RE: 2024 Aston Martin Vantage | PH Review

[Nik Gnashers]

mrclav said:

Nik Gnashers said:

samoht said:

NGK210 said:

It needs the ‘cod mouth’ to maximise air-flow due to the turbos’ hot-V configuration

Yeah, and more broadly it needs the gaping mouth because it develops 650hp. Given that efficiency is hard to significantly increase so is fairly constant, heat output is a constant ratio to power output. 30% more hp means 30% more heat means 30% more airflow to remove said heat.

High-power cars involve a huge amount of thermodynamic work to shed heat without too much drag, a dozen separate types of radiator (water, charge, oil, A/C, ...) and complex configurations of hot and cold air and water flow. F1 cars are similarly challenged.

I'm genuinely not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, honestly and completely openly.

The Aston Valkyrie has 1140bhp, and doesn't have a gaping cod mouth grill.
The Pininfarina Battista has 1876bhp and doesn't had a gaping cod mouth grill.
The Bugatti Chiron super sport has 1578bhp and doesn't .....
The McLaren Senna has 800bhp and doesn't...
I could name a dozen more, all with much more power, but I think you get my point now.

It doesn't 'need' to have a grill like that, and I find it ugly.
That's all I'm saying.

Comparing a front engined V8 with a BEV and mid-engined cars makes zero sense.

Only in your 'opinion' ...

In mine it makes perfect sense.

It could have a much nicer design, and still have just as much cooling/arflow capability.

I have never said even once, that it doesn't need a lot of cooling, but there are ways and means of doing it, without one huge gaping cod mouth.
It's ugly to me, and the front end could have the same amount of cooling and/or airflow and not look like that.

No doubt you'll say I am making no sense or some other personal cuss, as your ego obviously won't allow you to even consider facts put your way, and you will carry on arguing until the other person stops, thus giving you a 'win' smh.

[OPOGTS]

Adam. said:

WPA said:

This was peak Aston Martin for me, new ones are just too fussy

Peak for me


This Vantage looks great though, maybe not in orange

Agree, that’s more like it - what an absolute monster, love it !

[bentley01]

Cold said:

Nope, don't recall that at all. My granddad might. This is from the era that some on here think is peak AM. Lots of plastic, some Volvo switchgear and poorly glued leather.

Which bits do you think are plastic?

[Cold]

bentley01 said:

Cold said:

Nope, don't recall that at all. My granddad might. This is from the era that some on here think is peak AM. Lots of plastic, some Volvo switchgear and poorly glued leather.

Which bits do you think are plastic?

I've owned mine for over twelve years and 45k miles. Please don't think I haven't got some experience of sitting inside the cabin of a 2006 Vantage!

[NGK210]

Jermy Claxon said:

…
So why does that interior look like it could be from a mid-range BMW or Audi?
…

Huh?? Mid-range Audi and BMW ‘dashboards’ are LED screens with black plastic pads instead of physical switchgear.

Whereas the Vantage’s cockpit is clearly not – it’s in line with Bentley, R-R, Pagani, McLaren, Lexus and Skoda – ie, it has physical switchgear.

(But not Ferrari, which has cynically opted for the same downmarket cost-cutting option as BMW, Audi, VW, Ford and JLR, et al.)

[jamsp00n]

Nik Gnashers said:

Only in your 'opinion' ...

In mine it makes perfect sense.

In which case, you don't understand the issues at play. It's not a matter of opinion that ICE and BEV are not comparable in this regard. ICE is a heat engine and much of the conversion of chemical energy turns into heat. The majority of the energy in the fuel is turned into heat, not the movement of the vehicle / kinetic energy, which is why ICE cars need a lot of cooling.

BEV powertrains are far more efficient in converting their electrical energy into kinetic energy and they produce very little heat.

So, it makes no sense at all from an objective stand point, opinions not required. The cooling openings on a 2,000hp BEV tell you literally nothing about what is required or practical for any ICE car, again as a matter of objective fact.

[Frankychops]

hopefully, sub £100k in 24 months(used).

[Volare]

This is stunning, genuinely the only bit of unobtainium nowadays that I really really want.

[Julian Scott]

Nik Gnashers said:

samoht said:

NGK210 said:

It needs the ‘cod mouth’ to maximise air-flow due to the turbos’ hot-V configuration

Yeah, and more broadly it needs the gaping mouth because it develops 650hp. Given that efficiency is hard to significantly increase so is fairly constant, heat output is a constant ratio to power output. 30% more hp means 30% more heat means 30% more airflow to remove said heat.

High-power cars involve a huge amount of thermodynamic work to shed heat without too much drag, a dozen separate types of radiator (water, charge, oil, A/C, ...) and complex configurations of hot and cold air and water flow. F1 cars are similarly challenged.

I'm genuinely not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, honestly and completely openly.

The Aston Valkyrie has 1140bhp, and doesn't have a gaping cod mouth grill.
The Pininfarina Battista has 1876bhp and doesn't had a gaping cod mouth grill.
The Bugatti Chiron super sport has 1578bhp and doesn't .....
The McLaren Senna has 800bhp and doesn't...
I could name a dozen more, all with much more power, but I think you get my point now.

It doesn't 'need' to have a grill like that, and I find it ugly.
That's all I'm saying.

Aren't they all rear engined though?

[Nish Gnackers]

Nik Gnashers may have driven himself down a blind alley with his list of examples.. but ...

The Ferrari Roma is directly comparable in terms of engine design, location, and output and manages with a much smaller and less obvious air intake grille.

[nismo48]

OPOGTS said:

Adam. said:

WPA said:

This was peak Aston Martin for me, new ones are just too fussy

Peak for me


This Vantage looks great though, maybe not in orange

Agree, that’s more like it - what an absolute monster, love it !

+1 lovely

[ThomW]

W124 said:

LotusOmega375D said:

They could have spent more than £250 on the rubbish 2006 DVLA cherished number.

Very, very weird. For some reason, that plate really annoyed me. Of all the things not to do.

There were something like 16 press cars on that launch, all of which had AML number plates. In context, it works.

[NGK210]

When tested by car mags and Top Gear TV, et al, the Mk1 Vanquish rarely achieved Aston's claimed 0-62mph time. Is the new Vantage similarly afflicted?

Normally, this whiny-voiced egotistical twunt matches, and often beats, OEMs' claimed 0-62s. Not this time:
https://youtu.be/OnplUqrbysE?t=1281

[R400TVR]

Nasty. The front of the pre-facelift was bad enough, but that gaping maw looks droopy and fat too big. The inside is fast better, though. As said in another comment, the elegance of the previous Vanquish, DB9 era had been lost inside and out. There's not even the absurdity of the beautiful V600 LeMans from the lady days of proper hand built Astons.

[R400TVR]

Brutal, muscular, but still classy. No aero tat, no unnecessary fussy details, but still smart. Admittedly my favourite.


Pure elegance. Perfect lines, nothing wasted or overdone. Looks classy wherever it goes, and doesn't shout.


As above, but with added muscle. Still perfectly classy, nothing showy or shouty. Those who know will appreciate what it is without it making a spectacle of itself.


Ostentatious, flashy and tactless in every sense. A loud farty exhaust, overdone styling, and no class. This is what people drive if they want others to know about it.

[NGK210]

R400TVR said:

Brutal, muscular, but still classy. No aero tat, no unnecessary fussy details, but still smart. Admittedly my favourite.


Pure elegance. Perfect lines, nothing wasted or overdone. Looks classy wherever it goes, and doesn't shout.


As above, but with added muscle. Still perfectly classy, nothing showy or shouty. Those who know will appreciate what it is without it making a spectacle of itself.


Ostentatious, flashy and tactless in every sense. A loud farty exhaust, overdone styling, and no class. This is what people drive if they want others to know about it.

Fair point. But I bet if any of the above grey or silver classics were painted lurid orange with black wheels and trim, they too would look ostentatious?

And let’s not forget, arguably it was Aston that triggered the vogue for loud exhausts with the first Vanquish? In comparison, the rival Ferrari 575M sounded like a flatulent puppy

[mrclav]

jamsp00n said:

Nik Gnashers said:

Only in your 'opinion' ...

In mine it makes perfect sense.

In which case, you don't understand the issues at play. It's not a matter of opinion that ICE and BEV are not comparable in this regard. ICE is a heat engine and much of the conversion of chemical energy turns into heat. The majority of the energy in the fuel is turned into heat, not the movement of the vehicle / kinetic energy, which is why ICE cars need a lot of cooling.

BEV powertrains are far more efficient in converting their electrical energy into kinetic energy and they produce very little heat.

So, it makes no sense at all from an objective stand point, opinions not required. The cooling openings on a 2,000hp BEV tell you literally nothing about what is required or practical for any ICE car, again as a matter of objective fact.

Exactly..

[mrclav]

Julian Scott said:

Nik Gnashers said:

samoht said:

NGK210 said:

It needs the ‘cod mouth’ to maximise air-flow due to the turbos’ hot-V configuration

Yeah, and more broadly it needs the gaping mouth because it develops 650hp. Given that efficiency is hard to significantly increase so is fairly constant, heat output is a constant ratio to power output. 30% more hp means 30% more heat means 30% more airflow to remove said heat.

High-power cars involve a huge amount of thermodynamic work to shed heat without too much drag, a dozen separate types of radiator (water, charge, oil, A/C, ...) and complex configurations of hot and cold air and water flow. F1 cars are similarly challenged.

I'm genuinely not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, honestly and completely openly.

The Aston Valkyrie has 1140bhp, and doesn't have a gaping cod mouth grill.
The Pininfarina Battista has 1876bhp and doesn't had a gaping cod mouth grill.
The Bugatti Chiron super sport has 1578bhp and doesn't .....
The McLaren Senna has 800bhp and doesn't...
I could name a dozen more, all with much more power, but I think you get my point now.

It doesn't 'need' to have a grill like that, and I find it ugly.
That's all I'm saying.

Aren't they all rear engined though?

Except the Battista (which of course has no engine, being a BEV) they're all mid-engined. I notice that the AMG GT also has a large grill which implies that it needs a LOT of airflow cooling that hot V for it to work at its best. This is why I sad comparing a front engined car using that specific engine to mid-engined cars makes no sense.

[CanAm]

I saw an older V8 for the first time a week or two ago, and in the flesh it looked surprisingly compact - about the same length as a Cayman. And very good looking.

Edited by CanAm on Thursday 16th May 11:24

[Wills2]

NGK210 said:

When tested by car mags and Top Gear TV, et al, the Mk1 Vanquish rarely achieved Aston's claimed 0-62mph time. Is the new Vantage similarly afflicted?

Normally, this whiny-voiced egotistical twunt matches, and often beats, OEMs' claimed 0-62s. Not this time:
https://youtu.be/OnplUqrbysE?t=1281

I don't think it really matters but going on Mat's attempts to do the 0-60 it's 992 Carrera 2 pace off the line for Turbo S money, but that's front engine RWD cars for you.

It's not going to look good when he does a drag race between them on the channel, but I think the Aston is more than enough elsewhere my imaginary £200k would go on the AM.