Discussion
LTP said:
If only a large, progressive multi-national automotive manufacturer wanted to create a stable of premium brands to supplement its mid-market image.
Indeed; but then some people would say 'It's not a proper Aston'...!All this top brass that comes and goes must be costing a fortune.
LTP said:
If only a large, progressive multi-national automotive manufacturer wanted to create a stable of premium brands to supplement its mid-market image.
Ford would be perfect.
Prepared to pay all the bills, but not interfere at all.
Jim Farley, the present CEO joined Ford in November 2007, seven months after Ford had sold Aston Martin.
So with luck, he might not know much about the previous period.
Jon39 said:
LTP said:
If only a large, progressive multi-national automotive manufacturer wanted to create a stable of premium brands to supplement its mid-market image.
Ford would be perfect.
Prepared to pay all the bills, but not interfere at all.
Jim Farley, the present CEO joined Ford in November 2007, seven months after Ford had sold Aston Martin.
So with luck, he might not know much about the previous period.
We all know how much VAG stuff Bentley uses. They are quite good at hiding it (better than Rolls Royce is at hiding BMW gear) but we know it's there. If, however, that is the price to be paid for Bentley still existing I am fine with it. I am sure that AM devotees will feel the same ultimately.
Davil said:
DMZ said:
Maybe I’m missing something but isn’t Aston’s strategy essentially identical to Bentley’s: take somebody else’s kit and turn it into a British luxury vehicle? If he succeeded in doing it in Bentley, then rinse & repeat over at Aston. A Ferrari guy would not have been the right fit for this other than the enviable market position. Ferrari is all about bottom up innovation and totally unique IP, right? Aston is about tweaking to create something that looks and feels unique.
Yes. You are missing something. Carry on. Zio Di Roma said:
We all know how much VAG stuff Bentley uses. They are quite good at hiding it (better than Rolls Royce is at hiding BMW gear) but we know it's there. If, however, that is the price to be paid for Bentley still existing I am fine with it. I am sure that AM devotees will feel the same ultimately.
I LOVE Aston Martin. So I repeat: Aston Martin becoming a shared-platform-and-engined badge-engineered Mercedes is NOT Aston Martin surviving. Speedraser said:
Zio Di Roma said:
We all know how much VAG stuff Bentley uses. They are quite good at hiding it (better than Rolls Royce is at hiding BMW gear) but we know it's there. If, however, that is the price to be paid for Bentley still existing I am fine with it. I am sure that AM devotees will feel the same ultimately.
I LOVE Aston Martin. So I repeat: Aston Martin becoming a shared-platform-and-engined badge-engineered Mercedes is NOT Aston Martin surviving. Aston uses components from other makers currently doesn't it?
Zio Di Roma said:
Jon39 said:
LTP said:
If only a large, progressive multi-national automotive manufacturer wanted to create a stable of premium brands to supplement its mid-market image.
Ford would be perfect.
Prepared to pay all the bills, but not interfere at all.
Jim Farley, the present CEO joined Ford in November 2007, seven months after Ford had sold Aston Martin.
So with luck, he might not know much about the previous period.
This wouldn't happen. Ford is not going to buy AML to run as a hobby. If someone like them were to buy it they would draw heavily from the mother ship for economies.
It was a joke, Zio.
Of all the (about) 14 different owners of Aston Martin, https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
two stand out as wonderful custodians. Sir David Brown and Ford Motor Company (legally that owner was Jaguar, but ignore that technically).
Both spent money willingly during their ownership, beautiful cars were created and during Ford's era they provided larger scale engineering and production guidance, but still allowed AML appropriate free rein. Do you remember the fully working DB7 concept shown to Ford executives, when all they were expecting was a rolling clay mockup? An example to Ford, that little AML can 'do it'.
Yes, no chance of Ford becoming involved again, but they did preside over one of the two most successful AML periods, even though neither eras ended in financial transformation.
Edited by Jon39 on Monday 25th March 17:01
NDA said:
LooneyTunes said:
You were obviously much more fortunate than we were with both the product and the dealer you used!
Yes, maybe. I had almost zero dealer involvement, other than picking the cars up. They did offer to drive the ~20 mins down the road, disconnect the parking brake (which they said wasn't very difficult to do on a driveway), and leave the vehicle there for someone else to transport. The cost of them doing this would be £700.
I don't expect businesses to run at a loss, and know they want to bill as much technician time as possible, but the absence of any goodwill or help whatsoever from a premium brand was unexpected. I hope that sort of experience isn't what AML's new CEO aspires a brand should provide.
My Range Rover (now 5 years old) was in for a security update a few weeks ago. Low screenwash alert was on (intended to do it the following weekend). Came back topped up, and I'm not entirely sure they didn't fill the fuel tank too. Wasn't mentioned by them when they gave me the keys, but small things like that make a difference and JLR seem to have raised their game on customer service recently.
I mention RR because I did actually quite like the interior of the Conti and had been considering trading in the Range Rover against one. As a consequence of the Bentley dealer's attitude I didn't even look...
Zio Di Roma said:
You have to be kidding.
My feeling too. A major JLR dealer recently tried to have me for £150"Your door module needs resetting and its not covered by extended warranty" said they.
"if it is a failed door module then replace it under warranty" said I
"It is not defective" said they
"so its a software issue" said I
"No, it just needs resetting" said they
"put all of that on an email to me and I will take that up with LR and the warranty company" said I
Loh and behold, five minutes later, car is fixed, washed and ready to drive away. No cost
Not very happy bunny thinks I
LooneyTunes said:
All probably dealer dependent… like the Bentley situation.
I’ve seen worse try-ons from dealers than £150. Some dealers really do seem to think their customers are mugs.
I cannot use our local LR place after they charged me for discs and pads that were not required (I only discovered this when I checked the service history and when we last had them done) and the car failed its MOT again on a slashed tyre. The third time it had done so on a slash not visible from the outside. I am just not that unlucky and none of our cars have failed on the same at other places.I’ve seen worse try-ons from dealers than £150. Some dealers really do seem to think their customers are mugs.
The next nearest LR dealer has just paid me compensation, because they charged me for a service that had not been completed. Job sheet fully ticked and signed, work not completed.
Bentley service is polite and without question better than LR, but I've had enough problems with them also. Rolls Royce ditto.
But back to Adrian Hallmark. What is he up to? Either he knows something that is going to allow him to turn round AML in spectacular fashion, he has done something to offend Bentley or he is being offered so much money by AML that he doesn't care he will retire having failed to turn it round.
NDA said:
Works Service charged me £12.50 labour to replace the umbrella in my Vanquish.
Perhaps lucky that they did not charge you, 'Pressing Key to start engine' £12.50.
This reminds me of a householder, who demanded an itemised invoice, after a plumber charged £99 to solve a heating problem.
The plumber simply used a hammer to hit a radiator.
- Itemised Invoice -
Hitting radiator with a hammer ......... £ 1
Knowing where to hit the radiator ... £82
VAT ...................................................... £16
Total .................................................... £99
Zio Di Roma said:
Speedraser said:
Zio Di Roma said:
We all know how much VAG stuff Bentley uses. They are quite good at hiding it (better than Rolls Royce is at hiding BMW gear) but we know it's there. If, however, that is the price to be paid for Bentley still existing I am fine with it. I am sure that AM devotees will feel the same ultimately.
I LOVE Aston Martin. So I repeat: Aston Martin becoming a shared-platform-and-engined badge-engineered Mercedes is NOT Aston Martin surviving. Aston uses components from other makers currently doesn't it?
Yes, Aston uses, and has used, "components" from other makers. Brakes, transmissions, switchgear, electrical architecture, etc. Every car company does. I draw the line at the most major components -- the platform/structure and the engine. Those comprise the bones, heart and soul of a car. They shouldn't be shared, at least not in this league. When the original Phaeton-based Conti GT was introduced, Bentley insisted that the car was a "real Bentley" over and over, that there were no compromises. Then the current-gen Conti appeared, sharing its platform with the Panamera, and Bentley shouted about how much better this one was -- really a real Bentley now -- because this time Bentley was involved in the development of that shared platform from the beginning. So they didn't have to suffer the major compromises that they did with the 1st-gen car. Oh. They completely changed their story. So the previous car did suffer from its shared platform after all. Yet... they also discussed how they frequently had to argue with Porsche during development because Porsche's priorities were/are different from Bentley's. Of course they are. Those compromises impact every car that shares that platform. At this level, these major components should be bespoke, not shared.
Would a Ferrari be a Ferrari with someone else's engine or platform? Of course not. The thought of it is absurd. An Aston Martin should be just as worthy of its own platform and its own engines.
Speedraser said:
Zio Di Roma said:
Speedraser said:
Zio Di Roma said:
We all know how much VAG stuff Bentley uses. They are quite good at hiding it (better than Rolls Royce is at hiding BMW gear) but we know it's there. If, however, that is the price to be paid for Bentley still existing I am fine with it. I am sure that AM devotees will feel the same ultimately.
I LOVE Aston Martin. So I repeat: Aston Martin becoming a shared-platform-and-engined badge-engineered Mercedes is NOT Aston Martin surviving. Aston uses components from other makers currently doesn't it?
Yes, Aston uses, and has used, "components" from other makers. Brakes, transmissions, switchgear, electrical architecture, etc. Every car company does. I draw the line at the most major components -- the platform/structure and the engine. Those comprise the bones, heart and soul of a car. They shouldn't be shared, at least not in this league. When the original Phaeton-based Conti GT was introduced, Bentley insisted that the car was a "real Bentley" over and over, that there were no compromises. Then the current-gen Conti appeared, sharing its platform with the Panamera, and Bentley shouted about how much better this one was -- really a real Bentley now -- because this time Bentley was involved in the development of that shared platform from the beginning. So they didn't have to suffer the major compromises that they did with the 1st-gen car. Oh. They completely changed their story. So the previous car did suffer from its shared platform after all. Yet... they also discussed how they frequently had to argue with Porsche during development because Porsche's priorities were/are different from Bentley's. Of course they are. Those compromises impact every car that shares that platform. At this level, these major components should be bespoke, not shared.
Would a Ferrari be a Ferrari with someone else's engine or platform? Of course not. The thought of it is absurd. An Aston Martin should be just as worthy of its own platform and its own engines.
Speedraser said:
... Would a Ferrari be a Ferrari with someone else's engine or platform? Of course not. The thought of it is absurd.
An Aston Martin should be just as worthy of its own platform and its own engines.
An Aston Martin should be just as worthy of its own platform and its own engines.
I think you might have mentioned your opinion about engines at least once, or twice before.
I have only just realised, that I have been very slow to think of the following;
Are you particular about which aircraft you fly in?
I very much enjoy flying in an American Boeing, then seeing that British Rolls Royce engines are helping to keep the contraption in the air.
Please remind me, which aircraft manufacturers, use their own make of engines.
I came across another VAG Group pair of shared cars.
The mechanical basis of their VW ID4 battery car is used in other Group cars.
If the VW ID4 is not expensive enough for you, then spend another £10,000 to have the mechanically identical Audi Q4 e-tron. -
Edited by Jon39 on Wednesday 27th March 16:39
Jon39 said:
Speedraser said:
... Would a Ferrari be a Ferrari with someone else's engine or platform? Of course not. The thought of it is absurd.
An Aston Martin should be just as worthy of its own platform and its own engines.
An Aston Martin should be just as worthy of its own platform and its own engines.
I think you might have mentioned your opinion about engines at least once, or twice before.
I have only just realised, that I have been very slow to think of the following;
Are you particular about which aircraft you fly in?
I very much enjoy flying in an American Boeing, then seeing that British Rolls Royce engines are helping to keep the contraption in the air.
Please remind me, which aircraft manufacturers, use their own make of engines.
I came across another VAG Group pair of shared cars.
The mechanical basis of their VW ID4 battery car is used in other Group cars.
If the VW ID4 is not expensive enough for you, then spend another £10,000 to have the mechanically identical Audi Q4 e-tron. -
Edited by Jon39 on Wednesday 27th March 16:39
Zio Di Roma said:
All of which is very romantic. But I don't think Rolls Royce and Bentley would exist were it not for shared platforms. I don't think Aston will survive unless it learns how to share.
Cars at this level are supposed to be romantic!It's a near certainty that R-R and Bentley are more profitable due to shared platforms -- which is a very different thing than not existing.
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff