RE: Aston Martin's Andy Palmer: PH Meets

[markwm]

It's amazing that the current Vantage came in 2005, they've barely changed the exterior of it and it's still one of these best looking cars on the road, hasn't dated in the slightest.

[RoverP6B]

articulatedj said:

So two the Duratec V6s they combined to form a V12 would now be split lengthwise to form a straight six?

I have a feeling they would be better off starting over. Better yet, they could plead with Merc to provide access to their new quad turbo straight six.

The V12 was never simply a pair of Duratecs - it was a new Cosworth design sharing some of the architecture of the 2.9 Cosworth from the Scorpio (itself a fine engine) - but it has evolved considerably since the DB7, up to the One-77. Half a '77 engine would make a lovely 3.7 litre straight six.

P.S. Quad turbo straight six? I can't see how that would work from a plumbing perspective... triple turbo maybe... but anyway, an Aston needs an Aston engine, even if Cosworth have something to do with it... just using a bought-in M-B engine simply won't work (unless it's a Pagani Zonda-spec V12...)

[Speedraser]

Legless and Ed,

IMO, if you think Aston should sink to merely using someone else's off-the-shelf engine, you simply don't appreciate what Aston Martin is. According to your line of thinking, why not drop a Corvette engine into Astons. A new Z06 gives a nice 650hp. Or how about a GT-R engine. That would be effective. Heck, why not an Audi V8 -- they're already called "Bentleys" (but not by me). While we're at it, let's stick a turbo Benz V12 with some extra boost in a Ferrari. Or how about the "Bentley" W12 with the boost turned up a bit -- that would look great under the nose (or tail) of a Ferrari.

[leglessAlex]

Speedraser said:

Legless and Ed,

IMO, if you think Aston should sink to merely using someone else's off-the-shelf engine, you simply don't appreciate what Aston Martin is. According to your line of thinking, why not drop a Corvette engine into Astons. A new Z06 gives a nice 650hp. Or how about a GT-R engine. That would be effective. Heck, why not an Audi V8 -- they're already called "Bentleys" (but not by me). While we're at it, let's stick a turbo Benz V12 with some extra boost in a Ferrari. Or how about the "Bentley" W12 with the boost turned up a bit -- that would look great under the nose (or tail) of a Ferrari.

I have absolutely no doubt that I indeed 'don't appreciate' Aston Martin by your measure. I think it's a company that makes cars, but obviously that's wrong.

I wouldn't mind an LS series V8 in an Aston actually! Great engines. GT-R doesn't have enough cylinders. Audi V8 isn't muscly enough. I think the Benz V8 will be a good match for Aston and it should let them focus more resources on making the car a class leader in something other than looks.

I don't know why you brought Ferrari into it as they don't need engines from anyone else, or anything in fact. They, unlike Aston, are doing very well. Aston aren't doing very well and something needs to change, I can think of far worse changes than using a Benz engine.

[RoverP6B]

LS motors are wonderful. GT-R V6 would be nice without the turbos and with a higher rev limit. No reason why a six-pot Aston can't work. I just can't see how buying in engines from a direct rival (surely AMG GT and Vantage are direct competitors?) is a good idea, and I really don't like the idea of a turbocharged Aston - or a turbocharged anything, for that matter.

[Speedraser]

,

leglessAlex said:

Speedraser said:

Legless and Ed,

IMO, if you think Aston should sink to merely using someone else's off-the-shelf engine, you simply don't appreciate what Aston Martin is. According to your line of thinking, why not drop a Corvette engine into Astons. A new Z06 gives a nice 650hp. Or how about a GT-R engine. That would be effective. Heck, why not an Audi V8 -- they're already called "Bentleys" (but not by me). While we're at it, let's stick a turbo Benz V12 with some extra boost in a Ferrari. Or how about the "Bentley" W12 with the boost turned up a bit -- that would look great under the nose (or tail) of a Ferrari.

I have absolutely no doubt that I indeed 'don't appreciate' Aston Martin by your measure. I think it's a company that makes cars, but obviously that's wrong.

I wouldn't mind an LS series V8 in an Aston actually! Great engines. GT-R doesn't have enough cylinders. Audi V8 isn't muscly enough. I think the Benz V8 will be a good match for Aston and it should let them focus more resources on making the car a class leader in something other than looks.

I don't know why you brought Ferrari into it as they don't need engines from anyone else, or anything in fact. They, unlike Aston, are doing very well. Aston aren't doing very well and something needs to change, I can think of far worse changes than using a Benz engine.

That confirms that you don't appreciate what Aston Martin is. Toyota also is a company that makes cars. Does Toyota = Aston? No.

Would a Ferrari with a Benz engine be a Ferrari? No. If Ferrari were having financial issues, would it then be ok to stick Benz engines in Ferraris? No. Same thing with Aston Martin.

[lord trumpton]

My concern with AM is the samey look to all the models. I think because they have been lauded and termed beautiful designs years ago they have just continued to tweak the design. It's like what MG did and what Lotus do. Oh and Morgan.

The thing is, from a rear view mirror glance these days I am reluctant to move over to let one past as it could be an AM or a Fiesta or Mondeo

[leglessAlex]

Speedraser said:

That confirms that you don't appreciate what Aston Martin is. Toyota also is a company that makes cars. Does Toyota = Aston? No.

Would a Ferrari with a Benz engine be a Ferrari? No. If Ferrari were having financial issues, would it then be ok to stick Benz engines in Ferraris? No. Same thing with Aston Martin.

It must take a lot of energy to be so bitterly against something! Does it not wear you out?

Fingers crossed I'll be happily driving around in my Benz powered Aston in a few years, I'm looking forward to it! Of course, it would be lovely if they had an engine they developed themselves and was N/A but that's not the way things are going. Can't see the point in being too upset about it and it's not as if I have any better ideas to suggest to them.

I'm a bit worried about what they are going to do with the design though. I think the current cars are stunning, but they aren't Porsche and so can't get away with selling an almost unchanged design. I hope they resist the urge to make the cars look more aggressive and keep the elegance.

[R400TVR]

I'm so glad that someone wants to keep a proper gearbox in a car with a proper na engine. What is like to see though is a new small Aston to take on the Cayman etc with an old fashioned rwd, manual box car with possibly a straight 6. A classic layout using half of the V12 would make a lovely entry level.

[Speedraser]

leglessAlex said:

Speedraser said:

That confirms that you don't appreciate what Aston Martin is. Toyota also is a company that makes cars. Does Toyota = Aston? No.

Would a Ferrari with a Benz engine be a Ferrari? No. If Ferrari were having financial issues, would it then be ok to stick Benz engines in Ferraris? No. Same thing with Aston Martin.

It must take a lot of energy to be so bitterly against something! Does it not wear you out?

... I hope they resist the urge to make the cars look more aggressive and keep the elegance.

Of course it takes energy -- it comes from enthusiasm and passion for one of the few remaining truly great marques. Which won't remain a truly great marque if it is reduced to using other's off-the-shelf engines.

I agree with you about the design.

[JohnG1]

RoverP6B said:

LS motors are wonderful. GT-R V6 would be nice without the turbos and with a higher rev limit. No reason why a six-pot Aston can't work. I just can't see how buying in engines from a direct rival (surely AMG GT and Vantage are direct competitors?) is a good idea, and I really don't like the idea of a turbocharged Aston - or a turbocharged anything, for that matter.

LS motors? The cam-in-v 16 valve pushrod engines? A bit stone age aren't they? Compared to a lightweight 32 valve all aluminium construction V8 such at the one Aston Martin use at the moment?

[RoverP6B]

JohnG1 said:

LS motors? The cam-in-v 16 valve pushrod engines? A bit stone age aren't they? Compared to a lightweight 32 valve all aluminium construction V8 such at the one Aston Martin use at the moment?

Correct - the lightest, most compact V8 engines on the market. These days they're running variable valve timing, selective cylinder deactivation, and have had all-alloy blocks and heads from the word go in the early 90s. In terms of GM V8s comparable to the Aston unit in bulk and weight, you'd have to look at something like a 632CI big-block (that's well over ten litres). They're amazingly compact for what they are.

Have a read of this: http://www.corvettemuseum.org/specs/2006/LS7.shtml

[leglessAlex]

RoverP6B said:

JohnG1 said:

LS motors? The cam-in-v 16 valve pushrod engines? A bit stone age aren't they? Compared to a lightweight 32 valve all aluminium construction V8 such at the one Aston Martin use at the moment?

Correct - the lightest, most compact V8 engines on the market. These days they're running variable valve timing, selective cylinder deactivation, and have had all-alloy blocks and heads from the word go in the early 90s. In terms of GM V8s comparable to the Aston unit in bulk and weight, you'd have to look at something like a 632CI big-block (that's well over ten litres). They're amazingly compact for what they are.

Have a read of this: http://www.corvettemuseum.org/specs/2006/LS7.shtml

The LS series of engines are incredible these days as RoverP6B said. They are compact, efficient, lightweight and they make a great noise. They do have downsides but they are a hell of a long way from the old, heavy American dinosaurs that some people think they are.

[RoverP6B]

What downsides are there?

[anonymous-user]

RoverP6B said:

What downsides are there?

Efficiency and specific output would be a couple........ ;-)

[leglessAlex]

An LS7 crate engine isn't cheap!

Ok, so that's more of a personal disadvantage, I want one to put in a Defender and I can't afford it

[RoverP6B]

Max_Torque said:

Efficiency and specific output would be a couple........ ;-)

Considering their class-leading efficiency, I don't see that myself - and even a boggo LS3 makes 430-ish bhp, hardly lacking - OK, you can get the same or near enough from a 4-litre BMW V8, but it'll have about half the torque at twice the revs...

[JohnG1]

RoverP6B said:

JohnG1 said:

LS motors? The cam-in-v 16 valve pushrod engines? A bit stone age aren't they? Compared to a lightweight 32 valve all aluminium construction V8 such at the one Aston Martin use at the moment?

Correct - the lightest, most compact V8 engines on the market. These days they're running variable valve timing, selective cylinder deactivation, and have had all-alloy blocks and heads from the word go in the early 90s. In terms of GM V8s comparable to the Aston unit in bulk and weight, you'd have to look at something like a 632CI big-block (that's well over ten litres). They're amazingly compact for what they are.

Have a read of this: http://www.corvettemuseum.org/specs/2006/LS7.shtml

Interesting link, thanks! The LS7 motor on that link looks like it's had a very strange approach to performance engineering. Hydroformed exhaust manifold alongside sodium filled titanium exhaust valves. Looks like they have bought in a load of components to improve performance rather than actually performance engineering from a design. A single throttle body for a seven litre engine seems unusual - I cannot think of any naturally aspirated high performance (high specific output) large capacity V engine in mass production in Europe with a single throttle body.

The AML 4.3 and 4.7 V8s have a single throttle but that was a cost engineering decision - the Ford specific output rules meant that a twin throttle body was not needed. Although I do believe that AML did build prototypes of a twin throttle V8. And I believe one is being handbuilt at the moment...

With a production of 30 per day I expect that this particular engine is not in common usage within Corvette production (30*5*48=7200) versus 37,000 Corvettes sold in 2014.

With a cam-in-V design you cannot reliably run at a high engine rpm - I think it's something to do with the pushrods and valve float. With the widespread move to forced induction perhaps the cam-in-v will make a comeback, since most forced induction motors don't rev as much as a naturally aspirated screamer...

[RoverP6B]

Most C6 Corvettes run LS3 or, in the ZR1 variant, the LS9 (an LS3 with a supercharger). The LS7 is to be found in the Z06, the Camaro Z28 and the C6R racer. I think the valve float issue is one that can be cured if you run suitable valve springs - which is how the crude 5.8 litre all-iron carburated NASCAR motor can rev to near enough 10,000rpm.