Page **1** of **2**

### Plus 2 Weights

Posted:

**Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:45 pm**
by **andyelan**

Hi everyone

Here's some figures that maybe of interest.

I've just had my Plus 2 on the scales and it weighs 1791 lbs (814Kg) distrbuted 49.7% front and 50.3% rear. This is a completly standard 1973 Plus 2S 130/5 with all fluids and 1 gallon of fuel in the tank.

I found this quite interesting as contempory road test generally quoted between 1880lbs and 1960lbs, so it's actually a good bit lighter than I expected.

Andy

### Re: Plus 2 Weights

Posted:

**Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:21 pm**
by **peterako**

That's close to 155 bhp per ton

You've made my day Andy!!!

Peter

### Re: Plus 2 Weights

Posted:

**Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:33 pm**
by **CBUEB1771**

andyelan wrote:I've just had my Plus 2 on the scales and it weighs 1791 lbs (814Kg) distrbuted 49.7% front and 50.3% rear. This is a completly standard 1973 Plus 2S 130/5 with all fluids and 1 gallon of fuel in the tank.

That is more than a bit interesting as the Workshop Manual gives the "kerb weight (unladen)" as 2086 lb (946 kg). We are familiar with Lotus coaxing the advertised horsepower upward, I would have expected them to coax the advertised weight down! I have not had mine on scales.

### Re: Plus 2 Weights

Posted:

**Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:11 pm**
by **tdafforn**

perhaps the kerb weight included two people!

### Re: Plus 2 Weights

Posted:

**Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:27 pm**
by **bcmc33**

Kerb weight should be the car with half a tank of fuel.

### Re: Plus 2 Weights

Posted:

**Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:44 pm**
by **CBUEB1771**

tdafforn wrote:perhaps the kerb weight included two people!

I'd have thought that "unladen" meant without driver and passenger. The Workshop Manual further allows a "capacity weight" of 788 lb (358 kg). Now that allows for some beefy occupants and fishing gear. Adding half a tank of fuel (5.5 gallons over the one already there) doesn't account for the nearly 300 pound difference unless the octane booster is tetralead-ethyl instead of tetraethyl-lead.

### Re: Plus 2 Weights

Posted:

**Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:13 pm**
by **andyelan**

Hi there

5.5 gallons of fuel would add about 40lbs or 18 kgs. That's still leaves a big discrepancy from what's quoted in the workshop manual.

This now has got me thinking. Acceleration for the Plus 2 away seemed remarkably good for what appeared to be a relativly heavy car (I know early cars were supposed to have special engines but times were still very good). Could it be that Lotus originally got their unladen/laden weights mixed up and then road testers simply copied this without ever checking it for themselves?

Andy

### Re: Plus 2 Weights

Posted:

**Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:43 pm**
by **mikealdren**

Did the +2 get heavier over time? The later seats certainly look heavier.

Mike

### Re: Plus 2 Weights

Posted:

**Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:27 pm**
by **andyelan**

Hi Mike

That's supposed to be the case but mine's one of the last. I guess one must assume early cars were even lighter.

My car's a 5 speed so it has an alloy gearbox casing and bellhousing, aren't these cast iron on 4 speeds? Even so, I can't see this making a huge difference to the total weight.

Andy

### Re: Plus 2 Weights

Posted:

**Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:03 am**
by **robcall**

andyelan wrote:Hi Mike

That's supposed to be the case but mine's one of the last. I guess one must assume early cars were even lighter.

My car's a 5 speed so it has an alloy gearbox casing and bellhousing, aren't these cast iron on 4 speeds? Even so, I can't see this making a huge difference to the total weight.

Andy

33Kg for the four-speed versus 27kg for the fiver

### Re: Plus 2 Weights

Posted:

**Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:56 pm**
by **Tonyw**

Hi guy's,

Just a thought, here in Western Australia vehicle registrations costs are linked to the power to weight ratio of the vehicle the higher the power to weight the greater the cost is it possible that this was the case in the UK? if so it would pay to overstate the weight to reduce the registration cost...............like I said just a thought.

Tony W

### Re: Plus 2 Weights

Posted:

**Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:35 pm**
by **peterako**

Hmmm....I'm not in the UK but i don't think that the power to weight (bhp/weight) was a taxing method.

In the US on the otherhand I think that laws came in in teh early 70's to that effect....

Interesting!

Peter

### Re: Plus 2 Weights

Posted:

**Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:52 pm**
by **zeteclotus**

Fibre glass thickness does vary quite a lot between the +2's i have worked on

You might have a "light weight Shell"

nice to know.

I weighed my XJS book weight is about 2000kg actual weight is 1760kg (no electric seats etc)

So not just lotus's

I always thought the +2 was less than the book weight.

### Re: Plus 2 Weights

Posted:

**Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:54 pm**
by **JJDraper**

My +2, chassis no. 328, has recently been stripped and found to have an extra layer of glass, on top of the normal gel coat. This was glass matt not tissue. Indications are that this dates from manufacture and adds significantly to overall weight. Even the bonnet is thick.. No idea why, but there do seem to be thin and thick shells about. Any other experiences? No damage was apparent on the shell, so this is not a repair. Body man did suggest that this may be why there were no star or stress cracks on the body after 40 years.

When the resto is complete I will get the lot weighed - Spyder chassis is lighter than normal, I understand, so may compensate..

My car must be a bit of a slug compared to the lightweights out there!

Jeremy

### Re: Plus 2 Weights

Posted:

**Sun Apr 26, 2009 5:00 pm**
by **JJDraper**

PS to the weight debate - I have weighed the later +2 seats and came up with an average of 18.6 kilos (sorry, my bathroom scales only do kgs, multiply by 2.2 for pounds). Any ideas what the early seats weigh? The replacement MBG seats, with headrests come in at 17.5kg....

Both figures are without seat rails.

Jeremy