Future AM engines and Valhalla

[Speedraser]

My understanding of VH is that "Vertical" referenced its ability to be used within the Aston range for cars of different sizes which, obviously, it was. The "Horizontal" referenced the ability to utilize various major components, such as the crash structures, dashboard, HVAC system, and the entertainment system, across the Aston range. As I understand it, some things were intended to be used across Ford's premium brands, such as the overall electronic systems, but I don't think the plan included sharing the structure itself across brands. Does anyone conclusively know? In any event, only Aston ever used the VH platform.

Also, Venturist said the the VH platform had difficulty meeting crash regulations. From everything I've read, that wasn't the case at all. The structure was developed utilizing Volvo's crash safety expertise (since Ford owned both at the time), and my understanding is that the VH platform did a superb job of keeping people in one piece when things went seriously wrong. Some of the development videos show extensive crash testing that looks very impressive.

[Jon39]

Speedraser said:

...... Some of the development videos show extensive crash testing that looks very impressive.

Are those development videos kept within AML, or can anyone see them somewhere on the internet ?

[Venturist]

Speedraser said:

Also, Venturist said the the VH platform had difficulty meeting crash regulations. From everything I've read, that wasn't the case at all. The structure was developed utilizing Volvo's crash safety expertise (since Ford owned both at the time), and my understanding is that the VH platform did a superb job of keeping people in one piece when things went seriously wrong. Some of the development videos show extensive crash testing that looks very impressive.

I was referring only to the later days of the DB9 platform as tougher and new regs came in that it wasn’t designed for. The overall concept is good.

[AstonV]

Jon39 said:

Are those development videos kept within AML, or can anyone see them somewhere on the internet ?

Good in a rollover.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fikyvgc-fOM

[LTP]

DB9VolanteDriver said:

VH does not refer to height and length. It refers to use across brands (horizontal) and use within the brand (vertical).

in which case I was misinformed and stand corrected. I still stand by my breakdown of the structure. And the floorpan isn't pressed in the conventional sense.

[Speedraser]

Jon39 said:

Speedraser said:

...... Some of the development videos show extensive crash testing that looks very impressive.

Are those development videos kept within AML, or can anyone see them somewhere on the internet ?

I found a couple on the development of the V8 Vantage and the DB9, which include some crash testing. They only show it briefly, but there are simulated and actual tests including full-frontal, front-offset at 40 mph and side impact):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sJHMn-Ehf8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_9UKHZM41Q

[Speedraser]

Venturist said:

Speedraser said:

Also, Venturist said the the VH platform had difficulty meeting crash regulations. From everything I've read, that wasn't the case at all. The structure was developed utilizing Volvo's crash safety expertise (since Ford owned both at the time), and my understanding is that the VH platform did a superb job of keeping people in one piece when things went seriously wrong. Some of the development videos show extensive crash testing that looks very impressive.

I was referring only to the later days of the DB9 platform as tougher and new regs came in that it wasn’t designed for. The overall concept is good.

I think you're referencing the stricter US side-impact rules that came in for 2015. Aston didn't want to crash test additional cars for the new tests, so they requested, and were granted, an exemption to continue to sell the Vantage and DB9 here. Here's an article on that:
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15361028/thanks...

It says some very interesting things, including that the NHTSA "reviewed crash-dummy readings from a DB9 side-impact test in 2011 that actually passed under the new rules" and "no one has been seriously injured or killed from a side-impact crash in a DB9 or Vantage." I read somewhere that a DB9 Volante was used in that 2011 test because it was the least likely to pass -- it's heavier and has a longer wheelbase than the Vantage (and roofless). Also, the Vanquish and Rapide, which used a further development of the VH, met the new standards.

[Jon39]

Speedraser said:

I found a couple on the development of the V8 Vantage and the DB9, which include some crash testing. They only show it briefly, but there are simulated and actual tests including full-frontal, front-offset at 40 mph and side impact):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sJHMn-Ehf8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_9UKHZM41Q

Thank you Speedraser.

Another couple of historic Aston Martin videos, to add to my collection.

[cardigankid]

LTP said:

cardigankid said:

Of course, none of those things, the witch burning, the Soviet Union People's Paradise, the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, the Moonies ever happened, did they? They are all a figment of my paranoia, are they?

Nice strawman.

Do you actually own an Aston?

If you had actually read this relatively short thread, you would, I think, know the answer to that question.

[cardigankid]

Sebastian Tombs said:

cardigankid said:

Sebastian, if the brand is mishandled, that is what happens. I'm saying that they won' mishandle it.

I'm saying *they already have.*

Sebastian, I would love to see an Aston developed engine quite as much as you would, I am sure. I have previously expressed the view that this should be a straight six, the smoothest, best balanced and most characterful cylinder configuration of all, and one closely associated with Aston's glory days from 1959 - 1975.

I would not however like to see that if the result is to bankrupt Aston Martin.

So far, we have a DBSS which retains an AM developed V12, the DB11. the Volante version of which may be one of the prettiest cars Aston have ever produced, and the Vantage, which, once you get used to its looks, is a brilliant sports car and a work of styling genius. I do not see any YouTube review of this which has said, this feels like a Mercedes. Therefore, I struggle to see how you could possibly conclude that MB have destroyed the brand.

I think it quite possible that Aston may become Mercedes' top end Sports / GT centre of excellence, so that such non-PC cars can continue to be developed without MB themselves damaging their green credentials. If so, quite apart from the essential use of MB tech in the cars, that could easily mean that AM will be developing engines which they can 'lend' to Mercedes. What would the problem be with that? A lack of funding and access to top line tech are far more likely to kill a company like AML than use of another manufacturer's components to create a product which is uniquely AML. The William Towns DBS used rear light clusters from a Hillman Hunter. So what?

[cardigankid]

Jon39 said:

Sebastian Tombs said:

...... What interested me about your idea, is that you have basically described Ford's strategy with the Jaguar X Type, and I think we would all agree that that is an object lesson in how not to do things.

If this is what LS and Mercedes are going to do to Aston, then it's all over.

That is an interesting point Sebastian, which I had temporarily forgotten about.

During the Ford ownership era of Aston Martin and Jaguar, they appeared to leave AML alone to make their own design decisions.
It was completely different with Jaguar though, where two models were introduced having Jaguar dresses on Ford skeletons.
The X type built on a Ford Mondeo and the S type built on a Lincoln LS.

Did it occur in that way, because Jaguar have a much higher production volume than Aston Martin, or was it perhaps the brand image differences?

Notwithstanding that, the X-Type failed not because it was Mondeo-derived, but because it was not a very good car. Likewise, once Jaguar had put a bit of development into the S Type, the later models were very good cars indeed. I had one - the problem with these was structural corrosion. A late S-Type R is every bit a Jaguar. The idea that AML can independently develop its own cars is fundamentally misbegotten, and did not even work in the 1960's, when cars were far less complex than they now are. AML cannot aim to compete with Ferrari and Porsche until they have complete financial stability. The old days of the plucky Brit taking on bigger rivals were disappearing in the 1920's never mind the 2020's.

[Speedraser]

cardigankid said:

Lots of stuff, including opinions portrayed as facts, and that (incredibly) using bought-in taillights is equivalent to using bought-in engines (or platforms).

Let's just say that I completely disagree with just about everything.

Stroll, Moers and Benz haven't destroyed Aston Martin yet, but they're making excellent progress

[ds666]

Speedraser said:

cardigankid said:

Lots of stuff, including opinions portrayed as facts, and that (incredibly) using bought-in taillights is equivalent to using bought-in engines (or platforms).

Let's just say that I completely disagree with just about everything.

Stroll, Moers and Benz haven't destroyed Aston Martin yet, but they're making excellent progress

Over time , history suggests most owners have destroyed Aston Martin ( bankrupt 7 times ?) .But still it rises ....

[Octavarium]

ds666 said:

Over time , history suggests most owners have destroyed Aston Martin ( bankrupt 7 times ?) .But still it rises ....

I made a very similar point about the previous multiple bankruptcies a while back when, if I recall correctly, Moers' appointment was announced, and was told that it was irrelevant. Can't remember why. I'm sure someone will be along soon enough to explain. Can't wait.

[Jon39]

ds666 said:

Over time , history suggests most owners have destroyed Aston Martin ( bankrupt 7 times ?) .But still it rises ....

Having attempted to study the history of B&M, AM and AML, I think it would be fair DS, to say they all tried their best. Sir David Brown was a great example of that, but eventually he had to give up.

I have reached the conclusion, that the business model of manufacturing high end, top quality, low volume sports cars, is not a sustainable and profitable business. Ferrari might be the only exception. None of the many post DB saviours have shared my opinion, but can now be very grateful for their optimism. Brand and image, is the reason that so many people, have repeatedly tried to revive Aston Martin and long may that continue.

Morgan have succeeded, but their product is far less complex and their operating costs 'paired to the bone'. Unlike Aston Martin, they have probably never spent excessively when developing their subsequent models ! -

The seven failure number, does omit a few.

Edited by Jon39 on Friday 19th March 13:22

[ds666]

Jon39 said:

ds666 said:

Over time , history suggests most owners have destroyed Aston Martin ( bankrupt 7 times ?) .But still it rises ....

Having attempted to study the history of B&M, AM and AML, I think it would be fair DS, to say they all tried their best. Sir David Brown was a great example of that, but eventually he had to give up.

I have reached the conclusion, that the business model of manufacturing high end, top quality, low volume sports cars, is not a sustainable and profitable business. Ferrari might be the only exception. The brand and image, is the reason that so many people, have repeatedly tried to revive Aston Martin and long may that continue.

Morgan have succeeded, but their product is far less complex and their operating costs 'paired to the bone'. Unlike Aston Martin, they have probably never spent excessively when developing their subsequent models ! -

The seven failure number, does omit a few.

Edited by Jon39 on Friday 19th March 12:21

Jon39 - Using " destroyed " was just reflecting Speedraser's word and it is unfair - you are correct - lets say " failed " instead . But the highpoints throughout most tenures are very high .
And I completely agree with the comments about volume and profitability - Lotus have the same issue .
The VH architecture was designed to facilitate volume based on a common platform, but with compromises . They seem to be drifting away from this .

[Jon39]

ds666 said:

Jon39 - Using " destroyed " was just reflecting Speedraser's word and it is unfair - you are correct - lets say " failed " instead . But the highpoints throughout most tenures are very high .
And I completely agree with the comments about volume and profitability - Lotus have the same issue .
The VH architecture was designed to facilitate volume based on a common platform, but with compromises . They seem to be drifting away from this .

On the volume aspect DS, with a handful of exceptions, the sports car market appears to be very limited, compared to the everyday car sectors. Both those types of vehicle, especially these days with all the regulations, probably cost much the same to develop before sales can begin. Similar development costs then lead on to recovering that expenditure from sales, and I think VW sell more cars each day, than Aston Martin do in one year. Even before a new model design is first sketched, AML begin with a handicap.

The higher volume successes that come to mind, are the MG sports cars in the 1950s and 60s (including good sales in the USA), then more recently the Mazda MX5.
However, have there been any expensive sports car examples other than Porsche, where higher volumes have been achieved and sustained ?

Edited by Jon39 on Friday 19th March 13:59

[Nbgring]

Speedraser said:

Let's just say that I completely disagree with just about everything.

Stroll, Moers and Benz haven't destroyed Aston Martin yet, but they're making excellent progress

I agree that all previous owners have failed.
The brand as we see it today was largely created by David Brown and by Ulrich Bez. They did an exceptional job but economically they never achieved the success of Ferrari.

If there is somewhere in this world a group of powerful people / investors who could rescue Aston Martin, then these are exactly Lawrence Stroll, Tobias Moers and Mercedes. Up to now they do a very reasonable job. Direction and focus are exactly such that Aston Martin possibly will survive. I am absolutely confident that Lawrence Stroll and Tobias Moers are the best managers leading AML in these challenging times with industry disruption like the switch towards EV and so on.

I agree in many issues with Speedraser. I love my V8V with its naturally aspirated 4.7 engine. Certainly a keeper. If I had sufficient spare cash, I would immediately buy a new Vantage with its AMG-Mercedes engine! Simply an outstanding Sports-GT out there in the market.

[ds666]

Nbgring said:

I agree that all previous owners have failed.
The brand as we see it today was largely created by David Brown and by Ulrich Bez.

Don't forget Bob Dover .... started taking it very much in the right direction although the mid engined car planned after Vanquish was probably a step too far , subsequently quashed by Dr Bez on arrival.

[SL500UK]

Whilst we all would like to see an AM engine in an AM, does Lamborghini's business model using Audi engines put paid to this argument? I read today how well their sales have done in the past 2 years (for both cars and the Urus). And as I have said before, I can't really see how the AMG engine will put-off the vast majority of high net worth individuals who have a spare £170k+.