V12 GT3 update
Discussion
roughrider said:
The original Vanquish was awesome, but pioneering new technology alongside Alfa, Ferrari etc, needed some time for evolution.
awesome when on the go maybe, manoeuvre in the car park and in most cases the word awesome was not what the driver was shouting at the car, and still aren't to this day!now come on to the evolution side of your comment, what exactly has really changed? Its more or less the same solenoid pack and position sensor bolted on to the side of the same manual gear box. All that has improved in reality is hill hold software control and perhaps better clutch learn which try to eliminate 2 of the biggest driveability complaints, but in reality dont do so 100%. Isn't it rather the fact that the tech hasn't evolved, read that cant because of mechanically what it is, and its this fact that consigns robotised manual to the history books for most other makers, or at least it isn't their sole trans option.
its ok, i get your strong defense. When i was in the trade once, it was called hugging the baby. No matter how baby is less beautiful, baby's parents kiss and hug and pet as if it were the most beautiful in the world and dare anybody suggest different. Its just a shame this gt3 is less closer to real gt3 than another automakers just revealed, but looking at the other Brit automaker gt3, the awesome power hike means they must have homologated a new program.
George29 said:
KarlFranz said:
Yankifisatasion notwithstanding, one could argue that the british spelling looks as if it was created by a dyslexic. 
The language is English... That means the English spell it right. BamfordMike said:
awesome when on the go maybe, manoeuvre in the car park and in most cases the word awesome was not what the driver was shouting at the car, and still aren't to this day!
now come on to the evolution side of your comment, what exactly has really changed? Its more or less the same solenoid pack and position sensor bolted on to the side of the same manual gear box. All that has improved in reality is hill hold software control and perhaps better clutch learn which try to eliminate 2 of the biggest driveability complaints, but in reality dont do so 100%. Isn't it rather the fact that the tech hasn't evolved, read that cant because of mechanically what it is, and its this fact that consigns robotised manual to the history books for most other makers, or at least it isn't their sole trans option.
its ok, i get your strong defense. When i was in the trade once, it was called hugging the baby. No matter how baby is less beautiful, baby's parents kiss and hug and pet as if it were the most beautiful in the world and dare anybody suggest different. Its just a shame this gt3 is less closer to real gt3 than another automakers just revealed, but looking at the other Brit automaker gt3, the awesome power hike means they must have homologated a new program.
You probably know these already, but the single "s" cam [Graziano] replaced the 2 H pattern gear actuators [Tremec gearbox on Vanquish], making the system more logical/reliable [on Gaydon cars], and to address low speed manoeuvrability issues, reverse gear was shortened on 7 speed models. Obviously, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Maserati etc [Graziano gearboxes] all suffered from the same criticism re manoeuvring.now come on to the evolution side of your comment, what exactly has really changed? Its more or less the same solenoid pack and position sensor bolted on to the side of the same manual gear box. All that has improved in reality is hill hold software control and perhaps better clutch learn which try to eliminate 2 of the biggest driveability complaints, but in reality dont do so 100%. Isn't it rather the fact that the tech hasn't evolved, read that cant because of mechanically what it is, and its this fact that consigns robotised manual to the history books for most other makers, or at least it isn't their sole trans option.
its ok, i get your strong defense. When i was in the trade once, it was called hugging the baby. No matter how baby is less beautiful, baby's parents kiss and hug and pet as if it were the most beautiful in the world and dare anybody suggest different. Its just a shame this gt3 is less closer to real gt3 than another automakers just revealed, but looking at the other Brit automaker gt3, the awesome power hike means they must have homologated a new program.
I don't think the other GT3 has much relationship to their roadgoing car, as they must have shaved well over 1000Kg off somewhere!!!
Edited by roughrider on Sunday 18th January 16:10
DB9VolanteDriver said:
Actually French isn't it? All those words with 'our' or 're' are French in origin. So, you could say us Americans 'fixed' your Frenchified words for you so that they were spelt like you mispronounce them.
Where the words origin is irrelevant? Surely if you claim to speak English, then the spelling in England is the correct way?roughrider said:
... Unfortunately, negativity can come from journalism, rather than from informed experience. ...
From what I read on this forum the folks here are informed by experience rather than by journalists so it seems to me that your comments are a little misplaced.I drove a SS2 Vantage and hated it so the answer was simple; I bought a manual one. I have also driven a PDK Porsche which I thought was brilliant but again bought a manual one as I preferred the more involving drive and ultimate lap times aren't a top priority, particularly as most of the miles are done using the car as a daily driver. I do track days but if that is the only time when the gearbox works effectively then there doesn't seem much point but I guess like BamfordMike said; it's a Marmite thing.
Anyway, back to the thread. I'm really looking forward to seeing the finished GT3 (which I think will be launched at the Geneva show) but more importantly seeing pictures of a customer car and hearing about carbonfib3r's experiences with it.
Edited by TuonoPants on Sunday 18th January 16:15
Thanks everyone for your inputs and I will most certainly keep you updated with any progress.
Regarding the SS3, I wrote from my own experience a couple of months ago on a track with a sales representative next to me. After I made the complaint about the upshift he did remind me by lifting the accelerator it would smooth out the gear change. The whole driving experience reminded me of my E46 CSL, great chassis with magnificent engine and accurate steering, but the gear change was somehow a little old fasionly brutal if not slow.
I do not intend to abuse the car as a track weapon. This will be used as a road car with occasional spin on the B road across the country hence speed won't be my top priority. I am looking to enjoy the car with the highest manual manewverability rather than compromising some fun to find the sweet spot. This is the reason why I would like to see a manual transmission being offered
This to me, would be the greatest tribute to mark the end of analogue era.
Regarding the SS3, I wrote from my own experience a couple of months ago on a track with a sales representative next to me. After I made the complaint about the upshift he did remind me by lifting the accelerator it would smooth out the gear change. The whole driving experience reminded me of my E46 CSL, great chassis with magnificent engine and accurate steering, but the gear change was somehow a little old fasionly brutal if not slow.
I do not intend to abuse the car as a track weapon. This will be used as a road car with occasional spin on the B road across the country hence speed won't be my top priority. I am looking to enjoy the car with the highest manual manewverability rather than compromising some fun to find the sweet spot. This is the reason why I would like to see a manual transmission being offered
This to me, would be the greatest tribute to mark the end of analogue era.
Edited by carbonfib3r on Sunday 18th January 17:03
Edited by carbonfib3r on Sunday 18th January 17:12
I hope that you can obtain the specification that you want, Barry.
I am sure Aston Martin would really like to receive money from their customers, and provide exactly what the customer wants. Seems a shame if the rules say, just because the GT3 follows the V12VS, therefore the GT3 has to have an SS3 gearbox. Talk about trying to run a business with your hands tied.
BamfordMike has described the restrictions laid down by, 'those who must be obeyed'. "I think the important reason of legislation in this case is that a maker has to conform to base model homologation which is type approved to create a special from." The absolute original base model was the V8V, which was manual, then later came the V12V, which was manual. It appears that model progression is involved in the rules as well.
During 2013 we saw the CC100, just two cars built, and I think a couple of Bertone cars. One cannot imagine fresh type approval and crash testing, would have been worthwhile before building those cars.
roughrider said:
You probably know these already, but the single "s" cam [Graziano] replaced the 2 H pattern gear actuators [Tremec gearbox on Vanquish], making the system more logical/reliable [on Gaydon cars], and to address low speed manoeuvrability issues, reverse gear was shortened on 7 speed models. Obviously, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Maserati etc [Graziano gearboxes] all suffered from the same criticism re manoeuvring.
I don't think the other GT3 has much relationship to their roadgoing car, as they must have shaved well over 1000Kg off somewhere!!!
There is little wrong with Vanquish I solenoid pack reliability, its the other parts of the system which go wrong in my experience. Yes, the solenoid pack can go wrong, but ratio of Vanquish I cars on the road versus new era Gaydon cars on the road, and finger in the air I would say there is little in it, because I have experience of just as many new era solenoid pack failures. I don't think the other GT3 has much relationship to their roadgoing car, as they must have shaved well over 1000Kg off somewhere!!!
Edited by roughrider on Sunday 18th January 16:10
But this is just a distraction from the argument, because drive the Tremec Vanquish I as a manual, the gearbox is wonderfully smooth - faultless. But when bolting the asm control brain and system to it, manoeuvrability issues and clutch control / life come to the surface.
Because the shifts on the go are lightening quick on Vanquish I, your comment about mechanical architecture is again irrelevant, even if there were design problems, whatever they might be are not apparent to driver, meaning speed of shift is not the issue - its all down to clutch control (manoeuvrability and nodding dog when on the go).
Its the same story for manual 6 speed Graz box. When driven as a manual it is great (any complaints of drive are cause of single plate clutch), but drive as an asm, forget the slight changes to asm control pack as irrelevant to this discussion over Vanquish I because they both shift at near or damn it same speed, the same manoeuvrability issues creep in. These issues are lessened with hill hold software and better multiple stage clutch learn / control, but today the asm system has to compete with dct systems, when in day of robotised manual launch on Vanquish I, it did not. This is the main problem you overlook. Because if given chance of clean sheet car design, robotised manual would not be on the page, its existence today is simply legacy. So when a new model comes along and it has legacy design yet again, comments which are the legacy of the robotised system inevitably resurface.
But here is the key question which if you answer would end the debate I'm sure - Would you imagine on new gen cars a robotised manual is seen again? it must do if it is as cracking as you make out, but I bet the answer is no, due to its driveability legacy. What will your answer be?
Don't get me wrong, I have already wished well to the OP with what will be a great car which will be a looker and exclusive. Its just a slight disappointment that a) he couldn't chose his trans and b)the car lived more up to its name. There were plenty of folk saying V12V Zagato was a disappointment due to basically being a V12V with a body kit on. After driving a Zagato I think its a totally fab car and lives up to its name, literally being a V12Vantage Zagato. GT3 nametag however professes much more than what on paper it seems at this stage to deliver. But I guess that's mainly due to keeping to base car homologation, is why it cant. And here is the subtle point you miss about the other makers GT3. In that their car is mechanically significantly different (power) from base model to mean new program internally which would have meant costly and time consuming new homologation - proving a step closer to GT3 for a road car can be done
Jon39 said:
I hope that you can obtain the specification that you want, Barry.
I am sure Aston Martin would really like to receive money from their customers, and provide exactly what the customer wants. Seems a shame if the rules say, just because the GT3 follows the V12VS, therefore the GT3 has to have an SS3 gearbox. Talk about trying to run a business with your hands tied.
BamfordMike has described the restrictions laid down by, 'those who must be obeyed'. "I think the important reason of legislation in this case is that a maker has to conform to base model homologation which is type approved to create a special from." The absolute original base model was the V8V, which was manual, then later came the V12V, which was manual. It appears that model progression is involved in the rules as well.
During 2013 we saw the CC100, just two cars built, and I think a couple of Bertone cars. One cannot imagine fresh type approval and crash testing, would have been worthwhile before building those cars.
The base model for GT3 is V12VS, which is different type approval V12V, which is different type approval again from V8 engine'd Vantage cars. In the eyes of legislators they are all unique models. There are many layers / years of legislation across those models which mean type approval for V12V is out of date now and it is not possible today, to create a V12GT3 off a V12V type approval, for example. I am sure Aston Martin would really like to receive money from their customers, and provide exactly what the customer wants. Seems a shame if the rules say, just because the GT3 follows the V12VS, therefore the GT3 has to have an SS3 gearbox. Talk about trying to run a business with your hands tied.
BamfordMike has described the restrictions laid down by, 'those who must be obeyed'. "I think the important reason of legislation in this case is that a maker has to conform to base model homologation which is type approved to create a special from." The absolute original base model was the V8V, which was manual, then later came the V12V, which was manual. It appears that model progression is involved in the rules as well.
During 2013 we saw the CC100, just two cars built, and I think a couple of Bertone cars. One cannot imagine fresh type approval and crash testing, would have been worthwhile before building those cars.
These rules are logical, ensure compliant cars in marketplace and govern all automakers entry to market in the fairest way, in that all have to pass the same rules. Automakers employ folk who's job it is to lobby decision makers on new legislation and plan how to pass it before it comes into force. So its not any shame the type approval doesn't allow a manual box, its a case of the financials required to pass the basic entry to market requirements mean the revenue from the GT3 program would unlikely provide a return. I don't think this is fault of rule maker, because, a swansong model inevitably will use outgoing car tech. The problem here is the name suggests the car will be far more than a swansong which is catch 22 because a swansong wont have type approval from outgoing model. DB7 zagato / AR1, Vanquish ultimate, N400, DB10 are all examples of swansong without in reality too much change to cause re type approval.
I think the cars you mention weren't built to pass type approval and sell mainstream, more built to improve the image of the company accused of being stuck in tracks re styling. I think now, the gt3 label is trying to draw the same sort of interest from the very successful race pedigree, which is fine. But we all see the words GT3, and England expects!
carbonfib3r said:
Thanks everyone for your inputs and I will most certainly keep you updated with any progress.
Regarding the SS3, I wrote from my own experience a couple of months ago on a track with a sales representative next to me. After I made the complaint about the upshift he did remind me by lifting the accelerator it would smooth out the gear change. The whole driving experience reminded me of my E46 CSL, great chassis with magnificent engine and accurate steering, but the gear change was somehow a little old fasionly brutal if not slow.
I do not intend to abuse the car as a track weapon. This will be used as a road car with occasional spin on the B road across the country hence speed won't be my top priority. I am looking to enjoy the car with the highest manual manewverability rather than compromising some fun to find the sweet spot. This is the reason why I would like to see a manual transmission being offered
This to me, would be the greatest tribute to mark the end of analogue era.
I think this is more reasonable statement. To me the old fashion brutality is part of the experience, however there are some definite quirks that they really should try and provide SW fixes for, not least the occasional hesitation when taking off from near standstill due the box having incorrectly selected 2nd instead of 1st.Regarding the SS3, I wrote from my own experience a couple of months ago on a track with a sales representative next to me. After I made the complaint about the upshift he did remind me by lifting the accelerator it would smooth out the gear change. The whole driving experience reminded me of my E46 CSL, great chassis with magnificent engine and accurate steering, but the gear change was somehow a little old fasionly brutal if not slow.
I do not intend to abuse the car as a track weapon. This will be used as a road car with occasional spin on the B road across the country hence speed won't be my top priority. I am looking to enjoy the car with the highest manual manewverability rather than compromising some fun to find the sweet spot. This is the reason why I would like to see a manual transmission being offered
This to me, would be the greatest tribute to mark the end of analogue era.
Jon39 said:
From what we have learnt in this topic today, about sub-model type approval, it would appear that the last ever Aston Martin with a manual gearbox, will probably be the V8 Vantage.
I'm sure a manual will be on new model cards due to popular demand, yes, this has highlighted that spinning a model off the back of type approval of base model which was never a manual means a continuation of previous strategy. However, they could yet type approve a manual, depends how much development spend they wish to incur. Should the GT3 come with a stick they would show attention to consumer opinion and whilst tough for them to absorb in low volume product, they would certainly earn respectI'm not sure GT3 is being viewed in a totally fair light in some of the posts
Porsche made 8,743 of the various 997 GT3s (gen I and gen II, standard & RS, plus the gen II 4.0 RS) according to wiki. Of the 3.8 gen II GT3 alone, they made 2,256 'regular' GT3s and approx. 1,600 RS. AML are making just 100 GT3 V12 Vantages
Patently the R&D budgets, the deviation in performance from the base car, type approval, etc can't be viewed in the same light
I hear where Mike is coming from (I think he has some valid points)when talking about whether the 'GT3' moniker is appropriate and the pricing - to an extent this is all subjective meaning no right & wrong answers. But I think the GT3 tag is fair because the car will be track orientated and will offer (on the face of it) a reasonable step up in performance over regular V12VS. The fact it's almost certainly not going to be competitive with the cheaper 911 GT3 RS doesn't change that. Certainly it's more deserving of the GT3 tag than the new Bentley GT3 which is patently not a track car in any sense other than exterior add-ons
I also think that this car is significantly better 'value' than Zagato. Both cars were intended to be made in similar numbers, albeit zag didn't sell out but GT3 probably will. Both use a donor car but put a different body on in CF. However zag had no mechanical changes and very few interior cosmetic ones. GT3 will have mechanical changes to engine (minor), exhaust, track width, suspension and more plus quite a few to interior. Zag charged a 250k premium on a 150k base car, GT3 is a 150k premium on a 150k base car
Yes it won't stack up in some ways against other cars at the same money but you have to take into account it's highly limited status - then it makes more sense (though rules out many)
Incidentally on a couple of other issues - CC100 was NOT made by AML as a road legal car - one of the 2 owners went for single vehicle type approval post-purchase. And ASM will be programmed so that in auto mode, it best meets CO2 targets whereas manual can't have that mode so tends to suffer a little. Personally I'd be amazed if they do a manual version but who knows.....
Porsche made 8,743 of the various 997 GT3s (gen I and gen II, standard & RS, plus the gen II 4.0 RS) according to wiki. Of the 3.8 gen II GT3 alone, they made 2,256 'regular' GT3s and approx. 1,600 RS. AML are making just 100 GT3 V12 Vantages
Patently the R&D budgets, the deviation in performance from the base car, type approval, etc can't be viewed in the same light
I hear where Mike is coming from (I think he has some valid points)when talking about whether the 'GT3' moniker is appropriate and the pricing - to an extent this is all subjective meaning no right & wrong answers. But I think the GT3 tag is fair because the car will be track orientated and will offer (on the face of it) a reasonable step up in performance over regular V12VS. The fact it's almost certainly not going to be competitive with the cheaper 911 GT3 RS doesn't change that. Certainly it's more deserving of the GT3 tag than the new Bentley GT3 which is patently not a track car in any sense other than exterior add-ons
I also think that this car is significantly better 'value' than Zagato. Both cars were intended to be made in similar numbers, albeit zag didn't sell out but GT3 probably will. Both use a donor car but put a different body on in CF. However zag had no mechanical changes and very few interior cosmetic ones. GT3 will have mechanical changes to engine (minor), exhaust, track width, suspension and more plus quite a few to interior. Zag charged a 250k premium on a 150k base car, GT3 is a 150k premium on a 150k base car
Yes it won't stack up in some ways against other cars at the same money but you have to take into account it's highly limited status - then it makes more sense (though rules out many)
Incidentally on a couple of other issues - CC100 was NOT made by AML as a road legal car - one of the 2 owners went for single vehicle type approval post-purchase. And ASM will be programmed so that in auto mode, it best meets CO2 targets whereas manual can't have that mode so tends to suffer a little. Personally I'd be amazed if they do a manual version but who knows.....
jonby said:
I'm not sure GT3 is being viewed in a totally fair light in some of the posts
whether the 'GT3' moniker is appropriate and the pricing - to an extent this is all subjective meaning no right & wrong answers. But I think the GT3 tag is fair because the car will be track orientated and will offer (on the face of it) a reasonable step up in performance over regular V12VS. The fact it's almost certainly not going to be competitive with the cheaper 911 GT3 RS doesn't change that. Certainly it's more deserving of the GT3 tag than the new Bentley GT3 which is patently not a track car in any sense other than exterior add-ons
I also think that this car is significantly better 'value' than Zagato. Zag charged a 250k premium on a 150k base car, GT3 is a 150k premium on a 150k base car
Yes it won't stack up in some ways against other cars at the same money but you have to take into account it's highly limited status - then it makes more sense (though rules out many)
All the points you make are good arguments, yes, it will become a decision of the head. whether the 'GT3' moniker is appropriate and the pricing - to an extent this is all subjective meaning no right & wrong answers. But I think the GT3 tag is fair because the car will be track orientated and will offer (on the face of it) a reasonable step up in performance over regular V12VS. The fact it's almost certainly not going to be competitive with the cheaper 911 GT3 RS doesn't change that. Certainly it's more deserving of the GT3 tag than the new Bentley GT3 which is patently not a track car in any sense other than exterior add-ons
I also think that this car is significantly better 'value' than Zagato. Zag charged a 250k premium on a 150k base car, GT3 is a 150k premium on a 150k base car
Yes it won't stack up in some ways against other cars at the same money but you have to take into account it's highly limited status - then it makes more sense (though rules out many)
I just pick up where you left off on 2 points.
It would seem most factories are guilty of not quite passing to consumer on Monday what won on Sunday. I guess the reason stems from the regs of the racing world. GT4 regs being what they are, it is therefore quite possible in like-for-likeness to sell what won on Sunday on the Monday. Whereas GT3 cars on track are no real representation of the road car donor which means for a maker to replicate GT3 as close as possible will need a project / homologation all of its own to sell convincingly in the showroom Monday what won on Sunday (albeit in some form).
The Vantage GT3 does Vanquish a GT3RS on the track (Oman Racing team P1 2014 season), so where you say it isn't important, i don't agree that its not an issue that the GT3 road car wont rival the GT3RS road car, isn't that what the glitter of the name tag suggests after all? This is more deeper than just the car (not) living up to its moniker, its the relativity to rivals on and off the track and how this translates to thoughts in the head of newcomers to the brand.
Which is why i think the Zagato special will be the winner in the fullness of time, in that those buyers got a Zagato body (not something in spirit) and only 50 or so units sold means total exclusivity (8 or so in UK?). Come a Bonhams auction in a few decades and i think the all up price of the GT3 vs all up price of Zagato will even out and Zagato even come out on top due to the 'Z'ness of it and only 50 or so units sold.
Vee12V said:
A GT3 with a manual sounds like the optimal spec. What if they were to "deliver" the car with the SS3 and change it to a manual box prior to delivery (or after the first mile as a registered car)?
Need to ask AM Works about that option. On the original Vanquish the manual stick , clutch pedal etc was never offered by the factory. It was / is an AM works option.So, in a final run out model the original promise of the V12RS is still not delivered.
No dry sump and probably no 600bhp.
AML generated a huge amount of goodwill with the V12V ("wonderful, wonderful, wonderful" etc.) but squandered it with going over the 1000 run, then a Zagato that was just a pretty body and no mechanical changes. And now a GT3 that looks like a parts bin special - magnesium alloy prop shaft, akrapovic titanium exhaust and what not.
Here's hoping that the involvement of Daimler-Benz will allow AML to fund development that is genuine development rather than just a re-hash...
No dry sump and probably no 600bhp.
AML generated a huge amount of goodwill with the V12V ("wonderful, wonderful, wonderful" etc.) but squandered it with going over the 1000 run, then a Zagato that was just a pretty body and no mechanical changes. And now a GT3 that looks like a parts bin special - magnesium alloy prop shaft, akrapovic titanium exhaust and what not.
Here's hoping that the involvement of Daimler-Benz will allow AML to fund development that is genuine development rather than just a re-hash...
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff