free hit
counters
Komo-Tec Exige S - V6 Exige Chat - The Lotus Forums Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bee

Komo-Tec Exige S

Recommended Posts

Just seen Komo-Tec's test footage of the Exige S they've been working on - was a bit disappointed to see they added 60 bhp and got a 0-100 kph time (4.1 seconds) marginally slower than a 'standard' Exige S (4.0 seconds). I don't know how the 0-200 kph time (13.6 seconds) stacks up against a regular Exige S.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Upgrade today to remove Google ads and support TLF.

Ben,

You may find the copy below of a post that I made elsewhere (named "Second life" there) re acceleration tests of the Exige S V6 relevant to comparisons. It compares recent Autocar results with the numbers claimed by Lotus. Different car of course, but shows how things can differ accordiung to circumstances. Also environmental differences do matter. Mel

______________________

I’ve seen how far the Autocar acceleration numbers might be adjusted whilst remaining realistically possible. So:

Two Autocar testers (front row of the Autocar second XV): 14 st and 13 st: 171 Kg.

One Lotus tester, ex-jockey (min 8 st), horses too slow, say 9 st: 57 Kg

Lotus specified Exige weight: 1176 Kg. Autocar weighed: 1200 Kg (inc. fuel) thus extra 24 Kg.

Lotus (under economy measures) permitted about 3 litres of petrol in fuel system: 2 Kg.

(A full 40 litre tank of fuel at 0.737 Kg/l would weigh 29.5 Kg so, at most, Autocar’s tank was just over 80% filled - not as stated: “full”.)

Total test weights: Autocar: 1,200 + 171 = 1,371 Kg. Lotus: 1,176 + 2 + 57 = 1,235 Kg.

Autocar test weight 136 Kg greater than the Lotus’ i.e. 11.0%.

From F=ma, leaving aside second order weight-related effects such as clutch and tyre slip, the Autocar time to a speed would be 1.11x that of Lotus. Thus the Autocar figures transform to:

for 0 - 60 mph, 4.08 secs becomes 3.7 secs

for 0 - 100 mph, 9.6 secs becomes 8.65 secs

Re the standing quarter mile, time for a distance varies as the inverse of the sqrt of the acceleration, so will be 1.05357 longer for Autocar. Thus their 13.0 secs would have measured by Lotus as 12.3 secs.

Conclusion 1: The performance figures claimed by Lotus can be correlated with those of Autocar.

Conclusion 2: For lightweight performance cars, Autocar’s test policy of two people aboard is questionable. Difficult to change of course. I suggest that the combined weight of the testers concerned should be stated with that of the vehicle. It is significant.

Conclusion 3: I am happier than I was before writing this.

Edited by mdavies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate what you're saying, Mel, but Komo-Tec were testing with one skinny guy in what looked like pretty clement conditions. It would be good to know the fuel load but with an extra 60 bhp or so, I'd have hoped the 0-100 kph time would have dipped below 4.0 seconds flat.

 

Obviously, it's just one acceleration benchmark; the other two could be mightily impressive. As I mentioned, I couldn't find the 0-200 kph time (or the 100-200 kph).

 

At the end of the day, tenths of a seconds in acceleration times are pretty subjective in terms of the 'driver experience'. I'll be interested to read a review from some lucky sod who's driven both in order to see whether the extra oomph really does add to the visceral experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Ben.  Perhaps Komo-Tec can comment.  A surprisingly poor time reflects on them too.

 

Whether people actually wring out the last ounce of performance in practical driving is not the point. Paying performance car money, people rightly expect the performance to be in there, even if it is never used. Really expensive watches are not bought simply to tell the time. Some Evora threads here deal with performance matters and test results for NA, S and modifications.  Occasionally surprising content IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hangar 111 told me today that the Komo-Tec kit is arriving with them (acting as UK agent I understood) in a very few weeks.  The first installation in an Exige V6 is scheduled.  So we might have some further facts soon.

 

I wonder whether the recipient has put his standard car on a dyno as a basis for comparison.  If you are reading this .....................

 

PS: I was told the exhaust components were appropriate for the NA too.

Edited by mdavies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't think this is necessary to add any further bhp to this car (purely my opinion though).

 

There was a post about this on Piston Heads in regards to the warranty of putting it in, and how (don't quote me on this), the addition is purpose fit for the road and not tracks. I would wait to hear from people having had this upgrade to the car, and see how it runs for a year or two before even considering it myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same package as the Evora S kit, which has been available for quite some time. I have it since  1-1/2 years and 20.000 km without issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may abuse for this but....

.... Numbers mean nothing really. 3.8,4.1 Could you tell the difference? The important bit is how it drives. If they have managed to get better in gear acceleration or a better torque curve extra then all is good.

Frankly though having driven an Exige S V6 and a Roadster I can imagine needing more performance :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I welcome Komotec having a go but the upgrades aren't cheap and I'd talk to these people first:

 

http://www.swindon-engines.com/toyota-2gr-supercharged-engine

 

http://cosworth.com/sport/motorsports/case-studies/endurance-racing-engine/

 

I read an interesting thing about tuners having a tough time because manufacturers cars are now so powerful not many see the point in tuning. That was certainly the idea behind giving the new GTR 550bhp out of the box. The Porsche 996 turbo had a relatively weedy by modern standards 420bhp when it was new. Tuners offered 550bhp and it was quite popular. The new one has that and more as standard in S form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  


×