RE: Aston Martin Vanquish MY15: Review
Discussion
DonkeyApple said:
Skipping every alternate gear in a close ratio box is not the same especially as the cam timing etc will have been designed for the closer ratios so as to maximise their benefit.
Modern engines have far more broad power bands than cars of yester-year. Not sure why you think the opposite. Using a V12 as an example..... are you saying the XJ12 will respond better lower down the rev range than the V12 in this Aston because of the cam timing? These cars will happily ride big tall gears every bit as well as the old cars, and the rest. You're just splitting ultra fine hairs and, quite frankly, it's daft.
Basically you're saying it's nice to use a long gear from low rpm (eg a gear from 30mph right to 100mph) in an old car, yet you're saying doing the exact same speed and rpm in another car (1 or 2 gears higher up its gearboxe) different because the next gear will be closer, and you can't be bothered to shift 2 gears at once to get somewhere slower and less efficiently.
Can't remember ever thinking in my 6 speed car "I wish I only had 3 gears"
Zod said:
The wheel is an option (or at least it was on the first cars). It's from the One-77 and I can take it or leave it. I struggle to see the point of differently shaped wheels genreally. The flat-bottomed wheel in the R8 doesn't make it more difficult to drive, but neither does it enhance the experience.
Theres an argument that says its easier to get in the car.E65Ross said:
DonkeyApple said:
Skipping every alternate gear in a close ratio box is not the same especially as the cam timing etc will have been designed for the closer ratios so as to maximise their benefit.
Modern engines have far more broad power bands than cars of yester-year. Not sure why you think the opposite. Using a V12 as an example..... are you saying the XJ12 will respond better lower down the rev range than the V12 in this Aston because of the cam timing? These cars will happily ride big tall gears every bit as well as the old cars, and the rest. You're just splitting ultra fine hairs and, quite frankly, it's daft.
Basically you're saying it's nice to use a long gear from low rpm (eg a gear from 30mph right to 100mph) in an old car, yet you're saying doing the exact same speed and rpm in another car (1 or 2 gears higher up its gearboxe) different because the next gear will be closer, and you can't be bothered to shift 2 gears at once to get somewhere slower and less efficiently.
Can't remember ever thinking in my 6 speed car "I wish I only had 3 gears"
DonkeyApple said:
That wasn't what I was saying. And again, the mention of the old Torqueflight was in reference to an extreme example to highlight the point. You need to step away from the XJ12.
Ok, let's talk about this car. I can't imagine any single Aston Martin owner wishing their car had only 3 or 4 gears instead of the old 6 or the new 8 speed box. Can you? 
E65Ross said:
DonkeyApple said:
That wasn't what I was saying. And again, the mention of the old Torqueflight was in reference to an extreme example to highlight the point. You need to step away from the XJ12.
Ok, let's talk about this car. I can't imagine any single Aston Martin owner wishing their car had only 3 or 4 gears instead of the old 6 or the new 8 speed box. Can you? What I am saying is that because of the continual increase in the number of gears you are losing a certain driving pleasure. These closer ratio boxes mean that you are running through shorter rev ranges. This is perfect for a diesel. It's fine for a petrol because you will cam your engine and program you shift points to maximise this, but you lose a little esoteric something and that is the driving pleasure of pulling up through a traditionally longer gear.
Skipping gears doesn't work as the ratios aren't right. The best way to feel this would be to drive a manual 5 speed v a manual 8 speed where first and last gears were matching ratios. It's then easy to see that to get the most out of the shorter ratios and just as you would with a conventional close ratio version of the 5 speed, you would need to change the cam profile or valve timing to maximise the benefits and it is at that exact point that you optimise the engine for the additional gears that you lose that little 'driving pleasure'.
Check this table to see the true differences and the ramifications. Looking at the 1:1 ratio for each, back to 1st gear shows where the additional gears have been inserted over the years and the changes that will have been made to performance engines over this period to maximise the closer ratio sets. You can negate the very deep 1st gears of the later boxes as ultimately, this gear is not used by performance cars but is there so that 4X4s don't need a variable transfer case solution for the most part. Oh, and it's handy for boosting 0-60s.
What you can see is that as we add more and more gears, so the engines will change more and more, trending towards a situation where just like on a generator the engine runs at a constant, most efficient RPM. 3 gears was never enough, neither was 4 but 8/9 sees us out the other side and into diminishing characteristics of what we currently consider a typical sporting engine. You can already feel a stark change. Even more so when you consider that nearly all cars live their in a speed range of 0-90/100 mph regardless of what top speed they actually have. The key is, at what point do we lose all current engine character and the aural pleasure of climbing up through a nice long rev range with a nice wide torque curve that evolves to give us that classic petrol engine noise that everyone likes?
So what we can see, is that 2nd, 4th, 6th and 7th are similar to the old 4 speed ratios. Still not following you with the "cam" thing. Have you seen a modern car engines power delivery?
I think you're the only person I've ever heard saying that you prefer old 3 or 4 speed boxes because you can be "pulling up through a traditionally longer gear" and go through a full rev range of the engine..... Because you can still do exactly that with an 8 speed box. The ratios aren't identical, but they can be pretty bloody close to the old ones if you just skip a gear.
And what the f
k are you on about changing valve timing etc? This got fk all to do with gear ratios. So of you're saying you need to be at a certain rpm for the engine to work, are you saying that of you shift a few hundred rpm earlier then the engine will not work as well as an older engine which has been designed with linger ratios? If so, that is utter tripe. An old car with a 3 speed box would be faster of it was identical in every way except it had an 8 speed box despite its cam timing. Likewise, a modern car would be slower and less efficient with a 3 speed box.
I think you're the only person I've ever heard saying that you prefer old 3 or 4 speed boxes because you can be "pulling up through a traditionally longer gear" and go through a full rev range of the engine..... Because you can still do exactly that with an 8 speed box. The ratios aren't identical, but they can be pretty bloody close to the old ones if you just skip a gear.
And what the f
k are you on about changing valve timing etc? This got fk all to do with gear ratios. So of you're saying you need to be at a certain rpm for the engine to work, are you saying that of you shift a few hundred rpm earlier then the engine will not work as well as an older engine which has been designed with linger ratios? If so, that is utter tripe. An old car with a 3 speed box would be faster of it was identical in every way except it had an 8 speed box despite its cam timing. Likewise, a modern car would be slower and less efficient with a 3 speed box. Edited by E65Ross on Thursday 7th August 22:30
E65Ross said:
So what we can see, is that 2nd, 4th, 6th and 7th are similar to the old 4 speed ratios. Still not following you with the "cam" thing. Have you seen a modern car engines power delivery?
I think you're the only person I've ever heard saying that you prefer old 3 or 4 speed boxes because you can be "pulling up through a traditionally longer gear" and go through a full rev range of the engine..... Because you can still do exactly that with an 8 speed box. The ratios aren't identical, but they can be pretty bloody close to the old ones if you just skip a gear.
And what the fk are you on about changing valve timing etc? This got fk all to do with gear ratios. So of you're saying you need to be at a certain rpm for the engine to work, are you saying that of you shift a few hundred rpm earlier then the engine will not work as well as an older engine which has been designed with linger ratios? If so, that is utter tripe. An old car with a 3 speed box would be faster of it was identical in every way except it had an 8 speed box despite its cam timing. Likewise, a modern car would be slower and less efficient with a 3 speed box.
I think the issue here is that you are analphabetic. I think you're the only person I've ever heard saying that you prefer old 3 or 4 speed boxes because you can be "pulling up through a traditionally longer gear" and go through a full rev range of the engine..... Because you can still do exactly that with an 8 speed box. The ratios aren't identical, but they can be pretty bloody close to the old ones if you just skip a gear.
And what the f
k are you on about changing valve timing etc? This got fk all to do with gear ratios. So of you're saying you need to be at a certain rpm for the engine to work, are you saying that of you shift a few hundred rpm earlier then the engine will not work as well as an older engine which has been designed with linger ratios? If so, that is utter tripe. An old car with a 3 speed box would be faster of it was identical in every way except it had an 8 speed box despite its cam timing. Likewise, a modern car would be slower and less efficient with a 3 speed box. Edited by E65Ross on Thursday 7th August 22:30
At no point have I said that I prefer 3/4 speed boxes.
At the very outset I said that you lose both performance and economy.
Why you mention cam timing, God only knows!
And no, as you can see from just the basic ratio data, slipping gears is not a way to replicate. Obviously!!! It's seriously basic maths!!!
And you seem to think that you just mate your fixed ratio third party trans to your engine and everything works perfectly?!!! Just take an engine that has been around for a decade so has been mated to different evolutions of ZF boxes and see the changes that have been made to the engine each time to suit the short ratio of gears. Take the AJ series as that has been mated to 4 speeds up to 8.
You seem totally obsessed with something you've invented in your mind. While also not understanding the basic mechanics involved.
And why the rage? Baffling.
It's remarkably simple if you both understand the absolute basics of gear ratios and the relationship to the engine characteristics and if you can also read.
Edited by DonkeyApple on Thursday 7th August 23:09
The Crack Fox said:
It is. There's quite a bit of trinketry on the Vanquish that isn't needed, IMO, but no doubt appeals to a certain type of potential buyer. I was lucky enough to have this for a couple of days recently.
The unpainted carbon fibre looks pretty on the front splitter, for example, but is it needed?
Looks lovely.The unpainted carbon fibre looks pretty on the front splitter, for example, but is it needed?
a 6 litre V12 is nice, but is it needed? No. Doesn't stop me wanting it, mind.
exceed said:
Does the person arguing against 8 speed gearboxes understand that they shift a hell of a lot more quickly than the old 6 speeds which in turn are quicker than an average human could shift manually...?
I've not argued against it. It's a phenomenal a bit of kit. Someone else has misunderstood a small point that I was making re the effect of adding an increasing number of gears with shorter ratios. A very obvious observation but too complex for some to grasp. 
It's a simple matter that as you trend towards constant velocity so petrol engines will have their timing adjusted to match the shorter ratios, thus shorter torque curves and also shorter actual times between gears. Ie, they will trend towards the characteristics of diesels which have been transformed by the increasing addition of gears as it plays wonderfully into their natural characteristics.
Existing today, on roads, we have performance petrol cars with the old three speed units and the current 8 speeds so we hVe two big extremes to demonstrate this minor point. (Again someone thought that by mentioning an old 60s gearbox this meant it was being cited as superior!!). But the two types highlight this minor point. Listen to an old XJ12 or Porsche 928 as it climbed hard up through the gears and you get that long drawn out, wonderful noise of the petrol engine and all the noise and note changes as it mounts the revs. By contrast, as you add more gears (some are negated by the increases in top speeds but that typically discounts the last gear as can be seen from the chart above) so the ratios narrow and so the engine is optimised to take full advantage of narrower ratios (obviously the engine after a change needs to be sitting at the right revs, something else not understood earlier) and so the nature and range of notes from the engine changes.
The obvious conclusion is that adding enough gears will mean that a V12 Ferrari engine will drive passed sounding like a road workers genny as just like the genny engine it has become optimised to run at a set number of revs for peak performance. Seeing as it would be fair to assume that the essence of a petrolhead also factors in the sound that petrol engines make when being driven or driven passed then it is relevant to raise a matter that will and is changing the way that petrol cars sound. Especially as the last 15 years has moved incredibly rapidly from 4 speed autos to now 9 and you can very clearly hear the audible difference and the loss of the range of notes. And seeing as many classic petrol engines have been partly defined by their sound then it is something to consider as it will be lost as more and more ratios are added so as to obtain peak fuel performance.
The only question or matter up for debate really is when you consider the typical operating range of a typical road performance car is say 20mph to 150mph, what is the best number of gears for the perfect driving experience? Was it the 6 speeds, is the new 8s or 9s? Or will it be 10 or 12 speeds?
If all someone wants to do is go as fast as possible as fuel efficiently as possible then more gears is always better and manufacturers can just play the sound of an old engine through the stereo to fool them. But if someone gets pleasure from listening to the engine note variations as they drive (and the aftermarket exhaust industry, even manufacturers suggest clearly that sound forms an integral part of a petrolhead experience) then given that peak road speed isn't going to increase so additional ratios mean ever shorter ratios what is the perfect set of ratios to get the perfect spread of notes from a performance petrol engine?
ZX10R NIN said:
Mercedes use ZF gearboxes have done for years the 8 speed is a ZF So was the 7 & 5 speed
I was under the impression that although gearboxes such as the ZF 8speed are designed by ZF, they are licensed out to companies such as Mercedes who then build it to ZF design with their own choice of components etc? DonkeyApple said:
petrol engines will have their timing adjusted to match the shorter ratios, thus shorter torque curves and also shorter actual times between gears. Ie, they will trend towards the characteristics of diesels which have been transformed by the increasing addition of gears as it plays wonderfully into their natural characteristics.
Shorter torque curves? Do you mean as in the absolute operating rpm of the engine (e.g. a 500rpm idle to a, say, 7000rpm redline; or do you mean "peak torque" will be in a more narrow band? If the former, that's more likely going to be due to turbo charging, if the latter, then that is simply not true.For example, the new engine in the BMW M3 produces peak torque over a much wider band than the out-going V8 model.
I'm not sure I follow on how they'd need their timing adjusting, surely all modern engines have variable valve timing, such as VANOS? Can you elaborate on that please as I'm not quite sure? If you're saying that if the engines will be calibrated to only really work well with shorter ratios, are you not therefore saying the engines wouldn't work well if you shift 2 gears at once? If that is the case, then you're quite wrong. It's possible I've mistaken exactly what you mean by this statement.
DonkeyApple said:
....so the ratios narrow and so the engine is optimised to take full advantage of narrower ratios (obviously the engine after a change needs to be sitting at the right revs, something else not understood earlier) and so the nature and range of notes from the engine changes.
the engines aren't designed specifically so they only work with that 8 speed box. If that was the case, those engines wouldn't work with 6 speed manual cars.....but they work absolutely fine. I totally understood what you were saying about the engine noise, and agree that it's nice to hear an engine through a wide range of rpm to get a variety of noise. What you didn't seem to understand what I was saying is that you can still do that by shifting 2 gears at once. Contrary to what it appears you believe, the more modern engines will work better over a wider rpm band than the older engines with 3 or 4 speed boxes.I may be wrong in my assumption, but it seems you are suggesting that the modern engines with these gearboxes only work over a narrow power band, and the older cars (like the V12 jag, for example) will work better with fewer ratios than the modern engine would with fewer ratios.
The M135i engine, for example, produces 85% of peak torque for almost 5000rpm (from barely tickover at just over 1100rpm or so, right up to around 5800rpm. So even pulling a very tall gear (or shifting 2 gears at once) it will still be very, very good and more responsive than even BMWs old V12 which had a 4 speed box, which produced a similar power output, even if both engines were to have had that 4 speed box.
Edited by E65Ross on Wednesday 13th August 19:57
Edited by E65Ross on Wednesday 13th August 19:58
OddJoe said:
I was under the impression that although gearboxes such as the ZF 8speed are designed by ZF, they are licensed out to companies such as Mercedes who then build it to ZF design with their own choice of components etc?
Correct. ZF licence the design of the 'box, but it's to the companies to build en calibrate them. That's why one ZF is 100% identical to the other. Well done AM, but the Vanq II should've had it from launch.E65Ross said:
DonkeyApple said:
petrol engines will have their timing adjusted to match the shorter ratios, thus shorter torque curves and also shorter actual times between gears. Ie, they will trend towards the characteristics of diesels which have been transformed by the increasing addition of gears as it plays wonderfully into their natural characteristics.
Shorter torque curves? Do you mean as in the absolute operating rpm of the engine (e.g. a 500rpm idle to a, say, 7000rpm redline; or do you mean "peak torque" will be in a more narrow band? If the former, that's more likely going to be due to turbo charging, if the latter, then that is simply not true.For example, the new engine in the BMW M3 produces peak torque over a much wider band than the out-going V8 model.
I'm not sure I follow on how they'd need their timing adjusting, surely all modern engines have variable valve timing, such as VANOS? Can you elaborate on that please as I'm not quite sure? If you're saying that if the engines will be calibrated to only really work well with shorter ratios, are you not therefore saying the engines wouldn't work well if you shift 2 gears at once? If that is the case, then you're quite wrong. It's possible I've mistaken exactly what you mean by this statement.
DonkeyApple said:
....so the ratios narrow and so the engine is optimised to take full advantage of narrower ratios (obviously the engine after a change needs to be sitting at the right revs, something else not understood earlier) and so the nature and range of notes from the engine changes.
the engines aren't designed specifically so they only work with that 8 speed box. If that was the case, those engines wouldn't work with 6 speed manual cars.....but they work absolutely fine. I totally understood what you were saying about the engine noise, and agree that it's nice to hear an engine through a wide range of rpm to get a variety of noise. What you didn't seem to understand what I was saying is that you can still do that by shifting 2 gears at once. Contrary to what it appears you believe, the more modern engines will work better over a wider rpm band than the older engines with 3 or 4 speed boxes.I may be wrong in my assumption, but it seems you are suggesting that the modern engines with these gearboxes only work over a narrow power band, and the older cars (like the V12 jag, for example) will work better with fewer ratios than the modern engine would with fewer ratios.
The M135i engine, for example, produces 85% of peak torque for almost 5000rpm (from barely tickover at just over 1100rpm or so, right up to around 5800rpm. So even pulling a very tall gear (or shifting 2 gears at once) it will still be very, very good and more responsive than even BMWs old V12 which had a 4 speed box, which produced a similar power output, even if both engines were to have had that 4 speed box.
Edited by E65Ross on Wednesday 13th August 19:57
Edited by E65Ross on Wednesday 13th August 19:58
Focus on the ratio spread and the imitations of ever shortening ratios. It's that simple.
In recent years as gears were added, in many cases so top speeds were raised but the since the 155 days additional gears have lead to closer ratios. It is very clear to see in the chart I posted above.
Running closer ratios has very significant implications on the driving experience. Many positive and some worrying.
I raised this on this specific thread as Aston stated last year that their older 6 speed box have a better drive experience as their excuse for not having the money to move to 8.
And no you don't just bolt up a gearbox to an engine and off you go. The TCU is tuned to perfect the change points as dictated by the character of the engine but as ratios are fixed then you also have to ensure that your engine is delivering its optimum power within the ratio of the gear spread. As if you look at the chart above and the change in ratio spreads then it is very clear that engine work is required to benefit from the change.
I understand what you are saying about the noise etc but, on the face of it, with what you're saying about engines are calibrated to work best with the smaller gaps in ratios it sounds as though you're saying that the engines won't work well if you're flooring it to the redline and then double upshift because of the large drop in rpm. It sounds like you're saying the older engines would cope better with this (as they were calibrated to as they only had 4 speed boxes, for example); that's not the case. Whilst they may be optimised to work best with small gaps in ratios, they still work admirably well at any rpm. Much better than their predecessors of yesteryear
DonkeyApple. Really not sure I get what you're saying here. I'm with E65Ross on this one. There are no significant hardware and software changes to the PCM on these engines between an older 6HP and an 8HP. Any subtle differences are due to improvements in power delivery smoothing and emissions regs and are unconnected to the transmission.
For instance, the AJ133 in the Jags didn't change in the XFR between the 6HP and 8HP application. You can still very much 'lug' in gear by using 4th instead of 3rd. Honestly, when you're driving the 8HP, the only difference you subjectively notice is that there are more gears left when you finish driving on a B Road to shift in to top. The rest of the time, the car feels near enough identical and you still end up using about 3 gears for most of the time. An excellent example of the similarity would be at the 'Ring. The short blast at Brunchen where everyone watches STILL results in the car hitting the limiter, or an awkward shift into the next gear only to change down straight away.OK, maybe it hits the limiter slightly earlier in 3rd gear than it does in the 6HP car, but it's hardly even measurable.
I wouldn't listen too much to the original 'reason' given by Aston about keeping the 6HP....why would their marketing team say any different? It's not like they were going to say: 'Yeah, you're right. 8 speeds would make the car better, and in fact, if you're in the market now for a Vanquish, why not wait 10 months and you'll be able to get that gearbox in the car'. 'Marketing departments' and 'Telling the Truth about technology' are not two phrases you'll ever see in a sentance....
All I'll say, is I have literally never, ever, heard anyone get out of a car with an 8HP in and said, yeah, it's good, but I'd rather than the 6HP and in fact, whilst I'm at it, why not a 4 speed. It's night and day a better transmission. It does everything a 6HP did and a whole lot more.
For instance, the AJ133 in the Jags didn't change in the XFR between the 6HP and 8HP application. You can still very much 'lug' in gear by using 4th instead of 3rd. Honestly, when you're driving the 8HP, the only difference you subjectively notice is that there are more gears left when you finish driving on a B Road to shift in to top. The rest of the time, the car feels near enough identical and you still end up using about 3 gears for most of the time. An excellent example of the similarity would be at the 'Ring. The short blast at Brunchen where everyone watches STILL results in the car hitting the limiter, or an awkward shift into the next gear only to change down straight away.OK, maybe it hits the limiter slightly earlier in 3rd gear than it does in the 6HP car, but it's hardly even measurable.
I wouldn't listen too much to the original 'reason' given by Aston about keeping the 6HP....why would their marketing team say any different? It's not like they were going to say: 'Yeah, you're right. 8 speeds would make the car better, and in fact, if you're in the market now for a Vanquish, why not wait 10 months and you'll be able to get that gearbox in the car'. 'Marketing departments' and 'Telling the Truth about technology' are not two phrases you'll ever see in a sentance....
All I'll say, is I have literally never, ever, heard anyone get out of a car with an 8HP in and said, yeah, it's good, but I'd rather than the 6HP and in fact, whilst I'm at it, why not a 4 speed. It's night and day a better transmission. It does everything a 6HP did and a whole lot more.
Edited by RacerMike on Thursday 14th August 12:13
E65Ross said:
I understand what you are saying about the noise etc but, on the face of it, with what you're saying about engines are calibrated to work best with the smaller gaps in ratios it sounds as though you're saying that the engines won't work well if you're flooring it to the redline and then double upshift because of the large drop in rpm. It sounds like you're saying the older engines would cope better with this (as they were calibrated to as they only had 4 speed boxes, for example); that's not the case. Whilst they may be optimised to work best with small gaps in ratios, they still work admirably well at any rpm. Much better than their predecessors of yesteryear
No. Not saying any of that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!If you understand what I am saying about noise then that is it!!!!!! That's all it is. It's that simple.
As more gears are added so the noise band will reduce as the range of revs over which the engine will be operating will reduce, given a similar similar speed range. This can be seen by the narrowing of the ratios in the shift over time of modern boxes as per the chart I put up. It is very basic mathematics.
Aston said, last year, that the reason they were sticking with 6 speeds was as they said it made for a better driving experience than 8. That is all.
In addition, it is also obvious that as more gears are added so you trend to constant velocity. So there is a clear debate or discussion as to at what point does an increase in gears start to not benefit the driving experience? I've not made any judgement. I don't know why you think I have. Aston have said 6.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff