RE: Aston Martin Rapide - First Drive
Discussion
bertie said:
octagon8 said:
A panamera would smoke this thing. Its better in every way.
Its quicker, would handle better, more reliable, cheaper to run, more internal space and better resale value.
One could argue that the Rapide is better looking but that is a subjective point.
The panamera is a car that could be used every day for every occasion.
Have you read EVOs back to back test this month?Its quicker, would handle better, more reliable, cheaper to run, more internal space and better resale value.
One could argue that the Rapide is better looking but that is a subjective point.
The panamera is a car that could be used every day for every occasion.
Having driven both, they seem to think exactly the opposite to you, they hated the Panamera to drive.
Edited by vintageracer01 on Thursday 11th February 00:58
Zod said:
octagon8 said:
A panamera would smoke this thing. Its better in every way.
Its quicker, would handle better, more reliable, cheaper to run, more internal space and better resale value.
One could argue that the Rapide is better looking but that is a subjective point.
The panamera is a car that could be used every day for every occasion. The Rapide is a "special occasion" car which is kind of point less
I just think that astons are for James Bond wannabees and the panamera does not have a point to prove to anyone
A post that shows that you ahve no idea what this car is about. The Panamera does not even compete. It is much bigger, faster, horrendously, offensively ugly and (until you hit the options list), cheaper. The Panamera will depreciate like a dropped hot stone.Its quicker, would handle better, more reliable, cheaper to run, more internal space and better resale value.
One could argue that the Rapide is better looking but that is a subjective point.
The panamera is a car that could be used every day for every occasion. The Rapide is a "special occasion" car which is kind of point less
I just think that astons are for James Bond wannabees and the panamera does not have a point to prove to anyone
Edited by octagon8 on Wednesday 10th February 02:59
You wouldn't understand why I have a DB9 as well as an M5. If, like you, I thought in pure dynamic terms, I would never have bought the Aston. Some of us like to have our emotions sitrred by cars. The only emotion stirred by the Panamera is revulsion.
Despite the fact that the Panamera is smaller than the Rapide, dimensions and numbers do not matter here. Also in real life the Panamera stays disturbingly ugly and when I sat in it I felt.... ehmmmm..... nothing.
While the Rapide looks stunning, has class and it was a sensation on the AM stand on Frankfurt Motor Show! It is just a very different league.
(And it is not for everyone
)Edited by vintageracer01 on Thursday 11th February 01:16
Zod:
You wouldn't understand why I have a DB9 as well as an M5. If, like you, I thought in pure dynamic terms, I would never have bought the Aston. Some of us like to have our emotions sitrred by cars. The only emotion stirred by the Panamera is revulsion.
[/quote]
One question to Zod. Will you give up your DB9 and the M5 for the Rapide?
It seems to me that the Rapide is a good car, but it isn't exceptional in any way. The Panamera Turbo would no doubt outperform it.
In relation to their respective looks no one can successfully argue that the Panamera is an attractive looking car. It looks so ugly. With a few exceptions, the Porsche designers have, generally speaking, lacked aesthetic taste or imagination to come up with great looking cars-look at the rehashed 911s that have come out since its original inception - YAWN-and the numerous other models that have looked either average or ugly i.e.924-944-928-Cayenne-Panamera. Perhaps the only reasonably attractive car outside the few 911's in its history has been the Boxter.
That said, there is no doubt that Porsche produce cars that boast outstanding performance- the 2.7 RS, numerous GT3's etc and this with their everyday usability, reliability and value attract so many buyers. What is key for so many enthusiasts in this equation though is their outstanding performance.
But Aston in its segment produce cars that are lets face it, also rans that are average. The Rapide is the most recent example of this, sad to say, and Aston should not remain complacent about its design ethos either. It is clearly rehashing the design it has successfully come up with the DB9, and arguably killing it.
For the same price as the new Aston, you could get a one year old Ferrari Scaglietti producing at least 540 break horse from its 5.7 litre V12, (Astons: 6 litre 495-510 break) weights 1725kg (Aston: 1900+) a car that has far more individuality, (doesn't look like any other Ferrari) exclusivity, (I haven't seen many in London) character(that V12 to say the least) and presence (its majestic looks) than either of the above and the performance to match or better the Aston whilst comfortably accommodating 4 people, taking them from 0-60 in 4.2 secs (Aston: 5secs) and to nigh on 200mph if circumstances and the mood permit.
Its a no brainer really, especially if I were to spend 140k on a car.
You wouldn't understand why I have a DB9 as well as an M5. If, like you, I thought in pure dynamic terms, I would never have bought the Aston. Some of us like to have our emotions sitrred by cars. The only emotion stirred by the Panamera is revulsion.
[/quote]
One question to Zod. Will you give up your DB9 and the M5 for the Rapide?
It seems to me that the Rapide is a good car, but it isn't exceptional in any way. The Panamera Turbo would no doubt outperform it.
In relation to their respective looks no one can successfully argue that the Panamera is an attractive looking car. It looks so ugly. With a few exceptions, the Porsche designers have, generally speaking, lacked aesthetic taste or imagination to come up with great looking cars-look at the rehashed 911s that have come out since its original inception - YAWN-and the numerous other models that have looked either average or ugly i.e.924-944-928-Cayenne-Panamera. Perhaps the only reasonably attractive car outside the few 911's in its history has been the Boxter.
That said, there is no doubt that Porsche produce cars that boast outstanding performance- the 2.7 RS, numerous GT3's etc and this with their everyday usability, reliability and value attract so many buyers. What is key for so many enthusiasts in this equation though is their outstanding performance.
But Aston in its segment produce cars that are lets face it, also rans that are average. The Rapide is the most recent example of this, sad to say, and Aston should not remain complacent about its design ethos either. It is clearly rehashing the design it has successfully come up with the DB9, and arguably killing it.
For the same price as the new Aston, you could get a one year old Ferrari Scaglietti producing at least 540 break horse from its 5.7 litre V12, (Astons: 6 litre 495-510 break) weights 1725kg (Aston: 1900+) a car that has far more individuality, (doesn't look like any other Ferrari) exclusivity, (I haven't seen many in London) character(that V12 to say the least) and presence (its majestic looks) than either of the above and the performance to match or better the Aston whilst comfortably accommodating 4 people, taking them from 0-60 in 4.2 secs (Aston: 5secs) and to nigh on 200mph if circumstances and the mood permit.
Its a no brainer really, especially if I were to spend 140k on a car.
chelme said:
Zod:
You wouldn't understand why I have a DB9 as well as an M5. If, like you, I thought in pure dynamic terms, I would never have bought the Aston. Some of us like to have our emotions sitrred by cars. The only emotion stirred by the Panamera is revulsion.
One question to Zod. Will you give up your DB9 and the M5 for the Rapide?You wouldn't understand why I have a DB9 as well as an M5. If, like you, I thought in pure dynamic terms, I would never have bought the Aston. Some of us like to have our emotions sitrred by cars. The only emotion stirred by the Panamera is revulsion.
It seems to me that the Rapide is a good car, but it isn't exceptional in any way. The Panamera Turbo would no doubt outperform it.
In relation to their respective looks no one can successfully argue that the Panamera is an attractive looking car. It looks so ugly. With a few exceptions, the Porsche designers have, generally speaking, lacked aesthetic taste or imagination to come up with great looking cars-look at the rehashed 911s that have come out since its original inception - YAWN-and the numerous other models that have looked either average or ugly i.e.924-944-928-Cayenne-Panamera. Perhaps the only reasonably attractive car outside the few 911's in its history has been the Boxter.
That said, there is no doubt that Porsche produce cars that boast outstanding performance- the 2.7 RS, numerous GT3's etc and this with their everyday usability, reliability and value attract so many buyers. What is key for so many enthusiasts in this equation though is their outstanding performance.
But Aston in its segment produce cars that are lets face it, also rans that are average. The Rapide is the most recent example of this, sad to say, and Aston should not remain complacent about its design ethos either. It is clearly rehashing the design it has successfully come up with the DB9, and arguably killing it.
For the same price as the new Aston, you could get a one year old Ferrari Scaglietti producing at least 540 break horse from its 5.7 litre V12, (Astons: 6 litre 495-510 break) weights 1725kg (Aston: 1900+) a car that has far more individuality, (doesn't look like any other Ferrari) exclusivity, (I haven't seen many in London) character(that V12 to say the least) and presence (its majestic looks) than either of the above and the performance to match or better the Aston whilst comfortably accommodating 4 people, taking them from 0-60 in 4.2 secs (Aston: 5secs) and to nigh on 200mph if circumstances and the mood permit.
Its a no brainer really, especially if I were to spend 140k on a car.
Regarding Aston performance versus Ferrari, Porsche etc. I find it inane to say that Astons are also-rans. The values these brands need to show are quite different, the question should be "Do they fulfill the brief". Ferraris need only to have ultimate performance, Porsches need only to have ultimate performance, those are the target values. Astons cannot be like this though, since they are supposed to have performance, luxury and style. They are more of a cross between a Ferrari and a Bentley is this respect. A buyer of thsi class of car is not looking only for outright speed. In fact when you say the Panamera outforms thsi car you are wrong. In outright speed yes, but in driving enjoyment as a whole it does not. It doesn't steer, communicate or ride as well. It's a picture of many parts that makes a car, versus what it's aimed at. If accelerative force is the only consideration then you should buy a Caterham r500. Does a buyer who wants a stunning supercar with four seats and luxurious appointment ignore beauty, ride, handling, feedback in favour of a small differential of 0-60?
That;s quite aside from the fact that Astons are still bloody rapid and some ballistic.
cathalm said:
chelme said:
Zod:
Y.
blah blah Y.
The Ferrari is just as luxurious as the Aston and would deliver over and above what the market requires, 'over and above' being the operative word here. In other words the Ferrari is outstanding. Numerous reviews have confirmed this.
The ownership costs? I would be surprised if they were significantly different.
Re criticism levelled at the argument over new v secondhand? So what if it is a pre-owned (in this case a 1 year old) example? you would probably lose less in the second year of a Ferrari ownership than in the first year of an Aston ownership, arguably balancing out the disadvantage of paying a little more for the running costs.
Anyway, I doubt anyone would be that concerned over the running costs when seriously considering the purchase of a 140K four seat V12 luxury sports GT weighing over 1 1/2 tons and returning 15-20mpg, as it is expected that the costs will be huge. After all it is the cost of having the privilege of owning a marque with such heritage and IMO, in the case of Ferrari, the cost would be worth it.
The ownership costs? I would be surprised if they were significantly different.
Re criticism levelled at the argument over new v secondhand? So what if it is a pre-owned (in this case a 1 year old) example? you would probably lose less in the second year of a Ferrari ownership than in the first year of an Aston ownership, arguably balancing out the disadvantage of paying a little more for the running costs.
Anyway, I doubt anyone would be that concerned over the running costs when seriously considering the purchase of a 140K four seat V12 luxury sports GT weighing over 1 1/2 tons and returning 15-20mpg, as it is expected that the costs will be huge. After all it is the cost of having the privilege of owning a marque with such heritage and IMO, in the case of Ferrari, the cost would be worth it.
No it's not a stupid argument, and apart from saying 'its stupid', you have yet to effectively counter it.
Of course should someone really love the looks of the Aston and count their pennies, then they can please themselves by going and buying a 1 year old Rapide.
I was simply pointing out that there is a better alternative out there - the Ferrari 612 and the evidence supports this, As for the four door/two door rant above, this distinction is arguably insignificant given that the 612 has plenty of room for 2 in the back.
Of course should someone really love the looks of the Aston and count their pennies, then they can please themselves by going and buying a 1 year old Rapide.
I was simply pointing out that there is a better alternative out there - the Ferrari 612 and the evidence supports this, As for the four door/two door rant above, this distinction is arguably insignificant given that the 612 has plenty of room for 2 in the back.
chelme said:
No it's not a stupid argument, and apart from saying 'its stupid', you have yet to effectively counter it.
Of course should someone really love the looks of the Aston and count their pennies, then they can please themselves by going and buying a 1 year old Rapide.
I was simply pointing out that there is a better alternative out there - the Ferrari 612 and the evidence supports this, As for the four door/two door rant above, this distinction is arguably insignificant given that the 612 has plenty of room for 2 in the back.
Equally you have to take into account that your definition of "better" may not match someone else's. In the real world, the choice between cars of this type is not going to come down to which has a higher top speed, or laps the 'Ring fastest. It's going to come down to which car the buyer prefers on subjective points like interior design, image, styling, etc - after all, every car at this level is hugely competent and very fast.Of course should someone really love the looks of the Aston and count their pennies, then they can please themselves by going and buying a 1 year old Rapide.
I was simply pointing out that there is a better alternative out there - the Ferrari 612 and the evidence supports this, As for the four door/two door rant above, this distinction is arguably insignificant given that the 612 has plenty of room for 2 in the back.
If you're going to say car A is better than car B you need to define what you mean by "better" too.
chelme said:
The Ferrari is just as luxurious as the Aston and would deliver over and above what the market requires, 'over and above' being the operative word here. In other words the Ferrari is outstanding. Numerous reviews have confirmed this.
The ownership costs? I would be surprised if they were significantly different.
Re criticism levelled at the argument over new v secondhand? So what if it is a pre-owned (in this case a 1 year old) example? you would probably lose less in the second year of a Ferrari ownership than in the first year of an Aston ownership, arguably balancing out the disadvantage of paying a little more for the running costs.
Anyway, I doubt anyone would be that concerned over the running costs when seriously considering the purchase of a 140K four seat V12 luxury sports GT weighing over 1 1/2 tons and returning 15-20mpg, as it is expected that the costs will be huge. After all it is the cost of having the privilege of owning a marque with such heritage and IMO, in the case of Ferrari, the cost would be worth it.
THEIR NOT THE SAME fThe ownership costs? I would be surprised if they were significantly different.
Re criticism levelled at the argument over new v secondhand? So what if it is a pre-owned (in this case a 1 year old) example? you would probably lose less in the second year of a Ferrari ownership than in the first year of an Aston ownership, arguably balancing out the disadvantage of paying a little more for the running costs.
Anyway, I doubt anyone would be that concerned over the running costs when seriously considering the purchase of a 140K four seat V12 luxury sports GT weighing over 1 1/2 tons and returning 15-20mpg, as it is expected that the costs will be huge. After all it is the cost of having the privilege of owning a marque with such heritage and IMO, in the case of Ferrari, the cost would be worth it.
kING CAR!! YOU CAN'T GET 2 ADULTS COMFORTABLY IN THE BACK OF A 612..IT HAS 2 DOORS!!!!ewenm said:
chelme said:
No it's not a stupid argument, and apart from saying 'its stupid', you have yet to effectively counter it.
Of course should someone really love the looks of the Aston and count their pennies, then they can please themselves by going and buying a 1 year old Rapide.
I was simply pointing out that there is a better alternative out there - the Ferrari 612 and the evidence supports this, As for the four door/two door rant above, this distinction is arguably insignificant given that the 612 has plenty of room for 2 in the back.
Equally you have to take into account that your definition of "better" may not match someone else's. In the real world, the choice between cars of this type is not going to come down to which has a higher top speed, or laps the 'Ring fastest. It's going to come down to which car the buyer prefers on subjective points like interior design, image, styling, etc - after all, every car at this level is hugely competent and very fast.Of course should someone really love the looks of the Aston and count their pennies, then they can please themselves by going and buying a 1 year old Rapide.
I was simply pointing out that there is a better alternative out there - the Ferrari 612 and the evidence supports this, As for the four door/two door rant above, this distinction is arguably insignificant given that the 612 has plenty of room for 2 in the back.
If you're going to say car A is better than car B you need to define what you mean by "better" too.
Yes, I agree with you that subjective assessments are important, and to add to what you have said, it would be a question of weighing subjective assessments of a car against the objective facts, i.e. how it looks, against, say, performance figures (or not necessary against each other but consider the products as a whole, and I don't think that subjective taste overrides objective facts in quite the same way as you have put it. For many people, the performance figures are also very important.
Surely, when parting with 140K, one would shop around, do some research and take all factors in the round when deciding to purchase a car, otherwise there would not be a market for magazines like EVO, CAR and AUTOCAR which look at the product as a whole and come to a decision as to which is in their opinion the 'better' car, which is, by the way, based upon their subjective and more importantly objective assessments of a cars performance and the way it is delivered.
I agree that some people may accord more weight to subjective assessments, i.e. a cars looks/image, than the overall product but, I would like to think that most would consider all the factors, according just as much if not more weight to performance, and the way it is delivered and how it makes the driver feel.
Afterall, I cannot believe that cars such as the Ferrari (or even BMW) have over the years built up such a reputation and competed so successfully in their respective markets just because of the subjective assessments of people. It is that they have tended to be consistently outstanding technically, in terms of their performance and the way that it's delivered, and some aesthetically too. Surely most people considering parting with such cash would do the research, read the mags and make a decision to buy them?
IMO, having looked at it subjectively and considered the objective facts, I personally think that the Ferrari 612 is a better car, and I have previously given reasons for it.
Agreed, most buyers will do their research (excluding the footballer fraternity 
) but what makes you choose the 612 can put someone else off.
You can say you'd go for the Ferrari, but you can't say that I would be wrong to go for the Aston, all you can say is that you wouldn't make the same decision. Neither of us are right or wrong in our choices in any absolute sense.
Personally, absolute performance (once you're past a certain baseline) doesn't interest me. I need to have some emotional response to the cars I own - for example the OH and I were looking for a premium hatchback, we considered the BMW 1-Series, widely touted as the "best", test drove it and found it dull and uninspiring, plus it's pretty common on the roads and (as the OH put it) "has a fat arse and fat belly". For the type of driving the car experiences, the BMWs supposed dynamic advantages were insignificant over other considerations like comfort and interior/exterior styling - we ended up with the Volvo C30 and haven't regretted the decision.
Edit: Essentially what I'm saying is that people can do all the same research, read all the same articles and have the same test-drives and yet still come to different decisions.
) but what makes you choose the 612 can put someone else off.You can say you'd go for the Ferrari, but you can't say that I would be wrong to go for the Aston, all you can say is that you wouldn't make the same decision. Neither of us are right or wrong in our choices in any absolute sense.
Personally, absolute performance (once you're past a certain baseline) doesn't interest me. I need to have some emotional response to the cars I own - for example the OH and I were looking for a premium hatchback, we considered the BMW 1-Series, widely touted as the "best", test drove it and found it dull and uninspiring, plus it's pretty common on the roads and (as the OH put it) "has a fat arse and fat belly"
. For the type of driving the car experiences, the BMWs supposed dynamic advantages were insignificant over other considerations like comfort and interior/exterior styling - we ended up with the Volvo C30 and haven't regretted the decision.Edit: Essentially what I'm saying is that people can do all the same research, read all the same articles and have the same test-drives and yet still come to different decisions.
Edited by ewenm on Thursday 11th February 14:02
Ewenm
Yes I agree that people invariably offer differing opinions.I didn't explicitly state that others were wrong to like the Rapide, and have certainly not meant to cause offence.
When I give an opinion, I like to give reasons for it and if someone disagrees with me its good to have a constructive discussion.
Yes I agree that people invariably offer differing opinions.I didn't explicitly state that others were wrong to like the Rapide, and have certainly not meant to cause offence.
When I give an opinion, I like to give reasons for it and if someone disagrees with me its good to have a constructive discussion.
But on second thoughts I have to disagree with you:
http://www.neublack.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05...
http://www.neublack.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05...
cathalm said:
chelme said:
Zod:
You wouldn't understand why I have a DB9 as well as an M5. If, like you, I thought in pure dynamic terms, I would never have bought the Aston. Some of us like to have our emotions sitrred by cars. The only emotion stirred by the Panamera is revulsion.
One question to Zod. Will you give up your DB9 and the M5 for the Rapide?You wouldn't understand why I have a DB9 as well as an M5. If, like you, I thought in pure dynamic terms, I would never have bought the Aston. Some of us like to have our emotions sitrred by cars. The only emotion stirred by the Panamera is revulsion.
It seems to me that the Rapide is a good car, but it isn't exceptional in any way. The Panamera Turbo would no doubt outperform it.
In relation to their respective looks no one can successfully argue that the Panamera is an attractive looking car. It looks so ugly. With a few exceptions, the Porsche designers have, generally speaking, lacked aesthetic taste or imagination to come up with great looking cars-look at the rehashed 911s that have come out since its original inception - YAWN-and the numerous other models that have looked either average or ugly i.e.924-944-928-Cayenne-Panamera. Perhaps the only reasonably attractive car outside the few 911's in its history has been the Boxter.
That said, there is no doubt that Porsche produce cars that boast outstanding performance- the 2.7 RS, numerous GT3's etc and this with their everyday usability, reliability and value attract so many buyers. What is key for so many enthusiasts in this equation though is their outstanding performance.
But Aston in its segment produce cars that are lets face it, also rans that are average. The Rapide is the most recent example of this, sad to say, and Aston should not remain complacent about its design ethos either. It is clearly rehashing the design it has successfully come up with the DB9, and arguably killing it.
For the same price as the new Aston, you could get a one year old Ferrari Scaglietti producing at least 540 break horse from its 5.7 litre V12, (Astons: 6 litre 495-510 break) weights 1725kg (Aston: 1900+) a car that has far more individuality, (doesn't look like any other Ferrari) exclusivity, (I haven't seen many in London) character(that V12 to say the least) and presence (its majestic looks) than either of the above and the performance to match or better the Aston whilst comfortably accommodating 4 people, taking them from 0-60 in 4.2 secs (Aston: 5secs) and to nigh on 200mph if circumstances and the mood permit.
Its a no brainer really, especially if I were to spend 140k on a car.
If you were bored enough to look at all my posts on Astons over the years, you'd see that I spent a lon gtime attacking them for not being powerful enough or fast enough. I still think that is the case, but I have been seduced by the look and feel of the cars.
As for the 612, I thought hard about that, given the second hand prices and two of my partners have bought them in the last year (as to rarity - there are three in the car park below my building). I find its looks ungainly although still obviously a Ferrari, but otherwise, there is nothing much to complain about (unless you buy one new and suffer the horrrendous depreciation).
edit: f
ked up quotesEdited by Zod on Thursday 11th February 15:56
LuS1fer said:
Does that include the 612 Clarkson had where the wiper kept coming off?
That aside, these shots show there isn't much room in the back of the 612, about the same as my Mustang I'd say
versus the Rapide:
I have to say the Aston interior looks a lot better than the Ferraris.
At least someone is listening to me...besides the point even if the same room was available you still have the need to climb past the front seats...which never looks elegant in a suitThat aside, these shots show there isn't much room in the back of the 612, about the same as my Mustang I'd say
versus the Rapide:
I have to say the Aston interior looks a lot better than the Ferraris.
The 612 is not a competitor for the rapide..you could mention the CL600 as well this also has 2 doors
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff