Lotus Twincam, Ford Lotus Twincam or Lotus Ford Twincam?

[garyeanderson]

:D

[cabc26b]

Hi Tim,

We are all entitled to our views and opinions and hope that is respected

You and I are in complete agreement. My comment on commentary was not meant to slight any of the contributors here on the site and It was not intended to take issue with Mark.

IMO , it is the healthy debate that keeps the site alive and because of this, I would hope that like the media, better to subscribe to the editors/reviewers/commentators that you find most entertaining or expressing views that resonate with your own than to dismiss or attempt to censor real contributors to the site ( clearly Mark and Gary fall into that category)



Gary - agreement here as well -
When we were growing up WWII was a delicate subject in our household.
Uncle George was at Pearl Harbor on Dec 7th
Uncle John M took a round at Utah Beach on D-Day
Uncle JohnS was in the 1st Cav
Dad was in the 101st Airborne

During a family get together , asking about the war would stop conversation and have them heading in different directions.

[elansprint71]

....they saved us in WWII as well, ...and then there's Enigma

Let's not confuse things by dragging the Russians in.

[bcmc33]

I've lost the will to live on this one. What have the Russians and memory lane at Duxford got to do with Lotus and Ford?

[Elanintheforest]

Gary
All I can quote is what I've read in books and magazines...I wasn't there and don't have any other insight, and I'm not going to make anything up to complete a story to my satisfaction.

You must have a great insight into the way Lotus managed to assure themselves a deal on the short engine before commiting, but I really do doubt that was the case. We're talking about one of the ultimate risk takers, charmers and chancers here, not some formal committee set up to design and put into production a new engine.....that was the way Ford did things, and it cost a fortune.

I would imagine, reading about the way Lotus worked in the 50s and early 60s, that the cylinder head and front cover came into production for very little money, and with all the trials and tribulations they seemed to have with it, it seemed to have been a normal Lotus 'try this and see what happens' iterative process....not the way Ford would approch such an engineering challenge. I would also imagine that the first short engines and the 1500 blocks were blagged from Ford as a tiny racing car company wanting to evaluate the product with great and exciting prospects if it could be used in any way for racing. Although they were very different companies, they were near neighbours, and in the small car world of North London in the early 60s, folks would know each other and do each other favours....person to person, not company to company.

Sticking the engine into a 2nd hand lhd Anglia to fully evaluate it also doesn't smack of a giant organisation's budget being involved here!

Whether or not Lotus would have survived without Ford is pure conjecture. It was a private company, and I certainly haven't see the accounts for the early 1960s. If the Lotus Cortina deal hadn't come along, I'm sure that Ford would have been very happy to supply the short engines to Lotus on very good terms. They did to TVR, Marcos, Gilbern, Morgan and many other small manufaturers, and none of those with the prestige that Lotus had in 1962. I doubt if Lotus would have had to go cap in hand to Ford to secure a deal....as old fashioned as Ford was in those days, they still saw the merit of having their engines and gearboxes in upmarket / sports cars and potentially in race cars.

Of course Lotus would have needed some sort of money to get the Elan off the ground, and itself become the cash cow for the racing efforts....but there are many ways of raising cash, as Lotus employed several times in the 60s and 70s.

So the conclusion that good old Detroit came over the hill to save the day doesn't quite ring true with me....but hey, I'm just playing the same guessing game, but with a slightly different perspective.

I was over with some ex-Ford guys today in Essex gathering some more information about Lotus Cortinas from guys who were there, and will probably be with Miles Wilkins in the week, so I'll try and find out more hard facts.

Mark

[garyeanderson]

:D

[andyelan]

Hi Everyone

As far as I see things the Lotus Twin Cam, with it's flattened part hemi head and narrow valve angles, was simply the next step on from the early 60's GP engines (the FPF) which Harry Mundy had developed along with Walter Hassan when they both worked at Coventry Climax.

After Harry Mundy left and set up his own consultancy business, he first designed a complete 1.6 litre twin cam engine for the Facel Vega Facellia, however, when costs and reliability problems bankrupted Facel, it must have been an obvious decision for both Colin Chapman and Mundy to keep the cylinder head design but mate it to a propriority block. Once that decision had beed made then the Ford Kent with its short stroke would have been the only logical choice (after all there would have been little point putting a twin cam head on a long stroke engine like the BMC A Series).

So, if the Lotus Twin Cam has ancestors, they would have been the Jaguar XK engine (Walter Hassan) and Coventry Climax GP engines and if it has decendents, they would be Keith Duckworth's FVA and BDA series of engines. And as far as the Lotus Twin Cam Big Valve goes, that is what Tony Rudd brought with him from when he came from BRM.

Finally, with regard to having Ford stamped on components, just remember you'll not find "Ferrari" written anywhere on a Dino however I don't believe Fiat had a huge input in the design of that engine.

Regards
Andy

[Elanintheforest]

What a strange reaction, Gary. For several years you?ve been complaining that this forum is too boring for you, there?s nothing new for you to learn, and everybody just wants to talk about Zetecs. So as soon as we start debating something that?s at the very heart of the car, and Lotus and Cheshunt, you want to take your ball home and not play anymore because someone doesn?t agree with what you?re saying?

Sorry Gary, but in the debate, you missed out the 2 years of research and development that had been undertaken by Lotus and chums in order to bring the Twincam into being?.and that?s not withstanding Andy?s very good points that the heritage goes back to the 1940s. If folks didn?t know about all that background, they?d probably think that it was a Ford initiative. My pulling you up on that fundamental point is what debate is all about. You also introduce Detroit and the English Ford line, which is totally irrelenevt to the story of the Lotus Twincam....but everything to do with the Lotus Cortina.

I don?t really intend to tip-toe about on eggshells in this forum for fear of upsetting you, and neither will I go out to do it deliberately. But if you don?t want to debate and potentially get contradicted or disagreed with, then I suggest you don?t enter into debate in the first place. Perhaps we should just put up pictures of our cars after all and tell each other how good they look?.nothing too controversial there.

Mark

[jimj]

Well said Mark, and a very modest, polite response. I can`t understand why anyone would be offended when their opinions, even when put forward as fact, are disagreed with. If I was ever offended by being corrected I`d be permanently offended.
Incidentally, Mark`s info. relates to everything I`ve ever read, or recall, about the introduction of the "LOTUS TWINCAM".
Jim

[ardee_selby]

....which one is it then?

I think it's a Lotus Twincam, because:

It was conceived by Lotus
It was built by Lotus
The 'trick bits' are pure Lotus

Jon

Wasn't it Henry Ford who said something about "history" & "bunk"?

At least Ford in England knew what an Elan was!

Cheers - Richard

[mikealdren]

Having said that, one of the pleasures of this forum is the lively debate that can ensue on any number of subjects. It will never happen, but one day it would be fun if we were all to meet up in person for a good natter, some banter and well meaning joshing - an Elan.net conference!

Tim,
having met Mark (and a few others) at Donnington, I agree completely. Now if only we could also get Gary, Ed and others over as well we would really have some banter!!

Mike