Provisional WLTP readings

[Lots_Of_Trouble]

Apologies if shared already, but i have just noticed the provisional WLTP readings on the Lotus Website:

Provisional WLTP fuel consumption for the Emira First Edition V6 Manual in mpg (l/100km): Low 16.5 (17.1), Medium 25.9 (10.9), High 30.2 (9.4), Extra High 29.0 (9.7), Combined 26.0 (10.8)

Not that you buy a Lotus for efficiency ;-)

 

[Lots_Of_Trouble]

Apologies if shared already, but i have just noticed the provisional WLTP readings on the Lotus Website:

Provisional WLTP fuel consumption for the Emira First Edition V6 Manual in mpg (l/100km): Low 16.5 (17.1), Medium 25.9 (10.9), High 30.2 (9.4), Extra High 29.0 (9.7), Combined 26.0 (10.8)

Not that you buy a Lotus for efficiency ;-)

If it helps - MPG readings are now more accurate due to the new WLTP readings now in place to replace the old unrealistic NEDC System:

Back in September 2018, though, the standards by which fuel economy figures are measured were updated. The previous system (called NEDC) gave cars wildly unrealistic fuel economy claims and had become unfit for purpose. Amid growing pressures for reduced reliance on fossil fuels and immediate action to address environmental issues, a tougher and more realistic form of testing (WLTP) was introduced.

WLTP is short for Worldwide harmonised Light-duty vehicle Test Procedure, and was designed to better replicate the kind of driving conditions that are commonplace on actual roads and produce fuel economy figures that were much more representative

 

[Tonyshepp]

Apologies if shared already, but i have just noticed the provisional WLTP readings on the Lotus Website:

Provisional WLTP fuel consumption for the Emira First Edition V6 Manual in mpg (l/100km): Low 16.5 (17.1), Medium 25.9 (10.9), High 30.2 (9.4), Extra High 29.0 (9.7), Combined 26.0 (10.8)

Not that you buy a Lotus for efficiency ;-)

im used to between 16mpg (town) and 22-23 mpg (on a run) - 4 Litre V8
The Lotus will be more fuel efficient for me

 

[Porter]

FYI for the US folks... these MPG figures in the above post are in Imperial gallons... so it's not 1:1 comparable for the US.

Example, the "Medium" tier above at 10.9 L/100km:

Online calculator: https://www.omnicalculator.com/conversion/fueld-economy-converter

 

[Pugwash]

im used to between 16mpg (town) and 22-23 mpg (on a run) - 4 Litre V8
The Lotus will be more fuel efficient for me

I didn’t get much more than that with my Evora. I dont expect the Emira will be much different in the real world.

 

[NickR]

I didn’t get much more than that with my Evora. I dont expect the Emira will be much different in the real world.

i suspect worse?

Drag coefficient
Evora 0.337
Emira 0.349

Weight
Evora 1325kg
Emira > 1405kg

 

[Eagle7]

For the U.S. this is going to be a low of 13.75 mpg, a medium of 21.58 mpg, a high of 25 mpg, and an average of 21.78 mpg.

 

[roundincircles]

Apologies if shared already, but i have just noticed the provisional WLTP readings on the Lotus Website:

Provisional WLTP fuel consumption for the Emira First Edition V6 Manual in mpg (l/100km): Low 16.5 (17.1), Medium 25.9 (10.9), High 30.2 (9.4), Extra High 29.0 (9.7), Combined 26.0 (10.8)

Not that you buy a Lotus for efficiency ;-)

That is surprisingly good for an old tech engine.

 

[Porter]

That is surprisingly good for an old tech engine.

Particularly considering that the drag coefficient is not great on the car (intentionally) due to the aero design. Downforce is very expensive in terms of CoD.

It's refreshing to have a car that has proper aero design for the intended handling of the car at speed, rather than trying to cheat the wind for fuel economy (resulting in aerodynamic lift) and then relying on active spoilers or other active aero elements to restore safe anti-lift characteristics above certain speeds.

The Emira approach (which prioritizes aero design elements for mild downforce) is certainly less fuel efficient than tacking on motorized wings, but it's far more driven by the intended engineering outcome. I think this car is the last of its kind in a whole host of different ways, and this is one of them.

 

[VL3X]

Downforce is very expensive in terms of CoD.

Interesting point. I never really though of it this way, but it makes sense. I can't wait to stop looking at pictures of this car and actually drive mine!

 

[FlyNavy01]

Particularly considering that the drag coefficient is not great on the car (intentionally) due to the aero design. Downforce is very expensive in terms of CoD.

It's refreshing to have a car that has proper aero design for the intended handling of the car at speed, rather than trying to cheat the wind for fuel economy (resulting in aerodynamic lift) and then relying on active spoilers or other active aero elements to restore safe anti-lift characteristics above certain speeds.

The Emira approach (which prioritizes aero design elements for mild downforce) is certainly less fuel efficient than tacking on motorized wings, but it's far more driven by the intended engineering outcome. I think this car is the last of its kind in a whole host of different ways, and this is one of them.

Generally yes, but there are always exceptions. A common example being a well designed rear diffuser can create usable downforce while simultaneously reducing drag.

 

[Maverick1]

Better than the competition.

 

[Porter]

Generally yes, but there are always exceptions. A common example being a well designed rear diffuser can create usable downforce while simultaneously reducing drag.

That's certainly true! Exceptions to every rule. Difficult to achieve in the nose, though, without really radical departures from typical passenger car design.