The Elan is pure Lotus in design. A distillation of Colin Chapman’s expertise and knowledge. Gordon Murray, Jay Leno and Harry Metcalfe are all paid up members of the Elan club. When I receive the rather simple looking key to take an Elan out for a drive, I feel a certain weight of expectation…

What if the little Lotus is rubbish to drive?

Driving Experience

After the initial surprise at the size of the Elan, once inside, it looks old. Really old.

A thin rimmed steering wheel, delicate, thin A pillars and Jaeger dials all look great, but ancient. It feels like a museum piece rather than a cutting edge driving tool.

Once started up the engine sounds far more potent than its capacity suggests. A few taps on the throttle and the little engine revs instantaneously, with a crackle from the exhaust. Maybe this will be good after all?

The pedals and gearshift are small and delicate. Once on the move everything falls to hand easily – especially the gear lever, just a hand span from the wheel. A few more throttle blips and we’re off down a country lane, the Elan’s natural hunting ground. It’s size makes it simple to place and dodging pot holes soon becomes an instinctive game.

At speed the Elan is forgiving to an extent. The fabulous steering tells you exactly what’s going on, to the extent that you rely less and less on the brakes. You soon build trust with the car and its ability to carry momentum through a corner. The steering is hyper sensitive, so inputs need to be measured. Once you’ve re-calibrated, the Elan becomes a great companion on even the most challenging roads. Pitching the car into corners quicker and quicker becomes natural rather than something to be feared. It feels like a go-kart that has grown up (slightly).

The (Lack Of) Weight

The Elan’s alert and responsive nature is down to its hybrid construction. A steel backbone chassis with fibreglass bodywork keeps the Lotus at a featherweight 690 kg.

The 1971 Sprint version added a more powerful punch in the form of a tuned engine. Taking just 6.2 seconds to get to 60 miles an hour, this was faster than the contemporary Jaguar E-Type (7.4 seconds) and Lamborghini Muira (6.7 seconds).

Out on the road, the lack of weight is felt by the immediacy of the controls. The small 165/70 tires smoothing over bumps that would agitate stiffer sprung and heavier modern cars.

The Engine

Lotus engine’s are often unfairly overlooked as they were generally borrowed from other manufacturers. The Elan is no different and uses a Ford “Kent” engine modified with help from Cosworth. A Lotus cylinder head and light flywheel transformed the engine into a free revving, miniature exotic.

The nature of this buzzy engine sits well with the rest of the car. It’s brilliant fun to wring out every gear and feel the car squirm under power. The little engine won’t get you an instant speeding ban and it’s no less fun for it.

The Issues

The Elan is not without its foibles. The electric windows were a late replacement for the sliding windows intended by Chapman. They were considered dangerous in a crash, and an alternative was needed at short notice. The door design couldn’t fit a manual winder, so begrudgingly Chapman opted for the heavy electric option. A real rarity back in the 1960s.

Siezed brakes, water pump failure and hot starting issues (because of the location of the starter motor) are all common issues that demand commitment and patience from a prospective owner. But with Gordon Murray, Jay Leno and Co as fellow owners, it’s a small compromise.

The Legacy

The Elan is possibly the pinnacle of Chapman’s single minded approach to car design. While it was never designed as an outright speed machine, the Elan could more than hold its own with contemporaries. Even today, it would take a fast car to catch the Elan down a country lane.

Against its competition of the day? They wouldn’t see which way the Elan went.

A Frogeye Sprite or MG Midget would get to around 80-90mph at best. The Elan would go well past a hundred. The Elan’s agility would run rings around more powerful opponents like the MG V8 or Austin Healey. In later Sprint form it would out accelerate anything with a Jaguar or Lamborghini badge.

The combination of cutting edge Lotus design and the relatively crude and outdated design of competitors must have seemed incredible back in 1962. The Elan was a leap forward in car design and one of the finest sports cars to come from Britain.

The only real competition it had was from its Lotus siblings. The later Elan +2, Lotus Europa and older Lotus Elite are all heirs to the Lotus crown, but in my eyes the Elan, with it’s cute matchbox styling and wonderfully engaging drive marks it out as the holy grail of Lotus.

The Lotus Elite might have started the hybrid GRP and steel chassis design, but the Elan is where Lotus really showed what was possible. Since then, numerous cars have left the Lotus factory using the same materials and with the same character. In my view much of this stems from when that little Elan was launched.

Whether you’re an avid collector or appreciate great engineering feats when you see them, you can’t help but marvel at what this remarkable car achieved back in 1962.

If you struggle to appreciate the Lotus Elan, drive one, you’ll soon realize why it’s brilliant!

Taking cues from the 1978 Pininfarina XJSpider concept car, Keith Helfet would design the F-Type. The range would contain a Coupe/Targa (XJ41) and a convertible (XJ42). Sir William Lyons had retired from Jaguar, but the team took the XJ41 for his approval. Apparently Lyons was fond of Helfet’s work and deemed it worthy of the badge.

Almost a decade later, the XJ41/42 project was bloated with safety legislation and unnecessary complications. A separate dashboard for right and left hand drive cars was decided on, rather than a modular one that could be adapted for both. The design team opted for a big hatched boot rather than the simpler, smaller boot. As the car got bigger and heavier, the engine was changed to a twin turbo straight six with four wheel drive.

While it was apparently very fast with the new engine (easily past 170mph at Nardo) the 1800kg the XJ41 wasn’t the sports car Jaguar intended to be.

When Ford took over Jaguar in 1999 projects were reviewed. The expensive and delayed XJ 41/42 project came under close scrutiny. The XJ41 had turned from a small lightweight sports car into another XJS.

Employees booked a lot of overtime against the project so Ford put it on hold. Jaguar was in a precarious financial situation, so had no choice but to go along with Ford’s recommendation.

Another Chance?

Tom Walkinshaw at Jaguarsport (part TWR part Jaguar owned sub company) saw an opportunity with the XJ41 and attempted to get Peter Stevens to re-design it. While this didn’t come to fruition due to Steven’s workload, Walkinshaw contacted Ian Callum instead. The XJ41 was redesigned and presented to Jaguar. The XJ41 was turned down again, due to the company’s precarious financial position.

The Jaguar Changes Its Spots

When Ford started looking at building a new Aston Martin, the XJ41 project seemed to be the obvious contender. Ian Callum’s redesigned XJ41 became Aston Martin’s new DB7.

Revealed at the Geneva show in 1993, the Aston Martin DB7 received a rapturous reception. The complicated bloodline of the DB7 could be traced right back to a car intended to replace the legendary E-Type. The DB7 was launched in 1994 and its strong sales enabled Aston Martin to grow as a brand under Ford.

The Triumph TR7 was launched to the public in 1975. From outside observation at least, it looked like Triumph were designing a failure. With awkward styling, a simple live rear axle, fixed roof and a four cylinder engine – The TR7 was supposed to improve on its predecessor, but many elements seemed like a backward step. The TR6 was ancient but still had its six cylinder engine, a soft top and independent rear suspension.

To understand why Triumph did this, we need to look at the situation back in the early 1970s and what parent company, British Leyland were trying to achieve with the Triumph brand.

Gestation Of The TR7

Since the earlier merger of companies, British Leyland had both MG and Triumph selling sports cars against each other. The former Triumph boss, Lord Stokes was now in charge at British Leyland and needed to rationalise the range of cars.

British Leyland Competing Sports Cars 1969-1974 (Excluding Jaguar)

Lord Stokes decided the new sports car should, over time, replace all the sports cars under the British Leyland brand. One sports car would replace all the others, from the entry level MG Midget to the bigger and more powerful Triumph Stag. This would prevent the company from competing directly with itself. The American market was top priority for the new car.

Concept Cars

At the time both MG and Triumph had concept cars that were in development, the MG AD021 and Triumph Bullet. These cars were polar opposites in design and layout.

The MG AD021 was an exotic mid-engined sports car. Designed to replace both the MG Midget and Triumph Spitfire, it featured hydroelastic suspension and a futuristic design.

The Triumph Bullet was more traditional with a simple front engined, rear drive setup. It had been worked on since 1969 and had been modified to fit a variety of engines to expand the range further.

The Bullet was the concept that got the go ahead in 1971 and it was to be badged “Triumph” despite MG being a much better known brand in America. It could be argued that Lord Stokes did this out of loyalty to his previous employer, but the rationalization plan intended to keep MG as the open top car brand, which left Triumph for other sports car variants.

A Backward Step?

So why did British Leyland go with the Bullet and not the more exotic AD021?

In the world of British Leyland the answer would usually be lack of funds or lack of time. In this case, the answer was actually based on research. Triumph had sent out Spen King and Mike Carver to America to analyse what the great American public wanted from a prospective new sports car.

It turned out mechanical simplicity and exotic looks were most important. In the US you might be hundreds of miles from the nearest Triumph dealer, so simple mechanics a local garage could fix was the preferred option.

Against the contemporary Porsche 914 and Fiat X19, the TR7 was able to look exotic, while maintaining a simple front engine, rear drive layout. The compact slant four engine fitted neatly under the steep bonnet. The steep windscreen was apparently designed to enable American customers to see up at the overhead traffic lights.

The lack of a soft top was down to American legislation that seemed hell bent on banning convertibles. In response British Leyland designed the TR7 as a hard top, leaving the convertible market to the existing open top MG models.

All good points so far, until you found the spec sheet. The slant engine was advanced but it was less powerful than the old Triumph TR6 engine by 45bhp. If it was badged MG, the comparison wouldn’t have been made, but would you upgrade from the old TR6 to the new, less powerful TR7?

Plan For The Worse, Hope For The Best

Production of the TR7 started in 1975. Despite the planning of British Leyland, the TR7 would suffer the same quality issues and industrial action that previous cars had. In the rush to hit the production deadline, several badly finished cars were sent to the press for testing which didn’t go down well. An issue with overheating was also experienced by a press car too.

The Speke plant in Liverpool was shut for almost a year after workers went on strike. British Leyland moved the entire operation to Canley in Coventry in 1978. Quality improved drastically, but the car’s image had been tarnished somewhat by the earlier quality issues. Cars built in Canley were identified by the rather crude laurel badge on the front of the car.

The Battle For Sports Car Sales In America

The success of earlier MG and Triumph models in America didn’t go unnoticed and Fiat, Porsche and Datsun all had cars lined up to chase the Yankee dollar. They were all universally acclaimed for their handling and the Datsun in particular was about as practical as a sports car could be.

“It is neither a saloon car nor a sports car in behaviour, yet it has only two seats in a very attractive and comfortable interior. It is an easy enough car to drive when pottering around and reasonably quiet when so driven, but drive the TR7 like the sports car Leyland proclaim it to be and it becomes fussily unpleasant”

Motorsport Magazine – Clive Richardson June 1979

TR7/TR8 Rally Success

With overly high suspension and angular looks the TR7 looked like the Lancia Stratos’ ugly sister. The Triumph is all awkward angles where the Lancia exudes style, but they both shared success in rallying.

The late introduction of the Rover V8-powered TR8 derivative, which was only sold in North America, was converted into a rally car in 1978. The Rover V8 was lighter and more powerful than the slant four engine on the TR7. The road going V8 had around 155 bhp, but the rally spec car had 300 bhp. It’s early success on tarmac stages led to some improvements for forest stages including a hydraulic tappet system. With Tony Pond behind the wheel, the TR8 rally car was almost unbeatable.

The End Of The TR7 & Triumph

The rationalization plan went out the window in 1978 when a soft top version of the TR7 was launched, meaning more cannibalized sales between MG and Triumph. The MGB was finally axed in 1980, when British Leyland decided to focus on the “hot hatch” market instead.

In 1981 the strength of the pound meant Triumph made a loss on every car sold in America. This marked the end of the TR7 and the TR8 (although this was never sold in the UK). The car continued in production for the domestic market until 1984.

The last Triumph car made was the boxy Acclaim, shortly after the TR7. The Acclaim was a rebadged Honda Ballade, so the final “real” Triumph was the TR7.

The TR7 sold more than 100,000 examples but isn’t remembered fondly, partially due to the divisive styling but also the fairly mundane engine. The TR7 was another example of a pretty good car, that was impeded by poor construction, internal rivalry and fast improving competitors. It would be the last sports car with a Triumph badge.

The Corsica was built as a styling exercise by the Special Vehicle Operations (SVO) team. The Corsica was based on the X300 platform with the standard 4 litre straight six engine. The interior is adapted from XK8 and XJS parts. The roof mechanism is fully functioning too, which took significant effort from the SVO team.

Constructed over 18 months, the mechanics of the car weren’t finished until 2006. The Jaguar Enthusiasts Club (JEC) and the Jaguar Heritage Trust worked with the Nottingham based Jaguar specialist David Mark’s to complete the car. Additional strengthening was added around the transmission tunnel and key areas to ensure the body remained rigid without the roof. New front and rear subframes completed the car and made it easier to move to different shows and museums.

The Corsica was a beautiful car and showed how flexible the X300 platform was. Jaguar had often experimented with different bodystyles on both the XJ40 and X300 platforms; sadly only the saloon or long wheelbase options were ever put into production, leaving the Corsica and XJ40 coupe as handsome concepts that would never be available for sale.

Whether the Corsica wasn’t practical to build or Jaguar were worried about cannibalizing sales of the then new XK8 convertible, it’s difficult to say. Like the XJ40 coupe before it, the Corsica would be a reminder of what could have been.

More about the Daimler Corsica can be found on the official Heritage Motor museum site. Photography & information on the process of preparing for Single Vehicle Approval (SVA) is available on David Mark’s website.

The new car would be named the Aston Martin DBR9, echoing the name of the 1956 Le Mans winning DBR1. While the Aston Martin Nimrod raced at Le Mans in 1982; the return to the sports car category was the first since the DP cars were forced to retire in 1962.

DBR9 & Prodrive

The DB9 would provide the basis of the new racing car, with Prodrive brought in to design and manage the racing programme. It seemed like the perfect match – Prodrive had helped a privateer transform the Ferrari 550 Maranello into a class winner at Le Mans in 2003.

Prodrive used the aluminium chassis and roof, together with the V12 cylinder block from the road car. Other than that it is completely re-engineered. The body work is made from carbon fibre composite, computer designed for maximum aerodynamic effect. Inside, a steel roll cage is fitted for safety. The car is so that much lighter that it has almost twice the power to weight ratio of the standard DB9 road car. It does 0-60mph (0-100km/h) in just over three seconds.

Aston Martin’s works team DBR9s made their debut at the 2005 Sebring 12 hour race, followed by the Silverstone Tourist Trophy race where they took 1st and 2nd places.

DBR9 Top Gear Lap Time

Return To Le Mans

At Le Mans, the DBR9 won the GT1 class in 2007 and 2008. 2008 would mark the end of the factory sponsored racing for the DBR9.

In 2009 some privately entered DBR9s appeared at Le Mans, but the factory now focused on the Lola-Aston Martin B09/60 in the sports prototype category, where cars 008 and 009 were entered.

With support from Prodrive, the DBR9 had successfully taken the famous brand back into the world of sports car racing.

Privateer Use

The car pictured is chassis DBR9/101 and is the first privately raced model. Delivered to its owner in July 2005, it initially raced under different colours and had its first outing at the Silverstone 1000km race.

In 2006, it was transferred to Team Modena and, over the next three seasons, raced in the FIA GT series, European Le Mans Series and the American Le Mans Series. At Le Mans in 2006, it finished 9th place overall and 4th in class, with drivers David Brabham, Nelson Piquet Jnr and Antonio Garcia.

DBR9/101 is regarded as the most successful DBR9 and the most successful privately owned racing car in Aston Martin’s history. A very special example of a car that took Aston Martin racing again.

The Jaguar C-X75 is a (now cancelled) hybrid supercar that made use of Williams F1 and Jaguar racing technology. It would have been the first Jaguar supercar since the Jaguar XJ220 in 1992.

Performance was expected to be circa 888 BHP and 0-100mph in around 6 seconds. Initially 250 models were planned with some earmarked for racing. The C-X75 was intended to display Jaguar’s prowess with new technology in a cutting edge sports car.

Developed as an homage to the classic racing Jaguars of the 1950s and 60s, this sleek supercar echoes the old XJ13, E-Type, D-Type and XJ220. The technology and mechanics are all focused firmly on the future.

Performance and Design 

The Jaguar C-X75 is powered by an all aluminium 1.6 litre petrol four cylinder. The engine was both turbocharged and supercharged to generate an astonishing 500 bhp at 10,000 rpm. Duel 194 bhp electric motors are fitted front and rear, powered by the 19kWh lithium battery just behind the drivers seat. The combined engines are mated to an 7-speed automated manual transmission. The electric engines were Jaguar’s own design and were lighter and more powerful than what was available to be bought in.

Jaguar C-X75 Gallery

Technology & Unique Features 

Unsurprisingly the CX75 boasts impressive tech features like the bonded carbon fibre chassis developed using expertise from Williams Advanced Technology. Also included was Jaguar’s “brake regeneration” technology which converts kinetic energy from braking into electricity stored in its battery pack which can be used later to boost acceleration or power accessories like headlights or AC units. The car originally had range extending gas micro turbine engines, but these were left off the final specification.       

C-X75 Cancellation

The project was cancelled in December 2012 due to the global economic crisis. Caterham and Lotus both cancelled projects at this time, reflecting the difficulty in timing the launch of a niche sports car.

The following year the so-called holy trinity of hyper cars were launched. The Ferrari LaFerrari, Porsche 918 Spyder and McLaren P1 all appeared as limited edition supercars. Could the C-X75 have made it four?

The imminent launch of those cars may have influenced Jaguar’s decision to cancel the project. Even without a final car to show for the work on the C-X75, Jaguar representatives were certain that technology and learnings from the car would be carried over to Jaguar road cars.

Legacy of the Jaguar C-X75

While the cancellation of the C-X75 was disappointing, Jaguar felt it couldn’t launch an expensive super car during the global economic crisis. Ferrari, Porsche and McLaren would beg to disagree and all three launched their respective pièce de résistance the following year.

Jaguar had previous bad luck when the XJ220 super car was launched at the start of the 1990s recession. This left the company with cars it couldn’t sell, so perhaps this influenced the cautious decision to cancel the C-X75.

The C-X75 was never tested without Jaguar engineers on hand, so detail on how it drives is sparse. Autocar was very complimentary about the C-X75 and not just the straight line performance, but the way the car drove too.

It’s great that manufacturers want the experience of driving a car to remain fun and interactive even with pressure on emissions and carbon. The key aims of the project were incredibly ambitious, with the following benchmarks comparable.

While it was cancelled, the C-X75 is a fascinating look into the future of hybrid sports cars and what we can expect. For power, fun and emissions, the CX-75 excelled on paper at least. I hope Jaguar can launch a car with some of it’s traits soon.

MG EX-E

The 1984 MG EX-E was a technological tour-de-force with head up display system and a digital dashboard. It was intended to show what a mid engined sports car of the future could be.

Its mid-engined layout contained the 6R4 V6 engine (from the Metro 6R4) swathed in lightweight plastic bodywork and a bonded aluminium chassis. The car was designed to be extremely aerodynamic and had an incredible drag co-efficient of 0.24. The Austin Rover chairman Harold Musgrove ensured the car was shown at the Frankfurt motor show, in order to show the ambition of the company internationally.

MG AR6

In 1984 work had started on the AR6 Metro project. This was due to replace the Metro and would include MG and Vanden Plas variants. A soft top version was touted as a potential replacement to the MG Midget. This project got scrapped when the majority shareholder (the UK Government) wanted to sell Austin Rover and a decision to go upmarket was seen the best way to aid this.

MG DR2 (Then MG PR5)

Based on a TVR chassis the DR2 used a Rover V8. Deliberately styled for the American market, Rover eventually retired the DR2 because of its less successful business there.

MG F16

In 1985 a new design study, the MG F16 project was worked on. The first designs were of a front engined, front wheel drive car. In layout and appearance looked similar to the M100 Lotus Elan.

In 1988 Rover Group was sold to British Aerospace and sports car ideas were pitched to management and duly turned down until 1989 when the Mazda MX5 was launched to critical acclaim. The MX5 was a massive sales success and owed its styling and configuration to British sports cars like the Lotus Elan and MG Midget.

In reaction the MG sports car was finally given the green light. This was frustrating because a sports car could conceivably have been produced from one of the concepts way ahead of the Mazda MX-5. The Mazda had sold over 250,000 units at this point.

Getting Production Ready

At this point two concepts were considered. The DR2 and the F16. The DR2 was a luxurious cruiser aimed at the US market where a British car appealed. It could be branded Austin Healey or MG. The DR2 was built on a TVR chassis with the Rover V8 from the SD1, Triumph TR8 and various TVRs.

The F16 was a far more flexible design, and didn’t use external components, so this was selected as the car to develop further. By now the Rover Special Products division had been setup to allow more niche cars to get support without slowing the production of the saloons and hatchbacks that were key to the company finances. This helped the project get the support it needed.

The code name “Phoenix Revival” was chosen, possibly due to the previous projects that had been canned. To get the design done quickly, it was outsourced with the companies given the F16 body and configuration. Designer Gerry McGovern had started things off with initial designs for the F16, it was now down to the contractors to figure out where to go next.

Evaluation Stage

Each was driven by the Rover Special Products team and evaluated for ride, acceleration and handling. The first to be discounted was the PR1 as it used Maestro parts and the Maestro was planned to go out of production. The Rover Special Products team didn’t want to base the car on soon to be defunct components.

The final decision was close between the PR2 and PR3 but the superior handling of the PR3 was deemed best for the new MG. PR3 was straightforward to build for Rover. Despite Rover never building a mid-engined car (Metro 6R4 involvement aside), it was a case of using the Metro’s front subframe and attaching it to the rear of the PR3.

The decision to choose a mid-engined car was genuinely brave. MG made its name with front-engined rear wheel drive cars, so this was a radical departure that needed to appeal to current customers and bring in new ones.

MG had actually been working on the AD021 mid engined concept car for a number of years but this was overlooked when British Leyland decided the Triumph TR7 should be the new company sports car.

Engineering

No Honda parts were used with the MG F which made things easier when the allegiance with Honda ended. In fact the MG F was the only car Rover produced without input from Honda. The interior was borrowed from the Rover 200 and the high revving K-series engine powered it. It was lightweight, responsive and powerful. It later got variable valve control to further boost it’s flexibility.

Hydragas suspension system (still used on the Metro) was also incorporated into the MG F as traditional spring suspension can unsettle short wheelbase cars. This array of components made for a car that had almost everything built and designed in Britain.

Takeover Troubles

In 1994 BMW bought Rover from British Aerospace. This was great news for the mainstream models, but BMW were cautious about the MGF taking sales from their new Z3, so took the decision to not export it to North America. BMW also prevented any high performance versions from going into production to avoid conflict with the Z3. It was only in 1999 when BMW sold to Phoenix Venture Holdings when they were freed up to do what they wanted.

MG F Launch And Response

Once launched in 1995 the MG F would be the first all new MG since the MGB in 1962. The car received high praise from the motoring publications. It was often a benchmark of handling in its class.

Build quality, mechanical issues and dealer support let down the MG F.

With the mid mounted engine airflow wasn’t great, combined with the thermostat location this ended up causing head gasket issues. These were later fixable with an aftermarket kit. Uneven door shut lines were also an issue.

The MG F was later renamed MG TF but was largely the same car but running conventional coil springs and not Hydragas. Several limited editions were built and, without an interfering parent company some higher performance models were also built like the Trophy 160.

By early 2005 MG Rover Group was in a dire position financially. Year on year, European market share had halved and sales had fallen by 60%. It struggled on hoping to be bought out. The only company that had shown interest had decided against the purchase and MG Rover Group slipped into administration.

Why is the MG TF so cheap?

Rover no longer exists so lack of factory support along with the issue with head gasket failure means the MGF and MG TF are very cheap to purchase. The head gasket issue can be resolved with a kit and generally the MGF and MG TF are great cars. Having owned one for a spell, I found the MGF really fun and as an ownership proposition, really good. It was cheap to buy and run

For all the thousands of Cavaliers, Vectras and Novas, Vauxhall had the occasional frenzied meltdown and built some mad cars – possibly out of boredom. After finishing thousands of base spec Vectras, I could easily see a production line worker turning into the Incredible Hulk and breaking down the board room door.

Hulk would probably design something big and powerful and uncouth. A car that people would remember, something to combat the dull Vectra. The Vauxhall Monaro VXR is that kind of car. It’s a big engined no-nonsense coupe with tons of character. Something Vauxhall was running short of in the early 2000s.

Monaro VXR Origin Story

2002 had been a bumper year of sales for Vauxhall with the Corsa, Vectra, Zafira and Astra selling well. To expand the product line and develop some links to the Vauxhall racing team, a performance brand was created: “VXR”, which would be used on the cars in the British Touring Cars Championship.

“The whole plan with the VXR brand was to introduce it in motorsport , which we did in 2002. It was about that time that we started to introduce the concept of the road car programme and that became apparent with the VX220 and the Monaro VXR. From that point on, we introduced other models, some of which will be finished next year when we introduce the Corsa VXR”

Stuart Harris – VXR Brand manager interview with Crash.net

VXR would also form the name of all Vauxhall performance derivatives too. This would eventually encompass most of the Vauxhall range including (whisper it) the Meriva.

In its drive to establish the new VXR brand, Vauxhall decided to officially import the Monaro from sister company Holden in Australia. Vauxhall and Holden had worked together on and off since the 1960s, when the Vauxhall Viva helped Holden form the basis of the Torana.

The Holden Monaro was a large coupe fitted with the 5.7 litre Chevrolet V8. A great car to kick start a performance brand and offer the British public an affordable muscle car. It would allow Vauxhall to finally source a replacement for the Calibra coupe which had ended production in 1997.

Initially just branded Monaro, it included modified suspension to cope with British B roads. VXR spec and badging came slightly later with the bigger 6 litre engine and power was up to just shy of 400 bhp.

Monaro VXR Competitors

The price and performance of the Monaro (£29,895) made for some interesting match ups, particularly in VXR (£36,785) spec. A hot hatch budget would almost get you into a Monaro even though the performance was closer to a BMW M3 than a Golf GTI (in a straight line at least).

The BMW M3 might have been a far sharper steer than the Monaro, but at £42,240 was significantly higher in price, especially when the expensive options were accounted for. The Monaro VXR would also compare well against the Jaguar XKR with similar performance, better interior space and a lower price than the Jaguar’s £60,995 list price.

MG’s £65,000 limited edition SV Xpower supercar was made to look ridiculously priced, especially as the Monaro’s Chevrolet derived V8 was more powerful than the Mustang V8 in the MG.

Monaro VXR 500 – The Performance Bargain

By 2006 General Motors was starting to rationalise the range of cars it sold. The rather niche, big engined two door Monaro was, unsurprisingly, in line for the cull.

In an effort to shift the final examples Vauxhall teamed up with a tuning company (Greens) to use a Wortec supercharger on the big V8. The resulting 493 bhp model was christened the Monaro VXR 500 and was priced under a standard Monaro VXR.

Vauxhall really pressed the price advantage home and this model became a major performance bargain. Performance was on par with a BMW M6 (£83,300) but was priced at just £35,995.

Evo magazine got close to the VXR500’s top speed on a German autobahn but found the old Lotus Carlton quicker above 150mph.

“I gun the Monaro and, behind, the RS4 chase-car seems to be attached by a tow rope – until we get to 150mph. Then the VXR starts to draw away. I haven’t got the VBOX fitted, but when the Monaro’s digital speedo grinds to a halt at 163mph and the engine keeps on pulling, the RS4 drops back much faster. I kept the Vauxhall nailed a while longer and, before braking, saw the tacho needle just beyond 4200rpm in top. That’s 170mph. Given another four or five kilometres, the VXR 500 might have made over 180mph. Given another 10 kilometres it might have made ‘185mph-plus’.”

John Barker April 2007 Evo magazine

Conclusion

Introducing the Monaro & Monaro VXR to the UK was brave. It was a characterful addition to the performance car market and helped establish Vauxhall’s VXR brand. This wasn’t just a remapped Astra, this was an old school coupe with an iconic Chevrolet V8, rear wheel drive and a limited slip differential.

The VXR brand is meant to be a bit harder-edged than the old GTEs and GSIs of before. We have put a lot more engineering into the vehicles. They aren’t ‘badge engineered’ cars, they are cars that are built on a limited basis and that provide a huge amount of fun and entertainment. They are more aggressive than the older cars so, for us to have the VXR brand and the VX Racing side of things, it makes it an ideal tie-up really for us to use.

Stuart Harris, VXR brand manager interview with Crash.net

I always liked the combination of non-descript styling and the Monaro’s huge size. Together it made for something quite distinctive against the usual Mercedes, BMW and Audi options. It was different in character too. While competitors were busy shaving seconds off shift times and generating cornering forces that would never be used on road, the Monaro relied on the (slightly muted) noise and character of the big V8. It was a modest seller compared to the BMW M3, with hundreds registered, rather than thousands in the BMWs case.

Kryptonite

Thanks to Vauxhall’s Australian sister company, the iconic Chevrolet V8 was available complete with warranty and UK specific suspension.

It was a modest seller (with hundreds registered, rather than thousands in the M3s case), but in years to come will be seen as a fitting swansong for high capacity performance cars in the UK. As the mainstream manufacturers are herded into selling more hybrids and EVs, big engined performance cars have met their Kryptonite in the form of the 2030 petrol ban. What comes next?

BMW had sold Rover (and MG) to the MG Rover Group in the year 2000. It had been financially disastrous for BMW, even selling the company with a £500 million bank balance to keep the company running.

With this temporary increase in budget the MG Rover group immediately increased the range of cars by rebadging some Rover models as MGs (like the MG Metro years before). This created the ZR, ZT and ZS models, designed to appeal to younger buyers with more powerful engines and sportier suspension. Under the group 170,000 cars were sold in 2001, a record for the organisation and just a year after BMW had moved on.

MG had long been associated with Motorsport since its inception in 1924 and so, Le Mans, British Touring Cars (MG ZS) and The World Rally Championship (MG ZR) were just some of the race series entered to help forge the MG brand as a worthy Motorsport brand.

In the road cars department, the only purpose built MG was the MG TF. Everything else was a badge engineered Rover. MG wanted a “halo” product to better represent what MG stood for. MG also had ambition of going further upmarket too, so a serious sports car was needed. With no Rovers to rebadge and the new budget burning a hole in its pocket, MG Rover Group started to look for opportunities.

Members of the MG Rover Group admired the work Peter Wheeler had done with TVR, creating various rear wheel drive sports cars at relatively low cost. This proven formula was something MG had the brand to carry off.

One of the consortium owners Nick Stephenson was contacted by Bruce Qvale, the owner of Qvale Modena SpA about a potential distribution deal to sell his sports car the Qvale Mangusta in Europe. Stephenson thought the platform could be rebodied as the new MG sports car and so MG Rover Group bought Qvale cars for £7 million in early 2001.

De-Tomaso & Qvale Backstory

The Qvale Mangusta itself was based on the De-Tomaso Biguá. The Biguá was in keeping with De-Tomaso’s practice of using big Ford engines in Italian bodied sports cars. The modular Ford V8 was used, which made selling the car in America easier – this was also a key market for MG. The chassis was designed by Enrique Scalabroni an ex F1 designer. He’d created the chassis to be super rigid to compensate for the Mangusta roofless design.

Bruce Qvale and his company were brought in to help develop the new Biguá with the understanding that the car would be sold under the De-Tomaso brand. After some disagreements, Bruce Qvale decided to sell the car under the Qvale brand after $30 million had already been spent on development.

After Qvale had sold the company and design to MG Rover Group, work started on redesigning the odd looking Mangusta. Peter Stevens had already designed the ZR, ZS and ZT models, so was lined up to create the SV. Presented at the Frankfurt motor show as the MG X80, the car received a lukewarm reception. Stevens reworked the design and even found inspiration from the Fast & Furious film! The car was then renamed the MG Xpower SV.

MG SV Production Problems

Production couldn’t hit the 10,000 units figure MG Rover Group wanted because the Qvale factory was designed for low volume. There wasn’t time or knowledge to improve this so the plan was changed to make the MG SV a low volume sports car, with a higher price instead. The target production was intended to be 120 cars a year for a 4 year production run.

An example of the complicated production involved the carbon fibre bodywork produced in Britain, flown to Italy to be fitted to the chassis, then the whole thing was flown back to be finished at Longbridge.

The list price ended up being £65,000. This was down from the £100,000 first estimated, but still higher than the Mangusta (£40,000).

Marketing Hype

The production problems made the MG SV expensive to produce. A bigger 5 litre V8 model was planned which would form the basis of the MG SV-R model and would come in at an absurd £83,000. A deal with Roush was put together to enable the Ford V8 to come equipped with different states of tune. The supposed 1000 bhp nitrous oxide injected version of the MG SV was all but marketing myth and was concocted to get some favorable press coverage. These aftermarket upgrades seemed slightly desperate.

In basic spec, the SV and SV-R were very expensive and up against performance benchmarks like the Porsche 911 and BMW M3. Not only that, but another British company had its own muscle car undercutting the competition. The 328bhp 5.7 litre V8 Vauxhall Monaro was available from £35,000 in 2004, undercutting the MG SV by a significant margin. While it didn’t have the purpose built chassis and carbon fibre bodywork, it offered cheap performance and a distinct alternative to the German brands.

The Monaro was fitted with General Motors LS1 V8, which had a range of modification options, from increased displacement to supercharger setups. This made future performance enhancements easy to do.

Vauxhall’s plan was far less risky, just import some big Holden V8 cars, rebadge them as a Vauxhall and sell them cheaper than the competition. In some ways you have to admire the ambition of the MG SV project.

Unfortuately one of the key issues was around selling in the North American market. It was considered the best market for the MG SV, but there was no dealership network so selling it there would be almost impossible.

Like a lot of unsuccessful British sports cars, the SV was a great car. It was unfortunately hampered by its expense, when typically it was a brand to undercut rivals.

The finished SV ended up a curious mix of bought in technology, a sprinkling of Rover 75 switch gear and a surprisingly underwhelming American V8. The bodywork, all vents and aggression was impressively all carbon fibre; in an effort to distract Porsche buyers. Sadly this didn’t persuade many away from the usual brands.

Now imagine if MG Rover had scrapped the expensive carbon fibre bodywork, upped the performance and dropped the price. It might have stood a chance.

The SV turned out to be MG’s swansong as the company revealed massive losses in 2005 and was later taken over by Nanjing Automobile and all production was moved to China. 

Until the 1974 Lotus Elite, most Lotus models were curvy, compact 2 seaters. The Elan +2 had included small backseats but these could only be used by children. Colin Chapman wanted bigger more practical cars that would drive as well as other Lotus cars.

The Lotus Elite (MK2) could seat 4 adults in comfort so was used as the basis of the Eclat. Oliver Winterbottom, had designed the Elite and was tasked with coming up with a sleeker design for the Eclat, which would feature a hatchback instead of the Elite’s shooting brake design.

Winterbottom set about developing the Eclat. The M52 prototype was the result of the work of creating something consistent with the Elite, but sleeker.

Fibre Glass Bodywork & Marine Industry Connection

Winterbottom and Chapman had worked together to design boats for Chapman’s JCL Marine boat company. The GFRP moulding process used in the boat industry was applied to both the Elite and Eclat. The bodywork was built out of two main parts, an upper and lower part. A chrome strip carefully concealed this join on the finished car.

While the Elan was the first Lotus to combine fibre glass body and backbone chassis to keep the car light and responsive to drive, the Elite and Eclat benefited from the enhanced refinement the material was able to add to the driving experience.

“The GRFP is very effective in cutting out out any sort of body resonance and insulating road noise”

Motorsport Magazine – June 1977

One issue that would arise was the felt between the steel chassis and fibre glass body. It was designed to absorb movement between the chassis and body but would trap water over time causing the chassis to rust. Later cars had a galvanized steel chassis to prevent this.

Lotus Eclat Driving Experience

The Eclat started life with the Lotus 907 engine, originally based on a Vauxhall engine block. It was first used in the Jensen Healey in 1972 and was deemed suitable for use in the Eclat. The engine was often criticised for being low on torque, however contemporary road tests revealed a very favourable view of the Eclat – particularly in the driving experience.

“It is not true to say that there is not much fun left in motoring – pick the right roads and the right car and there is but there are very few cars available which are fun to drive all the time. The Lotus Eclat Sprint is one of those cars”

Motorsport Magazine – June 1977

“The Eclat, particularly in its Sprint form, has been aimed unquestionably at the enthusiast, with performance, braking and handling so brilliant as to offer the competent driver sheer ecstasy”

Motorsport Magazine – June 1977

The Legacy Of Winterbottom’s Wedge

As the Elite before it, the Lotus Eclat was a rakish wedge shape. This shape was introduced by Oliver Winterbottom and was a distinct change from the curvy cars Lotus had built before. The pop up headlights reduced the frontal area of the car, providing aerodynamic efficiencies (until the lights were used).

Winterbottom’s angular style became a recognisable Lotus trait for years after he’d finished working at Lotus. The later Esprit was designed by Giorgetto Giugiaro of Italdesign and still retained the angular wedge shape developed by Winterbottom. Even the face lifted Esprit (1987) kept the design heritage when Peter Stevens refined Giugiaro’s Esprit shape.

The influence of Winterbottom’s style direction is considerable. His early work on the 1974 Elite and 1975 Eclat fed through to the final Lotus Esprit which finished production in 2004. After thirty years of wedge influenced designs, Lotus began to revert to curvier styling of older cars with the 1996 Lotus Elise (Designed by Julian Thomson).

Winterbottom’s skill with fibre glass bodied sports cars attracted TVR to his services in 1980. His first work with the company was the Tasmin, which was the first of the affectionately known “Wedge” series of cars which made up TVR range throughout the 1980s.

Lotus Eclat Cost Comparison

Picture the scene, it’s 1977 in Britain and you’re on the look out for a new sports car. Here are some of the cars available that would seat 4 and offer some driving thrills:

• Porsche 911 Cost in 1977 £9,999
• Eclat Sprint Cost in 1977 £8,316
• Jaguar XJC Cost in 1977 £8,182
• Porsche 924 Cost in 1977 £6,999