Talk:Lotus Carlton

Automobiles Low‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bogus reference video

A user has been continuously re-adding an alleged Road & Track video as a reference for this article. Even if the video weren't obviously just taken from a video game, it still makes no reference at all to R&T magazine. --ColinMB (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it was from a video game? 2607:FB90:A6A4:5A3B:0:4E:A71C:1301 (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are some 3D rendering glitches visible near the horizon, and the HUD in the lower right of the frame is the same as the one from the Forza games for the Xbox. There seems to be no official record of Road & Track having done a contemporary road test of this car, and there is no mention of any yellow prototype cars in any of the established sources. The definitive book on the Carlton (by Ian Adcock) shows a number of photos of prototype cars, but none of them are yellow. The book also discusses several of the engine options that were being considered early in the prototyping phase, and none of them were would have been capable of the claimed 614 hp.

Please understand that this is not a personal attack. The community is happy to add new information to articles as long as it is well-sourced. This means that it must appear in an published work (an established periodical, book, journal, etc.) --ColinMB (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find it surprising that our IPv6 addresses both start with 2607. Perhaps we live in the same area?? But the user was right, the Yellowsweller existed, it didn't officially go into the Lotus database because they were power-hunting Ferrari killers. 2607:FB90:A760:ED44:0:31:32B6:5E01 (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the source that such a car existed, you can add the information with it. Otherwise, stop arguing. U1Quattro (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Top speed

Didn't Opel/Vauxhall claim this car ran to 182mph? I remember that the speed in the Autocar tests were quoted as "175+ mph" - Why was this??

Ross, B'ham, UK

RE: Autocar didn't have a track long enough to use all the power- but it's most likely able to punch way above 180mph.

Sam, C'thorne, UK

Supercar?

The only project at Lotus that I heard referred to as a supercar in this timeframe was a proposed development of the Etna show car, called M300.

Greglocock 21:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't believe it qualifies as a supercar. I've removed it. Recury 20:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the term "Supercar" is relatively subjective. A 377hp 4 door saloon in 1989 really was something quite special. It was certainly pre F1 McLaren, XJ220 and the like and faster than most contempory Ferraris. Today, however, 4 doors and 400hp can be readiliy bought from BMW, Audi, Merc and no doubt some others. LewisR 00:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE : but i would still prefer a LC to any other 400bhp 4door saloon today. JIM ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.80.141 (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1990 Cadillac CTS Lotus photo was copyrighted?

I didn't expect this to be deleted for a copyright violation. The photo wasn't watermarked. This was an original official photo I added to the page. I don't think manufacturers copyright their official car photos. A1557 (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipe/media considers all images to be ~~copyrighted~~ prohibitively copyrighted unless specifically released at the source, with a clear annotation of compatible licensing, or made freely available to public domain, sometimes called copyleft or copyfree. Often the copyright 'owner' is the actual photographer. I didn't see the image so can't comment further.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, Opel did not restrict the car's top speed

No, that would have been Lotus' job, not Opels. Opel delivered standard Omegas to Hethel where they were rebuilt and the Lotus EEC (probably GMP4) installed. Greglocock (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related in the infobox

"Related Opel Omega A Holden Commodore VN Holden Commodore VP Chevrolet Corvette ZR1"

Omega, yes, the two dunnydoors, well you can't have both, and they aren't really related at all except by being related to the Omega, and the Corvette, why? Yes it was developed at Lotus at the same time, but by different people, and with no components in common other than the gearbox. Greglocock (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]