experiment. Many turbos are faster as automatics because the revs never drop on a shift, so the turbo continues to spin at max RPM. That was the case with my Maserati. The magazine tests proved it.

I was wondering about this before. Does anyone drag race their Elan? I realize it's not "Lotus" kind of racing, but it's cheap and fun and at least in the US, tracks are widely available (plus convertibles can usually run with no rollbars, etc, if they are stock and stay out of the 10's). I'd be curious to know what kind of times people get. It's a pretty light car, I bet they run pretty well.