2006 Lotus Elise 21k Miles No Reserve on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Lotus plans detuned Evora sans supercharger for US market

We may never see a new version of the Elise or Exige in the United States, but the legendary British marque has been steadily rolling out new versions of the Evora 2+2 sports car. According to Automotive News, the automaker based in Hethel is planning a detuned version of the Evora to help it get in line with US emissions regulations. "Over a five-year period in the U.S. we have to show a 3 percent per year reduction in carbon dioxide emissions," Lotus CEO Jean-Marc Gales told AN. "One option is remove the supercharger." Gales apparently feels that's a better option than downsizing to a 2.0-liter turbo four, which would require more reconfiguration than simply removing the supercharger. The former Peugeot chief cites the example of another British sports car manufacturer in McLaren, which detuned the 3.8-liter twin-turbo V8 from the 650S to slot into the 570S. In any event, the base Evora wouldn't be the only new version of the model we're expecting to see. The company recently rolled out the revised Evora 400, and revealed the even sharper Evora Sport 410 (pictured above) at the Geneva Motor Show last month. Lotus also has an Evora roadster in the works that's similarly targeted at the North American market. Following the base model, we wouldn't be surprised to see even more variants to follow. Related Video:

Lotus suing former CEO Bahar over spending on homes, helicopters and watches

More details have come out about the legal suit and countersuit being contested between Lotus cars owner DRB-Hicom and former CEO of Lotus Dany Bahar. Bahar was brought in by Malaysian car company Proton in 2009 to turn Lotus around, and events during his tenure have made just about everyone wonder "What's going on?" That's not unusual - it can take a minute to figure things out when a new leader takes everything in a new direction - but in this case the clouds didn't clear quickly enough.
When the Malaysian government sold Proton to Malaysian auto supplier DRB-Hicom earlier this year, a forensic accounting team from Ernst & Young and The Rothschild Group started going over the books. Not long after, Bahar was suspended in June from his position and then fired. In his countersuit against DRB-Hicom, claims of lavish spending began to surface. Then the stories and leaks and rumors really began, the UK's Financial Mail reporting on more than one million pounds spent on private flights and home renovations, the New Zealand Herald talking about other executives sacked so that DRB could rearrange a 270-million-pound bank loan to Lotus, and rumors on forums about Bahar flying from his home in Norfolk to Hethel HQ and spending 30,000 pounds on motorsports books for his office.
In the latest Bloomberg report it is said that DRB-Hicom seeks 2.5 million pounds ($4 million US) from Bahar "for unauthorized expenses and overpaid salary and bonuses," including the purported expense of 3,000 pounds on watches for company managers. DRB-Hicom also says Bahar made damaging statements to the media, on top of breaching his contractual duties. Bahar's countersuit seeks $10.6 million from DRB-Hicom.

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.