Discussion
Given that the new F12 tdf outputs 770bhp from a 6.3 litre n/a V12, whilst the latest n/a Aston V12s come in at around 565-570bhp from a 5.9 litre engine, perhaps getting close to 590bhp in GT12, and the Vulcan that has similar power output figures to the new Ferrari from a larger 7 ltr V12 engine without road-legal or practical restrictions, costs £2Million, what exactly are the reasons that AML lag behind in the power race ?
I appreciate the simple answer is money - AML can only dream of launching a £340k base/list price car, limiting production to 799 units and finding the car is sold out before being officially on sale and upsetting lots of hardcore loyal buyers who can't get their hands on one. Obviously the money that brings in can be offset against engine development
There is a separate argument about whether AML need to win these power wars - I'd like to think common consensus is no, but they need to stay within touching distance of the benchmarks which are actually moving further away. It wouldn't surprise me if they have been caught out by the power wars that perhaps a few years ago, we thought might have peaked - who would have thought that the 612bhp 599, a car which arguably had too much power for the chassis, would be immediately replaced by a 730 bhp powered car
But getting back to the thrust of my question, what is it specifically that the money buys that allows others to produce the engines they do ? Is it a case of Aston being capable of producing a higher output engine from a knowhow & access to parts perspective, but selling insufficient vehicles to be able to offset the cost across those sales, or is it a lack of know how from chronic underinvestment in R&D compared to their competitors, or a lack of ambition/desire - I'd be interested to know from those who properly understand the inner workings of this area, such as Mike of course, just what the specific reasons are
I appreciate the simple answer is money - AML can only dream of launching a £340k base/list price car, limiting production to 799 units and finding the car is sold out before being officially on sale and upsetting lots of hardcore loyal buyers who can't get their hands on one. Obviously the money that brings in can be offset against engine development
There is a separate argument about whether AML need to win these power wars - I'd like to think common consensus is no, but they need to stay within touching distance of the benchmarks which are actually moving further away. It wouldn't surprise me if they have been caught out by the power wars that perhaps a few years ago, we thought might have peaked - who would have thought that the 612bhp 599, a car which arguably had too much power for the chassis, would be immediately replaced by a 730 bhp powered car
But getting back to the thrust of my question, what is it specifically that the money buys that allows others to produce the engines they do ? Is it a case of Aston being capable of producing a higher output engine from a knowhow & access to parts perspective, but selling insufficient vehicles to be able to offset the cost across those sales, or is it a lack of know how from chronic underinvestment in R&D compared to their competitors, or a lack of ambition/desire - I'd be interested to know from those who properly understand the inner workings of this area, such as Mike of course, just what the specific reasons are
A better comparison is probably BHP per litre. The Ferrari is at about 115, and the Aston under 100. If Aston could go up to 115BHP per litre then they would be at about 670BHP which would be a lot. My guess is that the Ferrari has had a lot more work done on the engine to reduce losses so for example it uses direct injection. Porsche also use direct injection in some of their engines but it is expensive to develop which to your point means you need deep pockets which a low volume car manufacturer does not have. Arguably the engine deal with Mercedes will help in this area although purists will say it breaks the brand ethos of a handbuilt car. If it's good enough for Horacio Pagani then I'm sure it's ok for Aston Martin. I think that the reason people buy an Aston Martin rather than say a Nissan GTR is because sometimes it is important how good you look when you arrive as well as how quickly you got there so outright numbers aren't the most important thing. That said a few extra ponies is never a bad thing.
Some of it must be the intended market, im not sure that the wealthy types who buy the latest Ferrari or Lambo are even looking at Astons ....or maybe they have both....I think each brand has created its own niche appeal
Do you want a GT car to do 10K miles a year in, that comes in a high state of tune, with headline power figures to match the best, but 3000 mile service intervals ?
Personally I dont mind giving away 10-15% horsepower to a similar size Italian weekend poseur car in return for far more affordable running costs
...of course, most Ferrari owners barely do the 3k miles a year and some seem to sell/trade them on before they are due a service......
As pointed out though, the game is moving on, and even mainstream Jaguar offer 500bhp + in a mid level sportscar. Im sure Aston will be back up there when the Mercedes engines start to arrive...
Do you want a GT car to do 10K miles a year in, that comes in a high state of tune, with headline power figures to match the best, but 3000 mile service intervals ?
Personally I dont mind giving away 10-15% horsepower to a similar size Italian weekend poseur car in return for far more affordable running costs
...of course, most Ferrari owners barely do the 3k miles a year and some seem to sell/trade them on before they are due a service......
As pointed out though, the game is moving on, and even mainstream Jaguar offer 500bhp + in a mid level sportscar. Im sure Aston will be back up there when the Mercedes engines start to arrive...
bogie said:
As pointed out though, the game is moving on, and even mainstream Jaguar offer 500bhp + in a mid level sportscar. Im sure Aston will be back up there when the Mercedes engines start to arrive...
Does MB make any better bhp/litre than AM in their NA engines? If so, not by much at all, so from that POV, they aren't any better. Jaguar is at more than 500, but that's for a supercharged engine, so that proves nothing. It is easy to get power if you super/turbo charge.Probably those extra 15-20 bhp/litre that Ferrari has over the AM V12 comes at great cost. And AM just doesn't have the funds, and therefore doesn't want to divert those scarce funds from the design aspects to the 'hidden' motor.
DB9VolanteDriver said:
Does MB make any better bhp/litre than AM in their NA engines? If so, not by much at all, so from that POV, they aren't any better. Jaguar is at more than 500, but that's for a supercharged engine, so that proves nothing. It is easy to get power if you super/turbo charge.
The AMG engine in a road going Zonda is a V12 and I believe also NA rather than supercharged or turbocharged. In its highest state of tune for the road I believe it makes 760HP from 7 litres of displacement which is 109 HP per litre, the AM 177 has BHP per litre of 103 (7.3L and 750hp). For the special edition Zonda R Evolution the claim was 800HP from only 6 litres where the Aston Martin Vulcan needs 7 litres to make the same power output. I believe both are NA. It's simply down to money. Look at the R&D budgets of Ferrari, Mercedes, Jaguar Land Rover etc etc and compare them to Aston.
It's all b
ks anyway with a road car. How can anyone get the best out of 565bhp, let alone 770?
When you think about it, once you start paying a hundred grand for a car, everything at this level is absolutely brilliant in its own right. You chose the marque you have an affinity with and accept what it's good at and what it's not good at.
If Aston launched a 780bhp Vanquish, I don't think it would take a single F12 buyer away from Ferrari.
It's all b
ks anyway with a road car. How can anyone get the best out of 565bhp, let alone 770?When you think about it, once you start paying a hundred grand for a car, everything at this level is absolutely brilliant in its own right. You chose the marque you have an affinity with and accept what it's good at and what it's not good at.
If Aston launched a 780bhp Vanquish, I don't think it would take a single F12 buyer away from Ferrari.
Phil74891 said:
It's simply down to money. Look at the R&D budgets of Ferrari, Mercedes, Jaguar Land Rover etc etc and compare them to Aston.
It's all bks anyway with a road car. How can anyone get the best out of 565bhp, let alone 770?
When you think about it, once you start paying a hundred grand for a car, everything at this level is absolutely brilliant in its own right. You chose the marque you have an affinity with and accept what it's good at and what it's not good at.
If Aston launched a 780bhp Vanquish, I don't think it would take a single F12 buyer away from Ferrari.
From dyno experience Astons quoted power figures are always "optimistic"It's all b
ks anyway with a road car. How can anyone get the best out of 565bhp, let alone 770?When you think about it, once you start paying a hundred grand for a car, everything at this level is absolutely brilliant in its own right. You chose the marque you have an affinity with and accept what it's good at and what it's not good at.
If Aston launched a 780bhp Vanquish, I don't think it would take a single F12 buyer away from Ferrari.
I found the V8VS wanting in pwoer at 430BHP, with the 5.0GT4 there was an inprovements
The 641 BHP in the McLaren suits my driving style perfectly
Astons other issue is weight, my 650S is nearly 400 kg lighter than my Vantage was and has 211 BHP more!
As you say its down to money, they haven't got enough and what they do have isn't spent well on developing (or partnering) the right technologies to keep up with their peers.
Phil74891 said:
It's simply down to money. Look at the R&D budgets of Ferrari, Mercedes, Jaguar Land Rover etc etc and compare them to Aston.
It's all bks anyway with a road car. How can anyone get the best out of 565bhp, let alone 770?
When you think about it, once you start paying a hundred grand for a car, everything at this level is absolutely brilliant in its own right. You chose the marque you have an affinity with and accept what it's good at and what it's not good at.
If Aston launched a 780bhp Vanquish, I don't think it would take a single F12 buyer away from Ferrari.
I think all of this is fairly well established - the question was about what the money Aston don't have actually 'does' to translate into more power - is it to do with raw materials, tooling, timecosts, etcIt's all b
ks anyway with a road car. How can anyone get the best out of 565bhp, let alone 770?When you think about it, once you start paying a hundred grand for a car, everything at this level is absolutely brilliant in its own right. You chose the marque you have an affinity with and accept what it's good at and what it's not good at.
If Aston launched a 780bhp Vanquish, I don't think it would take a single F12 buyer away from Ferrari.
Speculatore said:
It shouldn't cost AM too much to raise the BHP level. Bamford Rose (And I am sure others can do it) took my 2007 DB9 from 470BHP to 520BHP without costing me the earth. They also worked on Bobs DB9.2 but not sure what the end result was.
Interesting exampleTrue BR know where the cost savings where made by AM and where the extra power can be extracted
BUT even with their expertise they cannot bring the V8 and V12 close enough to their peers
Nor can they drastically reduce the cars weight
Mr Palmer needs to put some effort in to engines, hopefully the AMG deal will sort this
That still leaves weight reduction, I've not seen much inclination for this
different emissions levels, engine characteristics that suit all markets, cats that are OK for road legal production cars, etc
there is then the different manifold system that saves weight and lowers restrictions - If I understand correctly, some of the improvements to the manifolds that BR offer could be done by AML if they were given a bigger budget whilst other elements could not because they essentially aren't practical on production spec as opposed to aftermarket
there is then the different manifold system that saves weight and lowers restrictions - If I understand correctly, some of the improvements to the manifolds that BR offer could be done by AML if they were given a bigger budget whilst other elements could not because they essentially aren't practical on production spec as opposed to aftermarket
Was just browsing the AM website and saw a video of the Vantage V12 blasting down some road. 500, 600, 700hp.... The trend seems to be add some HP and call it good. Even the Chevy's and Fords are offering 500+ horsepower at discount prices.
But 95% of the time, or higher, we are just cruising down the road. Be it a long boring straight road or twisty trip to the coast. And we aren't using more than a quarter? of our giddy-up.
We're not all blasting away from every stop or topping out on the way to the store.
Sure it's nice to have the option but I can live with my measly 470hp of my DB9. I think these HP wars are a bit overplayed.
But 95% of the time, or higher, we are just cruising down the road. Be it a long boring straight road or twisty trip to the coast. And we aren't using more than a quarter? of our giddy-up.
We're not all blasting away from every stop or topping out on the way to the store.
Sure it's nice to have the option but I can live with my measly 470hp of my DB9. I think these HP wars are a bit overplayed.
jonby said:
Given that the new F12 tdf outputs 770bhp from a 6.3 litre n/a V12, whilst the latest n/a Aston V12s come in at around 565-570bhp from a 5.9 litre engine, perhaps getting close to 590bhp in GT12, and the Vulcan that has similar power output figures to the new Ferrari from a larger 7 ltr V12 engine without road-legal or practical restrictions, costs £2Million, what exactly are the reasons that AML lag behind in the power race ?
I appreciate the simple answer is money - AML can only dream of launching a £340k base/list price car, limiting production to 799 units and finding the car is sold out before being officially on sale and upsetting lots of hardcore loyal buyers who can't get their hands on one. Obviously the money that brings in can be offset against engine development
There is a separate argument about whether AML need to win these power wars - I'd like to think common consensus is no, but they need to stay within touching distance of the benchmarks which are actually moving further away. It wouldn't surprise me if they have been caught out by the power wars that perhaps a few years ago, we thought might have peaked - who would have thought that the 612bhp 599, a car which arguably had too much power for the chassis, would be immediately replaced by a 730 bhp powered car
But getting back to the thrust of my question, what is it specifically that the money buys that allows others to produce the engines they do ? Is it a case of Aston being capable of producing a higher output engine from a knowhow & access to parts perspective, but selling insufficient vehicles to be able to offset the cost across those sales, or is it a lack of know how from chronic underinvestment in R&D compared to their competitors, or a lack of ambition/desire - I'd be interested to know from those who properly understand the inner workings of this area, such as Mike of course, just what the specific reasons are
F12 has a dry sump - so the losses caused by the crank rotating in oil are removed. Parasitic loss I think that's called. Read somewhere that can be about 5-10% loss out output. This requires a lot of engineering to get right - you have to handle all viable use cases plus a margin of error. Look over in Corvette land - folks who have tracked their dry sump corvettes have had oil starvation and kaboom!I appreciate the simple answer is money - AML can only dream of launching a £340k base/list price car, limiting production to 799 units and finding the car is sold out before being officially on sale and upsetting lots of hardcore loyal buyers who can't get their hands on one. Obviously the money that brings in can be offset against engine development
There is a separate argument about whether AML need to win these power wars - I'd like to think common consensus is no, but they need to stay within touching distance of the benchmarks which are actually moving further away. It wouldn't surprise me if they have been caught out by the power wars that perhaps a few years ago, we thought might have peaked - who would have thought that the 612bhp 599, a car which arguably had too much power for the chassis, would be immediately replaced by a 730 bhp powered car
But getting back to the thrust of my question, what is it specifically that the money buys that allows others to produce the engines they do ? Is it a case of Aston being capable of producing a higher output engine from a knowhow & access to parts perspective, but selling insufficient vehicles to be able to offset the cost across those sales, or is it a lack of know how from chronic underinvestment in R&D compared to their competitors, or a lack of ambition/desire - I'd be interested to know from those who properly understand the inner workings of this area, such as Mike of course, just what the specific reasons are
Higher compression ratio 15.5:1 for F12, 11.0:1 for Vanquish. Requires performance valve train.
Higher engine rpm - requires performance parts and an ECU that can calculate quick enough. The old DB9 ECU is too slow to handle above a certain rpm which I forgot, but it's something around 7800rpm.
F12 has a smarter induction system with resonance chambers and other clever stuff I don't understand. DB9/Vanquish/V12V don't. DB9 was designed with one dimension cfd modelling, so is a simple induction system.
F12 has a fancy exhaust system (I think it's tuned equal length, 6-2-1) rather than a nasty lump of metal bolted onto the side of the engine. Tuned equal length 6-2-1 allows for scavenging effect - nicely covered by a youtube video posted here a few days ago.
F12 has fancy catalytic converters, not cheap'n'cheerful like AML.
DB9 was built to Ford reliability standards and engine life expectations. F12 is not.
Add that lot up and there you go...
So - to answer...
Lack of investment in cfd and other modelling.
Lack of engineers who understand this stuff (hence Cosworth built 1-77 engine and Prodrive are building Vulcan engine). If you use linkedin, check out how many guys in drivetrain engineering at Jaguar are ex-AML.
Lack of appetite for exotic materials in drive train (titanium valves, sodium filled valves)
ACCOUNTANTS driving the business not product guys
Marketing considerations around price points - take Virage as an extreme example - a niche too far...
Legacy of Ford mass market engineering standards.
JohnG1 said:
jonby said:
Given that the new F12 tdf outputs 770bhp from a 6.3 litre n/a V12, whilst the latest n/a Aston V12s come in at around 565-570bhp from a 5.9 litre engine, perhaps getting close to 590bhp in GT12, and the Vulcan that has similar power output figures to the new Ferrari from a larger 7 ltr V12 engine without road-legal or practical restrictions, costs £2Million, what exactly are the reasons that AML lag behind in the power race ?
I appreciate the simple answer is money - AML can only dream of launching a £340k base/list price car, limiting production to 799 units and finding the car is sold out before being officially on sale and upsetting lots of hardcore loyal buyers who can't get their hands on one. Obviously the money that brings in can be offset against engine development
There is a separate argument about whether AML need to win these power wars - I'd like to think common consensus is no, but they need to stay within touching distance of the benchmarks which are actually moving further away. It wouldn't surprise me if they have been caught out by the power wars that perhaps a few years ago, we thought might have peaked - who would have thought that the 612bhp 599, a car which arguably had too much power for the chassis, would be immediately replaced by a 730 bhp powered car
But getting back to the thrust of my question, what is it specifically that the money buys that allows others to produce the engines they do ? Is it a case of Aston being capable of producing a higher output engine from a knowhow & access to parts perspective, but selling insufficient vehicles to be able to offset the cost across those sales, or is it a lack of know how from chronic underinvestment in R&D compared to their competitors, or a lack of ambition/desire - I'd be interested to know from those who properly understand the inner workings of this area, such as Mike of course, just what the specific reasons are
F12 has a dry sump - so the losses caused by the crank rotating in oil are removed. Parasitic loss I think that's called. Read somewhere that can be about 5-10% loss out output. This requires a lot of engineering to get right - you have to handle all viable use cases plus a margin of error. Look over in Corvette land - folks who have tracked their dry sump corvettes have had oil starvation and kaboom!I appreciate the simple answer is money - AML can only dream of launching a £340k base/list price car, limiting production to 799 units and finding the car is sold out before being officially on sale and upsetting lots of hardcore loyal buyers who can't get their hands on one. Obviously the money that brings in can be offset against engine development
There is a separate argument about whether AML need to win these power wars - I'd like to think common consensus is no, but they need to stay within touching distance of the benchmarks which are actually moving further away. It wouldn't surprise me if they have been caught out by the power wars that perhaps a few years ago, we thought might have peaked - who would have thought that the 612bhp 599, a car which arguably had too much power for the chassis, would be immediately replaced by a 730 bhp powered car
But getting back to the thrust of my question, what is it specifically that the money buys that allows others to produce the engines they do ? Is it a case of Aston being capable of producing a higher output engine from a knowhow & access to parts perspective, but selling insufficient vehicles to be able to offset the cost across those sales, or is it a lack of know how from chronic underinvestment in R&D compared to their competitors, or a lack of ambition/desire - I'd be interested to know from those who properly understand the inner workings of this area, such as Mike of course, just what the specific reasons are
Higher compression ratio 15.5:1 for F12, 11.0:1 for Vanquish. Requires performance valve train.
Higher engine rpm - requires performance parts and an ECU that can calculate quick enough. The old DB9 ECU is too slow to handle above a certain rpm which I forgot, but it's something around 7800rpm.
F12 has a smarter induction system with resonance chambers and other clever stuff I don't understand. DB9/Vanquish/V12V don't. DB9 was designed with one dimension cfd modelling, so is a simple induction system.
F12 has a fancy exhaust system (I think it's tuned equal length, 6-2-1) rather than a nasty lump of metal bolted onto the side of the engine. Tuned equal length 6-2-1 allows for scavenging effect - nicely covered by a youtube video posted here a few days ago.
F12 has fancy catalytic converters, not cheap'n'cheerful like AML.
DB9 was built to Ford reliability standards and engine life expectations. F12 is not.
Add that lot up and there you go...
So - to answer...
Lack of investment in cfd and other modelling.
Lack of engineers who understand this stuff (hence Cosworth built 1-77 engine and Prodrive are building Vulcan engine). If you use linkedin, check out how many guys in drivetrain engineering at Jaguar are ex-AML.
Lack of appetite for exotic materials in drive train (titanium valves, sodium filled valves)
ACCOUNTANTS driving the business not product guys
Marketing considerations around price points - take Virage as an extreme example - a niche too far...
Legacy of Ford mass market engineering standards.
Not that some of the other comments aren't true or interesting, but I was keener to see the above, rather than the normal 'not enough money' or 'why do they need to compete'
I suspect with AML, not only don't they have the budget or volume to invest in the points made above but also, if they are constantly juggling the money around as a result of failure to meet targets and changing product life cycles from initial intentions which there is lots of evidence to support, it doesn't create a stable financial environment - just look for instance, at what they lost on rapides being made in Austria or cygnet
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff