1979 John Player Specials Commemorative Edition No. 3 Lotus Esprit S2 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

The new Lotus Evora GT430 Sport is quicker with an automatic

Few automakers exploit platform variants as much as lotus. The company has four models, one of which is essentially a hardtop version of another. The Lotus Evora 400 sits atop the range, and since its debut last year we've seen the Evora 410, Evora 410 GP Edition and the Evora GT430. Today, the British automaker announced the Evora GT430 Sport, essentially a less hardcore but nearly as capable version of the GT430. The two biggest differences are the non-limited availability and the available six-speed automatic transmission. All 60 examples of the GT430 were only available with a manual. Both cars use the same 3.5-liter V6 topped with an Edelbrock supercharger that's good for 430 horsepower. Manual models make 325 lb-ft of torque, while automatic-equipped cars make 332 lb-ft. Despite a 24-pound penalty, the GT430 Sport automatic hits 60 mph in 3.6 seconds, a tenth quicker than the manual. While gearing in the automatic limits top speed to 170 mph, manual models can reach 196 mph. That makes this the fastest road-going Lotus ever. No matter which one you choose, the GT430 comes with Ohlins TTX two-way adjustable dampers, slotted and ventilated brake discs with AP Racing four-piston calipers, a Torsen-type limited slip differential and an adjustable traction control system. The front and rear bumpers, front access panel, roof panel, rear quarter panels and one-piece louvered tailgate and spoiler are all made of carbon fiber. The non-Sport GT430 adds a carbon fiber front splitter, rear wing, louvered wheel arches and a wider set of wheels and tires. The carbon fiber theme continues inside. The seats, door sills and parts of the instrument cluster are all made of the lightweight material. Most of the rest of the interior is trimmed in leather and black Alcantara. At $136,000, the new GT430 Sport undercuts the limited-run model by about $11,000. There's no word on if the car will make it here to the U.S. Hopefully Lotus' new parent company will keep the ball rolling. Related Video:

In hindsight, Musk wouldn't use Lotus for Tesla Roadster

The world will be a different place after Elon Musk builds a time traveling device (don't ask us how we know that will happen). For one thing, the Tesla Roadster of the rewritten future will not have been built using the chassis of the Lotus Elise. Also, verb tenses will be becoming even more confusing and, possibly, awkward. "We ended up changing most of the damn car" – Elon Musk We know about the not-using-the-Lotus thing because the Tesla Motors CEO said as much yesterday at the World Energy Innovation Forum at the Tesla Factory in Fremont. The two-day event, which also offers Model S test rides and a factory tour for attendees, featured a fireside chat with the electric automaker's CEO and Ira Ehrenpreis. During the discussion, Musk revealed that if he had to do it over again, he would have built the Roadster from the ground up instead of using the Lotus Elise chassis. "We ended up changing most of the damn car, so we thought later, why did we do that," he said. Another problem with the original idea for the car was the drivetrain. At first, Tesla had meant to use the motor and other propulsive bits from AC Propulsion, only to find that powertrain didn't work well in a commercial application. Instead Tesla only licensed the reductive charging patent, which allowed some integration of the inverter and charger. Besides knocking Tesla's own early efforts, the outspoken entrepreneur took a couple swings at other technologies with quotable quotes such as: "The internal combustion engine is a ridiculous thing!" and "Current lithium ion technology is better than theoretical fuel cell limits. So, game over. Why bother with fuel cells?" Looks like there are some things Musk is not interested in going back in time and changing.

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.