Prices increase update from Lotus - and stopping of reservations for V6 FE

Please be advised that, as a result of significantly increasing costs, the Lotus Emira will later this year be subject to new pricing.

Whilst a significant level of cost increase has been absorbed, with effect from 1 June 2023, the retail price will increase to £81,995 (incl VAT) for the Emira V6 First Edition, and £77,795 (incl VAT) for the Emira First Edition 4-cylinder turbocharged variant. Full pricing details can be found on our website. However, your Emira reservation will not be affected by this increase, we can confirm your reservation has been price protected.

We are fully committed to our production schedule and in the next two weeks, we will be in touch via email to update you further on the progression of your Lotus Emira.

Due to overwhelming demand, we will be closing reservations for Lotus Emira V6 First Edition. We will be sharing the exact timings soon.

 

[SteveB]

This is really annoying after sticking with Lotus since placing my 1st deposit 8th September 2021 and enduring a series of delays to the estimated delivery date (originally “late 2022” and now August 2023). Today I received the email informing me of a £6k price increase which with optional extras, registration fees, tax and PPF takes the total to around £90k - 50% more than the £60k price originally mentioned. Now wondering what else I could buy for £90k and how that would compare to the Emira.

 

[richbrown]

Are you matt?

No just a realist

 

[Lotustoronto]

Good luck in the courts , a video with good intentions from Matt isn't admissible evidence. Be grateful it's only a small increase. Next year it will be more again.

Matt's video looks more like a "please don't cancel your order, so we don't have to refund you money before we get some sales coming in" oppose to an honest, genuine offer of good faith to early depositors. This whole situation is sad, but not surprising. Promises to keep pricing, backtracking, advertising pricing then removing the advertised pricing. Constant delivery delays, no common sense in customer communications or relations. What kind of company is this? From a management perspective they are not even on the same planet as Porsche or any other manufacturer at the moment.

How many cars were delivered on the original promised pricing? Maybe 1,500 world wide.

 

[DJS]

They say getting married and moving home are two of the most stressful things you will ever do, now it’s getting married moving home and buying a car from Lotus

 

[Jonhklee]

This is really annoying after sticking with Lotus since placing my 1st deposit 8th September 2021 and enduring a series of delays to the estimated delivery date (originally “late 2022” and now August 2023). Today I received the email informing me of a £6k price increase which with optional extras, registration fees, tax and PPF takes the total to around £90k - 50% more than the £60k price originally mentioned. Now wondering what else I could buy for £90k and how that would compare to the Emira.

911 T with choice options is within grasp. I know which I’d rather have….

 

[Lowtush]

Has anyone in the US had any word on this potential price change?

 

[CDM1855]

Has anyone in the US had any word on this potential price change?

Saw a post on Facebook saying a US dealer confirmed no price hikes are planned yet

 

[KAR120C]

Has anyone in the US had any word on this potential price change?

Yes, I've talked to my dealer. FE prices are locked in the US. Check out the US/Canada thread.

 

[Cachaco131]

911 T with choice options is within grasp. I know which I’d rather have….

I like the T too (not as a replacement) but in reality, when you add even basic options, it quickly approaches $130-140k here in the US. So still a large gap to the inflation escalated Emira.

 

[Mctaff]

Why did the MD make a price pledge to those with an order then ?

He believes he has some power in the organisation

 

[JasonR]

Saw a post on Facebook saying a US dealer confirmed no price hikes are planned yet

It won’t be accurate. Most US dealers have been wrong on several bits of info so far

 

[Max]

With the dollar (US) having been so strong of late, (I know it’s fallen back a bit) they might leave the USA FE prices as is, fingers crossed for you guys

That was as another "own goal" as Lotus prioritized minor markets when they should have been shipping to it's biggest market. Always wondered about that one. Free money.

 

[clonalejandro]

I'm seeing on the web that in the BE they have removed the price and now it says that they will come out instead of Q3 of 2023 in Q2 of 2024 lol

 

[TomE]

The advertised used/flipped Emiras just got a reason not to lower their prices (and a couple have gone up in price £1-2k today).

Used late model Evoras just went up in value £2-3k.

Very disappointed for all the people with post 15 July deposits and i4 orders who have had this unwelcome news after such a long wait. We knew and Lotus knew that price increases were coming, but the handling of it could have been much better.

I figure they will deliver about 600-800 UK cars before the price increase kicks in, but they should have delivered many times that per the original plans.

I wouldn't be surprised if UK i4 FE #1 got checkout in w/c 29 May at the old price, just so Lotus could claim they delivered one car at the originally published price.

 

[DF_Toronto]

A very close family member of mine did a lot of M&A deals with multibillion dollar companies in China & India and always said that when dealing with Chinese companies they work on a completely different moral standard and can’t be trusted. I think we’re seeing the influence of this here, it’s all been calculated. They made sure they got all the cars delivered to reviewers and influencers and likely tested those cars more throughly, made sure all the articles and YouTube’s got published covering the performance for money etc. All while they filled up the order book with 5X more cars than they can ever produce knowing they’d jack up the price before the cars go out and 1 out of 5 down the list will take an order at a higher price that will be delivered with problems they don’t have the infrastructure to repair. I love the car and put a deposit on the Eletre as well but the company is showing they’re far too shady to deal with over roughly the past 2 years so unfortunately I think I’m out too.

 

[Twin Cam]

A very close family member of mine did a lot of M&A deals with multibillion dollar companies in China & India and always said that when dealing with Chinese companies they work on a completely different moral standard and can’t be trusted. I think we’re seeing the influence of this here, it’s all been calculated. They made sure they got all the cars delivered to reviewers and influencers and likely tested those cars more throughly, made sure all the articles and YouTube’s got published covering the performance for money etc. All while they filled up the order book with 5X more cars than they can ever produce knowing they’d jack up the price before the cars go out and 1 out of 5 down the list will take an order at a higher price that will be delivered with problems they don’t have the infrastructure to repair. I love the car and put a deposit on the Eletre as well but the company is showing they’re far too shady to deal with over roughly the past 2 years so unfortunately I think I’m out too.

I think you are probably right, too much money involved here for how amateurish they have come across.
Matt Windle has probably been played and unfortunately lost some of his integrity in the process.
Sad days really, I so wish Toyota had bought Lotus all those years ago.
There is probably a wake up call for Mr Button in there somewhere too

 

[MPD]

I don't know about that. If you look up bait and switch legal cases that have been won, they seem very similar to Lotus'. Rivian was in the exact same situation and they had to back track it due to the pending law suits. The whole point is they did not deliver a single car for the advertised price. If they did and raised the pricing for they rest, than that is fair game. They are treading a fine line in regards to advertising law, not so much contractural law, IMO.

I'm not a lawyer by day but play one on the weekend ... can you show examples that are very similar/the same as what is going on with Lotus as all the ones I'm familar with aren't really applicable. Did Rivian revert back due to pending lawsuits - can you share that info especially from the company? I have a contact who told me it had to do with perception of the tarnished brand with so much outcry from customers. You have to assume (dangerous) that they already had consultation from internal (and likely external) legal before announcing.

I think this is a complete charlie foxtrot and they brought it on themselves. As Eagle mentions, it is different in UK than US for how ordering is done. Here those people that have an actual deposit that turned into an order placed against an allocation at the dealer, those would be protected (legally). But just having a deposit doesn't constitute an order (thus not price protected), just the ability to future order if available. Imagine you have a deposit at a dealer and you are #30 but the dealer only gets 10 allocations a year, no manufacturer guarantees a specific price point for 3 years.

I wish idleuser the best of luck in CA filing in small claims court (seriously) but it is a waste of $100 because the only way this would go in your favour would be if you had placed an actual order against an allocation (all FE orders in the US were done last year) and got the notice from Lotus that your order was accepted by production AND then Lotus changed it then yes I'm right there with you. (sorry that was the longest run on sentence

It 100% bites for everyone else with base v6 as you'll be hit with an increase. Now the i4 FE is interesting though because they haven't produced but no orders have been accepted by the factory either so technically they are just deposits for future orders. Experts in contractual law especially in the automotive industry can weigh in but my lawyer friends (other areas) say this is grey and think Lotus can do it. Not in their best interest from a PR/customer perspective but legally they can. Rivian didn't want to deal with that and gave in, maybe Geely doesn't care and said just give them the finger.

I wish Lotus would do more to protect those early depositors but without transparency we have no idea what is going on. I would respect them more if they came out and said ok, the cost of goods and services have increased by 22% (and give a more detailed breakdown) from when we originally set the price. We are going to absorb ~ 12-15% for anyone that has had a deposit for a year or less and ~18-20% for everyone else as a way to recognize their committment. Effective immediately all new orders will be subject to full increases. At least I would feel better to understand their thought process. Hiding and sticking your head in the sand only makes it worse for them.

I do hope Lotus does some reversal but their actions thus far in the past two years indicate that will not be the case. I don't know MattW but everything I've seen or heard, makes it seem like he is a genuine legit guy. His integrity is now taking a beating and wonder how much is being driven above him

 

[dzernski]

I'm not a lawyer by day but play one on the weekend ... can you show examples that are very similar/the same as what is going on with Lotus as all the ones I'm familar with aren't really applicable. Did Rivian revert back due to pending lawsuits - can you share that info especially from the company? I have a contact who told me it had to do with perception of the tarnished brand with so much outcry from customers. You have to assume (dangerous) that they already had consultation from internal (and likely external) legal before announcing.

I think this is a complete charlie foxtrot and they brought it on themselves. As Eagle mentions, it is different in UK than US for how ordering is done. Here those people that have an actual deposit that turned into an order placed against an allocation at the dealer, those would be protected (legally). But just having a deposit doesn't constitute an order (thus not price protected), just the ability to future order if available. Imagine you have a deposit at a dealer and you are #30 but the dealer only gets 10 allocations a year, no manufacturer guarantees a specific price point for 3 years.

I wish idleuser the best of luck in CA filing in small claims court (seriously) but it is a waste of $100 because the only way this would go in your favour would be if you had placed an actual order against an allocation (all FE orders in the US were done last year) and got the notice from Lotus that your order was accepted by production AND then Lotus changed it then yes I'm right there with you. (sorry that was the longest run on sentence
View attachment 22702
It 100% bites for everyone else with base v6 as you'll be hit with an increase. Now the i4 FE is interesting though because they haven't produced but no orders have been accepted by the factory either so technically they are just deposits for future orders. Experts in contractual law especially in the automotive industry can weigh in but my lawyer friends (other areas) say this is grey and think Lotus can do it. Not in their best interest from a PR/customer perspective but legally they can. Rivian didn't want to deal with that and gave in, maybe Geely doesn't care and said just give them the finger.

I wish Lotus would do more to protect those early depositors but without transparency we have no idea what is going on. I would respect them more if they came out and said ok, the cost of goods and services have increased by 22% (and give a more detailed breakdown) from when we originally set the price. We are going to absorb ~ 12-15% for anyone that has had a deposit for a year or less and ~18-20% for everyone else as a way to recognize their committment. Effective immediately all new orders will be subject to full increases. At least I would feel better to understand their thought process. Hiding and sticking your head in the sand only makes it worse for them.

I do hope Lotus does some reversal but their actions thus far in the past two years indicate that will not be the case. I don't know MattW but everything I've seen or heard, makes it seem like he is a genuine legit guy. His integrity is now taking a beating and wonder how much is being driven above him

Matt Windle may have given off vibes of authenticity and may have actually believed what he said last year. However Lotus apparently brought in a new "VP of Commercial" two weeks ago. Given the amount Lotus have been loosing recently it's a bit too much to not connect the dots and suggest that the paymasters have realised how much they're loosing and this is all an effort to stem the losses. MW will be thrown under the bus on the "promise" issue and all will be quietly forgotten

 

[Lotustoronto]

I'm not a lawyer by day but play one on the weekend ... can you show examples that are very similar/the same as what is going on with Lotus as all the ones I'm familar with aren't really applicable. Did Rivian revert back due to pending lawsuits - can you share that info especially from the company? I have a contact who told me it had to do with perception of the tarnished brand with so much outcry from customers. You have to assume (dangerous) that they already had consultation from internal (and likely external) legal before announcing.

I think this is a complete charlie foxtrot and they brought it on themselves. As Eagle mentions, it is different in UK than US for how ordering is done. Here those people that have an actual deposit that turned into an order placed against an allocation at the dealer, those would be protected (legally). But just having a deposit doesn't constitute an order (thus not price protected), just the ability to future order if available. Imagine you have a deposit at a dealer and you are #30 but the dealer only gets 10 allocations a year, no manufacturer guarantees a specific price point for 3 years.

I wish idleuser the best of luck in CA filing in small claims court (seriously) but it is a waste of $100 because the only way this would go in your favour would be if you had placed an actual order against an allocation (all FE orders in the US were done last year) and got the notice from Lotus that your order was accepted by production AND then Lotus changed it then yes I'm right there with you. (sorry that was the longest run on sentence
View attachment 22702
It 100% bites for everyone else with base v6 as you'll be hit with an increase. Now the i4 FE is interesting though because they haven't produced but no orders have been accepted by the factory either so technically they are just deposits for future orders. Experts in contractual law especially in the automotive industry can weigh in but my lawyer friends (other areas) say this is grey and think Lotus can do it. Not in their best interest from a PR/customer perspective but legally they can. Rivian didn't want to deal with that and gave in, maybe Geely doesn't care and said just give them the finger.

I wish Lotus would do more to protect those early depositors but without transparency we have no idea what is going on. I would respect them more if they came out and said ok, the cost of goods and services have increased by 22% (and give a more detailed breakdown) from when we originally set the price. We are going to absorb ~ 12-15% for anyone that has had a deposit for a year or less and ~18-20% for everyone else as a way to recognize their committment. Effective immediately all new orders will be subject to full increases. At least I would feel better to understand their thought process. Hiding and sticking your head in the sand only makes it worse for them.

I do hope Lotus does some reversal but their actions thus far in the past two years indicate that will not be the case. I don't know MattW but everything I've seen or heard, makes it seem like he is a genuine legit guy. His integrity is now taking a beating and wonder how much is being driven above him

My point was not with contract law, but advertising law. I am sure that in the fine print Lotus has covered themselves in this situation. The legal team I am sure has looked into it. However, advertising laws vary state by state and country by country, in Canada they are extremely vigilant on corporations with mis-leading advertising. I also agree that not every customer deposit would be able to hold pricing, this would be impossible. I pretty much agree with everything you stated, except two;

1. "No manufacturer can guarantee 3 years out a price" - When that item is advertised at a certain price point. I understand it's until quantities last i.e. allocations allowed for that model year etc. but to not deliver a single vehicle on an advertised price, which was one of the largest pieces of their marketing campaign has never been done in recent times by an automotive company. A configurable i4 F/E in the UK for the past two years and thousands of deposits taken, based on that configurator in which not one customer will receive.


This was from an article below about the Rivian situation.... I am sure your "contact" at Rivian knows best anyways....


"
Last fall, the EV startup abruptly terminated Laura Schwab as head of sales and marketing. In a recent lawsuit against her former employer, she said one reason she was fired was because she questioned Rivian's pricing strategy.

The former Aston Martin executive said in her suit that the R1T's starting price of $67,500 was too low. Automotive News reports she claims she raised this issue with several execs, including Jiten Behl (Chief Strategy Officer), Stuart Dixon (Director of Product Management), and Andy Zicheck (Principal Product Manager).

"Mr. Behl brushed her off. Eventually, Mr. Hunt raised the issue with Mr. Behl, at which point Mr. Behl agreed that they would need to raise the vehicle prices after the IPO."
Excerpt from the Laura Schwab lawsuit

With the litigation still ongoing, this serious allegation only reflects Laura Schwab's side of the story. Rivian made no comments about the lawsuit when it was filed in November 2021, citing a mandatory quiet period ahead of its IPO."

 

[Lotustoronto]

Ex-Rivian VP Claimed Post-IPO Price Hikes Were Planned All Along, Not Supply Related

Laura Schwab says she tried to raise the alarm about necessary price hikes before being fired.

www.thedrive.com

Rivian did not back track because of upset customers, they knew that was going to happen when the announced the increase. Rivian backtracked because they were getting sued and the only way out of the law suits was to offer a few Rivian's at the advertised price. Probably the cheaper option to be honest.