RE: Official Images: Aston Martin Cygnet
Discussion
d son of a retarded clown...Mr Gear said:
bertie said:
That's not been in production for how many years though?
But they were a crock!
Dunno, but there's plenty of them around still.But they were a crock!
"The Aston Martin DB7 is a grand tourer made by Aston Martin from September 1994 to December 2003."
So out of production for over 6 years!
bertie said:
Mr Gear said:
bertie said:
That's not been in production for how many years though?
But they were a crock!
Dunno, but there's plenty of them around still.But they were a crock!
"The Aston Martin DB7 is a grand tourer made by Aston Martin from September 1994 to December 2003."
So out of production for over 6 years!
My point was that AM have re-bodied cars in the past, but it's fair to say that at least the DB7 was re-engineered at the same time as re-bodied.
Edited by Mr Gear on Friday 18th December 14:58
RichB, you said, "You are right, I can only imagine it must appeal to the newer type of Aston owner?"
Certainly not to this new owner. It's absolutely revolting, so much so that it destroys the Aston specialness, the mystique that makes it so desirable. If they build it (at least if the do call it an Aston Martin), my first Aston (bought a month ago) will likely be my last. This thing drives a stake right through the heart of the marque.
In my previous post I asked what the benefit is of calling it an Aston rather than creating a different brand name (assuming it's really needed for CO2 reasons in the first place) -- there have been NO answers to this, tellingly.
Certainly not to this new owner. It's absolutely revolting, so much so that it destroys the Aston specialness, the mystique that makes it so desirable. If they build it (at least if the do call it an Aston Martin), my first Aston (bought a month ago) will likely be my last. This thing drives a stake right through the heart of the marque.
In my previous post I asked what the benefit is of calling it an Aston rather than creating a different brand name (assuming it's really needed for CO2 reasons in the first place) -- there have been NO answers to this, tellingly.
Speedraser said:
RichB, you said, "You are right, I can only imagine it must appeal to the newer type of Aston owner?"
You know my thoughts from the AMOC forum, well you should do, I was making a mass-generalisation - you know old money vs. new, discrete vs. brash. I came to within a gnat's whisker of buying a new V8Vantage when they were launched but chose to restore the DB MkIII, I believe from your demeanour you lean towards old-school Aston. 
To all the people saying "You wouldn't see Ferrari doing this" etc. - you know why? Because they don't need to. By being under the umbrella of the Fiat brand, their CO2 is offset by all the MiTos and 500s and pandas already. Same with Lamborghini, Bugatti, and now even Porsche (VAG). Ford could make another GT if they wanted because they're all offset by Fiesta econetics.
Aston Martin, as a standalone company do not have this liberty, yet their direct competitors do. Hopefully this concept is just a cheap(in the large scale) way to show the legislators what kind of ridiculous "gaming" of the rules could result.
What confuses me is that in EU and US, small volume manufacturers get a decent exemption or an extra time in which to react. Perhaps AM have simply decided not to reduce their emissions at all from the sport range (rather than by a % over a number of years) and have decided to offset them by this so that they don't have to compromise.
I wonder if this was Koenigsegg's plan with Saab? How many other small volume manufacturers are there? Caterhams I think are all classed as PLG and not really sold anywhere else. Lotus tend to comply because of the nature of their cars and
Aston Martin, as a standalone company do not have this liberty, yet their direct competitors do. Hopefully this concept is just a cheap(in the large scale) way to show the legislators what kind of ridiculous "gaming" of the rules could result.
What confuses me is that in EU and US, small volume manufacturers get a decent exemption or an extra time in which to react. Perhaps AM have simply decided not to reduce their emissions at all from the sport range (rather than by a % over a number of years) and have decided to offset them by this so that they don't have to compromise.
I wonder if this was Koenigsegg's plan with Saab? How many other small volume manufacturers are there? Caterhams I think are all classed as PLG and not really sold anywhere else. Lotus tend to comply because of the nature of their cars and
Edited by ChapppeRS on Sunday 20th December 13:01
LuS1fer said:
It's a dull argument anyway. The development of the XJS into the DB7 was not only hugely successful, it saved the company so where is this argument going?
Just consider the DB7 a better built and developed XJS and you're still a winner.
Just consider the DB7 a better built and developed XJS and you're still a winner.
MrGear said:
I understand why someone would want an Aston (even the ones that are essentially Jaguars at heart),
Erm, it was never an argument..I think Mr Gear is
right now
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff