Lotus Elan

Baby elans??

PostPost by: purplepete » Fri Sep 16, 2005 11:23 pm

Hi,probably a stupid question,but what is meant by the term "baby elan"?? are people talking about a sprint?? thank in anticipation of an answer! peter.
purplepete
First Gear
First Gear
 
Posts: 41
Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Location: Bath,avon/Corsham,Wiltshire

PostPost by: 1964 S1 » Sat Sep 17, 2005 2:01 am

My interpretation of the term is any of the smaller two seat Elans, series one through four. Not the Plus Two and not the "Isuzu" Elan produced around 1990.
1964 S1
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 1472
Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Location: Hamilton County, Ohio

PostPost by: types26/36 » Sat Sep 17, 2005 5:11 pm

64 S1's iterpretation is correct BUT I refuse to call an Elan "a b--y Elan" ! :x
to my way of thinking there is an Elan and there is an Elan Plus Two!
Thats the way they were made and named and if it was good enough for Colin it's good enough for me! :)
Brian.
ps: new Elans are Elan M100's
pps: actually it's not that serious but lets be PC correct. :wink:
Brian
64 S2 Roadster
72 Sprint FHC
User avatar
types26/36
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 3873
Joined: 11 Sep 2003
Location: U.K.

PostPost by: elansprint71 » Sat Sep 17, 2005 8:02 pm

Totally with Brian on this, although I have been known to refer to it as a +0 on occasion!

Pete
'72 Sprint +0
User avatar
elansprint71
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 4437
Joined: 16 Sep 2003
Location: Cheshire, UK.

PostPost by: nebogipfel » Sun Sep 18, 2005 11:02 am

I prefer the term REAL Elan ;)
John

No longer active on here, I value my privacy.
User avatar
nebogipfel
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 1716
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Location: Norfolk UK

PostPost by: purplepete » Sun Sep 18, 2005 11:04 am

O.k.,thanks guys-just wanted to make sure!It obviously makes things easier to know which model i'm talking about.Thanks for the clarification!
purplepete
First Gear
First Gear
 
Posts: 41
Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Location: Bath,avon/Corsham,Wiltshire

PostPost by: Jon Eckman » Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:30 pm

Doesn't it seem logical that since the S1-4 is older than its Plus 2 sibling, the Plus 2 should really be considered the "baby"?
Jon Eckman
Second Gear
Second Gear
 
Posts: 189
Joined: 23 Sep 2003

PostPost by: Si_130/5 » Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:03 pm

Hi Jon,

[quote][/quote]Doesn't it seem logical that since the S1-4 is older than its Plus 2 sibling, the Plus 2 should really be considered the "baby"?


True the S1 - S3 elans predate the Plus Two which appeared in 1967 but the S4 appeared in 1968.

Even so that is a new and interesting way of looking at it.

Pardon the pedantry,

Si
User avatar
Si_130/5
Second Gear
Second Gear
 
Posts: 222
Joined: 27 Jan 2005

PostPost by: Jon Eckman » Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:38 pm

Hi Si,

Thank you; I should get my facts straight. That does blur the concept somewhat.

Jon
Jon Eckman
Second Gear
Second Gear
 
Posts: 189
Joined: 23 Sep 2003

PostPost by: pereirac » Tue Sep 27, 2005 8:50 am

I learnt never to refer to the Elan as a 'baby' Elan when Graham Arnold was around... It's an Elan pure an simple (at least that's what I was told..)
User avatar
pereirac
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 1135
Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Location: Cambridgeshire

PostPost by: Si_130/5 » Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:23 am

Hi,
Yes, that's quite right. In fact I read that Chapman wanted the bigger car to be known simply as the '+2', denoting the ultimate in lightweight and efficiency - funny that by the end of its run it had become the Plus Two S130/5.

Si
User avatar
Si_130/5
Second Gear
Second Gear
 
Posts: 222
Joined: 27 Jan 2005

Total Online:

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests