RE: Aston Martin DB11: Review

[anonymous-user]

RamboLambo said:

3.9secs to 60 mph is slow these days for £170k car.

Just tell your mates down the pub it'll do it in 3.2 sec if you want to feel better about it. It's about as irrelevant as it ever was!

[Smokey32]

Very nice, though the torque output seems a bit lame for a V12 with 2x turbo's.

[kambites]

Smokey32 said:

Very nice, though the torque output seems a bit lame for a V12 with 2x turbo's.

As is the power, it's clearly very lightly boosted. But don't forget this is the "entry level" car, there will be more powerful versions along at some point. I suspect we'll see 700bhp and 600lbft (assuming they have a gearbox which can cope) from this engine at some point.

[williamp]

I remember going round Gaydon when it opened. They had a machine which the plugged into every DB9 and "told" the engine what power and torque to produce. So its entirely possible they will do a mid-life refresh of the car with more power. Then they'll be the DB11GT, DB11S, DB11R, DB11GT12, DB11 Zagato, DB11 Ulster, DB11S-R-GT, DB11 Palmer edition, DB11 waitrose etc etc

Anyhow, I've just specced mine in Teal. Looks a great car and whats needed to take the company forward. And many of us (well, me many times) thought they didnt have the cash to leave the VH behind. Very impressed

[kambites]

williamp said:

And many of us (well, me many times) thought they didnt have the cash to leave the VH behind. Very impressed

I'm not sure how big a departure form VH this is.

VH was a mixture of aluminium extrusions and pressings glued together and it sounds like this is the same; the "they now use more pressings than extrusions" could mean they've gone from 90%/10% to 10%/90% or from 55%/45% to 45%/55%. Either way they're still making use of all of the capital investments they made for VH in one way or another.

Given that VH was more of an ethos for platform design than a platform in itself, it's a bit of a moot point whether you call this "VH" or not. They're still (very sensibly) using bonded aluminium for the primary structure of the car.

Edited by kambites on Saturday 6th August 20:37

[williamp]

kambites said:

williamp said:

And many of us (well, me many times) thought they didnt have the cash to leave the VH behind. Very impressed

I'm not sure how big a departure form VH this is.

VH was a mixture of aluminium extrusions and pressings glued together and it sounds like this is the same; the "they now use more pressings than extrusions" could mean they've gone from 90%/10% to 10%/90% or from 55%/45% to 45%/55%. Either way they're still making use of all of the capital investments they made for VH in one way or another.

True. But as Alan Partridge once almost said "...The architecture is different. Still aluminium, but where there were loads of extrusions before, there are more pressings now, so if you see a chassis in the bare metal there are more curved surfaces, which allows for greater interior room within a body that’s only marginally larger than the DB9’s.2

Not my words Lynn, the words of Autocar magazine...."

[kambites]

Yup there's no denying that pressings are more versatile (and, like for like, more expensive which is why Lotus developed the bonded extrusion technique in the first place); I was just pondering how big the change was.

[PunterCam]

I think they've nailed the exterior - less pretty which I think is a great move (I was getting bored of it that "look how we clothe our cars like we would've in the 60s" style), and "less of it" compared to the old car; the skin looks tighter and trimmed... More modern I suppose is what I mean!

Sadly the interior STILL looks parts bin, and surely it can't be... Can they not just make it modern? It looks so old and dated, and while I'm sure it's well built and the materials are good, the design is 20 years old. Missed opportunity for me.

I'm sure the engine's a good 'un (hopefully properly designed), and I hope it sells. It's a lot of car for 150k. Still a V12 - well done Aston.

[big_rob_sydney]

kambites said:

big_rob_sydney said:

You know what? The GTR, 503bhp Alfa, and even an old Litchfield Subaru Type 20 are all the same (or better) in acceleration, and yet cost significantly less.

You do realise it's a GT not a sports- (or super-) car? It only needs enough power and torque to be "effortless" on the motorway.

Edited by kambites on Friday 5th August 15:07

I really did chuckle at this.

So... how much power and torque does it take to propel a leather-clad (GT) armchair up the motorway effortlessly?

[sidesauce]

big_rob_sydney said:

I really did chuckle at this.

So... how much power and torque does it take to propel a leather-clad (GT) armchair up the motorway effortlessly?

In the world of Aston Martin, I suppose what's on offer would be simply 'sufficient'.

It may be true that the cars you mentioned are all cheaper but none of them sound as good or have the same sense of occasion for as you rightfully said, none of them are a (British built by hand) leather clad armchair. YOU might be concerned about the price but most owners won't be. Personally, I think Aston have absolutely nailed it with this car, I certainly aspire to own one now and I've never really been the biggest fan of them before!

Edited by sidesauce on Monday 8th August 07:05

[kambites]

big_rob_sydney said:

I really did chuckle at this.

So... how much power and torque does it take to propel a leather-clad (GT) armchair up the motorway effortlessly?

Depends on how fast you want to propel it I suppose. I'd imagine this would feel plenty powerful enough up to ~150mph. Other 600bhp GTs certainly do.

[big_rob_sydney]

kambites said:

big_rob_sydney said:

I really did chuckle at this.

So... how much power and torque does it take to propel a leather-clad (GT) armchair up the motorway effortlessly?

Depends on how fast you want to propel it I suppose. I'd imagine this would feel plenty powerful enough up to ~150mph. Other 600bhp GTs certainly do.

Yes, and this is what makes me chuckle. I live in the UK, and there is no motorway in the country where you can even remotely cruise around 150 mph legally. The question then becomes, whats the point? If you lived in Germany, I could definitely understand, and if you wanted to hit the track, I would understand the speed, but as you mentioned before, its not a sports car, so again it comes back to what is the point?

Because if you only want to cruise at 70 mph (lets be realistic, some will go a bit faster, but I wouldn't imagine too much more than that for license preservation reasons), you don't need 600+ bhp. It smacks of top trumps more than anything else.

[OwenK]

big_rob_sydney said:

Yes, and this is what makes me chuckle. I live in the UK, and there is no motorway in the country where you can even remotely cruise around 150 mph legally. The question then becomes, whats the point? If you lived in Germany, I could definitely understand, and if you wanted to hit the track, I would understand the speed, but as you mentioned before, its not a sports car, so again it comes back to what is the point?

Because if you only want to cruise at 70 mph (lets be realistic, some will go a bit faster, but I wouldn't imagine too much more than that for license preservation reasons), you don't need 600+ bhp. It smacks of top trumps more than anything else.

Yes but this isn't news. Nobody has need for a fancy watch when a £5 Casio will do, but people still want them (and will delude themselves into thinking they need it, or that the price can in any way be justified). It's human nature.

[kambites]

big_rob_sydney said:

Yes, and this is what makes me chuckle. I live in the UK, and there is no motorway in the country where you can even remotely cruise around 150 mph legally. The question then becomes, whats the point?

Well quite. I wasn't the one complaining that 600bhp wasn't enough.

[robemcdonald]

big_rob_sydney said:

Yes, and this is what makes me chuckle. I live in the UK, and there is no motorway in the country where you can even remotely cruise around 150 mph legally. The question then becomes, whats the point? If you lived in Germany, I could definitely understand, and if you wanted to hit the track, I would understand the speed, but as you mentioned before, its not a sports car, so again it comes back to what is the point?

Because if you only want to cruise at 70 mph (lets be realistic, some will go a bit faster, but I wouldn't imagine too much more than that for license preservation reasons), you don't need 600+ bhp. It smacks of top trumps more than anything else.

And that's missing the point. I'm guessing this car isn't really for you. It's not for me either, but I do understand the appeal. It's all about making a statement and image. I think Astons are seen by many as the gentlemans choice. Not as bling as a Ferrari and not as in your face as a Porsche. More Garrick Club and less Spearmint Rhino.
The whole sufficient power thing is a bit of nonsense from the history of Rolls Royce. We all know that 200 BHP would be sufficient to haul one of these along at the 70-100 MPH we favour in the UK. If it were irrelevant to owners Aston wouldn't make a big deal over the small gains over previous models.
We should all be happy there is still an audience for this type of thing though. Seeng an Aston (or any nice car really) stretching it's legs brings me a little bit of joy as I spend my daily 4 hours behind the wheel. For that reason alone, for me, it makes the whole thing a worthy excercise.

[kambites]

robemcdonald said:

The whole sufficient power thing is a bit of nonsense from the history of Rolls Royce. We all know that 200 BHP would be sufficient to haul one of these along at the 70-100 MPH we favour in the UK.

Indeed but it would probably not be enough to make it feel like it wasn't having to work hard to do it. Our Octavia is 200bhp and half a tonne lighter and it feels anything but effortless at motorway speeds. Of course it's more than adequate, but it's not particularly pleasant.

[sidesauce]

robemcdonald said:

More Garrick Club and less Spearmint Rhino. The whole sufficient power thing is a bit of nonsense from the history of Rolls Royce.

Actually it's not nonsense at all, it's wholly representative of those who don't discuss things like their net worth publicly (in the way Americans would do for example).

And yes, the DB11 is precisely the type of car to appeal to those who would frequent the Garrick or very likely, the Athenaeum.

I'm well aware Rolls-Royce used the term 'sufficient' when talking about power outputs first!

[Jasandjules]

Can't wait to see a volante.

[robemcdonald]

sidesauce said:

robemcdonald said:

More Garrick Club and less Spearmint Rhino. The whole sufficient power thing is a bit of nonsense from the history of Rolls Royce.

Actually it's not nonsense at all, it's wholly representative of those who don't discuss things like their net worth publicly (in the way Americans would do for example).

And yes, the DB11 is precisely the type of car to appeal to those who would frequent the Garrick or very likely, the Athenaeum.

I'm well aware Rolls-Royce used the term 'sufficient' when talking about power outputs first!

Yes it is nonsense. Aston Martin lost any moral high ground in terms of quoting power when they launched the Vantage 600. Possibly the most ostentatious display of wealth available at the time. Claiming to produce the most powerful car in the world is hardly hiding your light under a bushel.

[subirg]

5/10 from me. Doesn't look special enough. Doesn't go hard enough.