Was the VH Vantage really 'slow'?
Discussion
Here's one for the ‘lurkers’ thinking of making the long dream reality and taking the plunge with a n/a V8 Vantage, but maybe worried by all the in-period Journalistic reports of the older cars looks and noise "writing cheques that its engine can't cash"
We all know the new turbocharged Vantage is a properly fast sports car - by any standard.
While it’s true that the old n/a V8V won’t hold a candle to the new one, many considered it to be ‘slow’ even for it’s time. Early V8V were considered under powered and under suspended and almost all flavours were shod with rubber not permitting the chassis to shine as it should have.
However….even the very first 4.3, when tested by TG in 2005 was actually faster over the mountain part of the IoM TT circuit than the 501hp BMW M6.
Think about that. Even the earliest V8 Vantage was, out of the box, faster than what was considered to be the most insanely quick German super coupe of the day….
It's also quite possible that the only reason the C2S was significantly faster than both M6 and Vantage in the same group test was that TG allowed Porsche UK to supply a 997 fitted with non-standard carbon ceramic brakes. Even the early Vantages were actually closer than many remember to the comparable C2/C2S 997, faster on road than the BMW M6, but they are not remembered in the same way the V10 M5/M6 is, or of course the 997.
It is true that the V8’s always felt a bit, well, underwhelming in terms of acceleration - I had the same impression when I first drove one, but why was that the case with a V8, an aluminium chassis and a largely composite body the size of a matchbox?? Why did a 380 horse V8 in a tiny car made from “helium” (c) Clarkson feel ‘slow’ when it patently wasn’t? In reality, they had a quite respectable sub 5 sec 0-60, broadly the same as the 997.
Obviously the excess weight didn’t help. I can imagine the performance guys wincing when the more trad Aston guys insisted on a solid steel knurled dipstick…
Moreover, the Jag-derived heavy, high polar inertia carried over flywheel (originally designed to produce a smooth GT cruiser) would have made the engine feel slothful, unresponsive and slow to rev. I would also suggest that the RWD transaxle config, with very extensive rotating mass (heavy and robust, drivetrain components shared with DB9 and all designed to take the torque of the V12), spinning up on top of the heavy flywheel would have contributed to that feeling of sluggish acceleration. Add in stiff, heavy controls and a very stiff chassis that had zero issues with containing the little V8, and, well, it seems all the above combined to make the car feel like “a bit of a pudding” (c) you know who…
In reality the V8 Vantage wasn’t slow at all. It just did a great job of feeling like it was, due to a unique combination of high mass, a very heavy high inertia drivetrain, the relatively low bottom end torque characteristic of a highly tuned V8 and a very solid chassis. As the usual comparison was to the much lower mass, free-revving, higher-torque-at-lower-rpm characteristic flat 6 and very low inertia of the highly developed 911 drivetrain, negative comments were perhaps inevitable.
AM clearly heard the criticisms, and answered within 3 years by increasing engine capacity - but even the increased torque and peak power hike to 420bhp still wasn’t quite enough, and with no Ford cash for more serious development, expensive stuff like twin throttle bodies ruled out due to cost, further tweaks to the already highly tuned lump and powertrain were minimal and focussed on meeting emissions standards.
Its not that things couldn't be done - reducing catalytic exhaust restriction (which an OEM can’t do) and a light remap to lift peak power a few hundred rpm higher has all but become the norm today to tune the V8's - giving increased peaks of approx 415 and 440/450 for 4.3 and 4.7/S respectively. Slightly boosting torque and peak power, together with reducing flywheel mass does significantly reduce the feeling of ‘slowness’. It makes one wonder what the factory could have done with decent development budgets. Decent suspension and especially tyres (Michelin PS4S absolutely transform the car) allow the always fantastic chassis to shine, any thus sorted Vantage will show a clean pair of heels to a 997 - though maybe not one with ceramic brakes
Conclusion - No, it absolutely wasn’t ‘slow’ The V8V was fundamentally a good design and from the get go it had the raw ingredients to be good enough to equal the almighty 911 - it just needed a little bit more performance-focussed, less cost inhibited development prior to launch. However, what AML released in 2005 was a fantastic effort, considering Porsche had even by 2005 been developing the 911 for over 40 years.
Lets not forget the two very large cherries that were always on the cake - THAT tuned cross-plane V8 noise, and the little matter that the Vantage was at launch and even after nearly 20 years is still widely considered to be one of the most beautiful cars ever made.
We all know the new turbocharged Vantage is a properly fast sports car - by any standard.
While it’s true that the old n/a V8V won’t hold a candle to the new one, many considered it to be ‘slow’ even for it’s time. Early V8V were considered under powered and under suspended and almost all flavours were shod with rubber not permitting the chassis to shine as it should have.
However….even the very first 4.3, when tested by TG in 2005 was actually faster over the mountain part of the IoM TT circuit than the 501hp BMW M6.
Think about that. Even the earliest V8 Vantage was, out of the box, faster than what was considered to be the most insanely quick German super coupe of the day….
It's also quite possible that the only reason the C2S was significantly faster than both M6 and Vantage in the same group test was that TG allowed Porsche UK to supply a 997 fitted with non-standard carbon ceramic brakes. Even the early Vantages were actually closer than many remember to the comparable C2/C2S 997, faster on road than the BMW M6, but they are not remembered in the same way the V10 M5/M6 is, or of course the 997.
It is true that the V8’s always felt a bit, well, underwhelming in terms of acceleration - I had the same impression when I first drove one, but why was that the case with a V8, an aluminium chassis and a largely composite body the size of a matchbox?? Why did a 380 horse V8 in a tiny car made from “helium” (c) Clarkson feel ‘slow’ when it patently wasn’t? In reality, they had a quite respectable sub 5 sec 0-60, broadly the same as the 997.
Obviously the excess weight didn’t help. I can imagine the performance guys wincing when the more trad Aston guys insisted on a solid steel knurled dipstick…
Moreover, the Jag-derived heavy, high polar inertia carried over flywheel (originally designed to produce a smooth GT cruiser) would have made the engine feel slothful, unresponsive and slow to rev. I would also suggest that the RWD transaxle config, with very extensive rotating mass (heavy and robust, drivetrain components shared with DB9 and all designed to take the torque of the V12), spinning up on top of the heavy flywheel would have contributed to that feeling of sluggish acceleration. Add in stiff, heavy controls and a very stiff chassis that had zero issues with containing the little V8, and, well, it seems all the above combined to make the car feel like “a bit of a pudding” (c) you know who…
In reality the V8 Vantage wasn’t slow at all. It just did a great job of feeling like it was, due to a unique combination of high mass, a very heavy high inertia drivetrain, the relatively low bottom end torque characteristic of a highly tuned V8 and a very solid chassis. As the usual comparison was to the much lower mass, free-revving, higher-torque-at-lower-rpm characteristic flat 6 and very low inertia of the highly developed 911 drivetrain, negative comments were perhaps inevitable.
AM clearly heard the criticisms, and answered within 3 years by increasing engine capacity - but even the increased torque and peak power hike to 420bhp still wasn’t quite enough, and with no Ford cash for more serious development, expensive stuff like twin throttle bodies ruled out due to cost, further tweaks to the already highly tuned lump and powertrain were minimal and focussed on meeting emissions standards.
Its not that things couldn't be done - reducing catalytic exhaust restriction (which an OEM can’t do) and a light remap to lift peak power a few hundred rpm higher has all but become the norm today to tune the V8's - giving increased peaks of approx 415 and 440/450 for 4.3 and 4.7/S respectively. Slightly boosting torque and peak power, together with reducing flywheel mass does significantly reduce the feeling of ‘slowness’. It makes one wonder what the factory could have done with decent development budgets. Decent suspension and especially tyres (Michelin PS4S absolutely transform the car) allow the always fantastic chassis to shine, any thus sorted Vantage will show a clean pair of heels to a 997 - though maybe not one with ceramic brakes
Conclusion - No, it absolutely wasn’t ‘slow’
The V8V was fundamentally a good design and from the get go it had the raw ingredients to be good enough to equal the almighty 911 - it just needed a little bit more performance-focussed, less cost inhibited development prior to launch. However, what AML released in 2005 was a fantastic effort, considering Porsche had even by 2005 been developing the 911 for over 40 years.Lets not forget the two very large cherries that were always on the cake - THAT tuned cross-plane V8 noise, and the little matter that the Vantage was at launch and even after nearly 20 years is still widely considered to be one of the most beautiful cars ever made.
Edited by Calinours on Wednesday 11th January 19:44
IMHO pretty much most performance cars for the last two decades have been too fast, not too slow, for road use.
What percentage of performance car buyers ever take their car off the public road onto a track or drag strip? I'd wager a single digit number, probably less than 5. If I'm correct, all these debates about "too slow" are fatuous, unless of course, one is regularly driving around at go to jail speeds.
The manufacturer push for higher and higher horsepower figures, bigger wheels/wider tires, and lightning fast automated transmissions has no doubt been helped along by journalists and marketing types, but it has resulted in cars which are, in the majority, too heavy, uninvolving at sane speeds, harsh riding, and too expensive. As engineering exercises, these cars are fascinating, but they appeal less and less to me.
If anything the 4.3L engine is more engaging than the 4.7 because it needs to be revved harder, and it rewards that with IMO a better noise.
Thinking back, some of my most enjoyable drives were in manual transmission, underpowered sh*tboxes I had when younger - you had to cane them mercilessly to keep up a decent pace, which was rather a lot of fun! It's the exact opposite of what you get now, with great gobs of unrefined torque lobbed at you by turbochargers just above idle. Good for a giggle at the beginning, but wears thin (at least for me) after awhile.
What percentage of performance car buyers ever take their car off the public road onto a track or drag strip? I'd wager a single digit number, probably less than 5. If I'm correct, all these debates about "too slow" are fatuous, unless of course, one is regularly driving around at go to jail speeds.
The manufacturer push for higher and higher horsepower figures, bigger wheels/wider tires, and lightning fast automated transmissions has no doubt been helped along by journalists and marketing types, but it has resulted in cars which are, in the majority, too heavy, uninvolving at sane speeds, harsh riding, and too expensive. As engineering exercises, these cars are fascinating, but they appeal less and less to me.
If anything the 4.3L engine is more engaging than the 4.7 because it needs to be revved harder, and it rewards that with IMO a better noise.
Thinking back, some of my most enjoyable drives were in manual transmission, underpowered sh*tboxes I had when younger - you had to cane them mercilessly to keep up a decent pace, which was rather a lot of fun! It's the exact opposite of what you get now, with great gobs of unrefined torque lobbed at you by turbochargers just above idle. Good for a giggle at the beginning, but wears thin (at least for me) after awhile.
Enjoyed the read..and agree with most of the comments..as a driver..it is wonderful..as a track car it will lack top end performance..but that’s not why I bought mine..it’s a beautiful car that handles spirited driving with ease..and still gets more favourable comments than any car I have ever owned..on top,of that it appears to be an aspirational car..everyone thinks it’s way more expensive than it is..I’m in a happy place with mine..would love the v12 though…lol
4.7S motor in my AMR is as fast as any sane person would ever need. The sport button makes a lot of difference to perceived eagerness too. Just replacing those horrible OEM tyres also gives much greater driving involvement. It’s such a beautifully balanced car. It delivers so much joy in driving at any speed.
Haven’t driven the 4.3 but I’d imagine it is still tons of fun.
Cars like McLarens are not “fast”, they are insane. They have a level of performance that cannot be enjoyed other than one upping someone with statistics. A lot of cars are like this now. So incredibly capable that all the joy in driving has gone unless you are in lock me up and throw away the key territory.
Haven’t driven the 4.3 but I’d imagine it is still tons of fun.
Cars like McLarens are not “fast”, they are insane. They have a level of performance that cannot be enjoyed other than one upping someone with statistics. A lot of cars are like this now. So incredibly capable that all the joy in driving has gone unless you are in lock me up and throw away the key territory.
A well written and interesting blurb Calinours, and personally I whole-heartedly agree with what you wrote, and the comments of "quench" below.Having gone down the more HP/torque, remap, lightweight flywheel, PS4 route with my 4.3 it brought it inline with what my expectations were for the car performance wise, as I knew it was a little lacking to my expectations, and personal expectations are what we are really talking about here. Calling a standard 4.3 slow or fast comes down to your experience and desires for a cars acceleration and in-gear oomph. If you are regularly driving something like a 4.0L Vantage, a Nissan GTR or 720S, then yes, the 4.3 will seem "slow" by comparison. If you drive a regular car, as is done my the majority of people, that hauls off a 8-10 second 0-100km/h time, then the 4.3 will seem insanely quick!
Growing up I loved the look and sound of the 1960`s Alfa Romeo GTAs (around 9 sec), Magnum`s Ferrari 308 (6.9 sec), The Cannonball Run Lamborghini Countach (5.4 sec) or a `67 Corvette Stingray (5.6 sec) and I still do, but there are plenty of SUV`s and hot hatches out there now that will dust them in a drag race. For me the driving experience of a "slow" car like those oldies would trump a Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk (3.4 sec) or Golf GTI (4.7 sec) any day of the week. Amazing cars that they are.
The sports car space-race (now rendered somewhat obsolete when the Lucid Air Sapphire family sedan obliterates the Bugatti Chiron Pur Sport in the quarter mile) has brought super-responsive engines, gear changes etc to the masses, and access to and perception of blistering speed much more available. Some always hanker for more, some find their sweet spot and are content. I fit the latter category.
I've spoken with many Aston owners about launch control, stick with me here , as many of us who have a model with it never use it ...ever. I don't even know if it works on my Vanquish, I have pressed the button and a little red light comes on then I press it off again.
If your the type of driver who would use LC then the Aston brand is probably not for you as their are plenty other marques that would impress you or tickle your particular fancy more.
Of course the Aston brand does offer some speed, some luxury, lots of character and a whole heap of elegance but perhaps not the last word on lap times.
You pays your money and all that....
, as many of us who have a model with it never use it ...ever. I don't even know if it works on my Vanquish, I have pressed the button and a little red light comes on then I press it off again.If your the type of driver who would use LC then the Aston brand is probably not for you as their are plenty other marques that would impress you or tickle your particular fancy more.
Of course the Aston brand does offer some speed, some luxury, lots of character and a whole heap of elegance but perhaps not the last word on lap times.
You pays your money and all that....
Mr.Tremlini said:
Growing up I loved the look and sound of the 1960`s Alfa Romeo GTAs (around 9 sec), Magnum`s Ferrari 308 (6.9 sec), The Cannonball Run Lamborghini Countach (5.4 sec) or a `67 Corvette Stingray (5.6 sec) and I still do, but there are plenty of SUV`s and hot hatches out there now that will dust them in a drag race. For me the driving experience of a "slow" car like those oldies would trump a Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk (3.4 sec) or Golf GTI (4.7 sec) any day of the week.
Same here. My own favourite, the 70s/80s V8 Vantage is also blown away by a Golf GTi, and corners worse than a transit, but I-could-not-care-less No one will care whether the VH Vantage was fast or slow in the future. I suspect that there will be many hundreds of thousands willing to pay a premium in 2040 to escape their glorified milk floats (no doubt restricted and self driving by then) and once again experience the excitement of 1000 thrashing mechanical components, the noise, the smells, the involvement and the sheer beauty they so coveted as a young person but remained tantalisingly out of reach. It’s the story of the ages !
If you have one, and remain lucky enough to be able to look after it properly these days - it might be wise to hang on to it
Edited by Calinours on Friday 16th December 18:10
Davil said:
4.7S motor in my AMR is as fast as any sane person would ever need. The sport button makes a lot of difference to perceived eagerness too. Just replacing those horrible OEM tyres also gives much greater driving involvement. It’s such a beautifully balanced car. It delivers so much joy in driving at any speed.
Haven’t driven the 4.3 but I’d imagine it is still tons of fun.
Cars like McLarens are not “fast”, they are insane. They have a level of performance that cannot be enjoyed other than one upping someone with statistics. A lot of cars are like this now. So incredibly capable that all the joy in driving has gone unless you are in lock me up and throw away the key territory.
Ahem, I didn't stretch myself to get a McLaren to 'up statistics' with anyone, I did it because I wanted to have one whilst I can still get in and out of one before a hearse pulls up outside my house to collect me and I enjoy driving it very much as often as I can. Just because a car is fast doesn't mean you have to drive it so as it's about the experience for me much as it was with the Aston. Haven’t driven the 4.3 but I’d imagine it is still tons of fun.
Cars like McLarens are not “fast”, they are insane. They have a level of performance that cannot be enjoyed other than one upping someone with statistics. A lot of cars are like this now. So incredibly capable that all the joy in driving has gone unless you are in lock me up and throw away the key territory.
Edited by macdeb on Friday 16th December 11:35
As MrT points out above, "If you drive a regular car, as is done my the majority of people, that hauls off a 8-10 second 0-100km/h time, then the 4.3 will seem insanely quick!"
I previously owned a 2007 4.3 V8V and never felt it was slow or underpowered. It's true that to get the most out of it you have to work it hard but that's no hardship and the soundtrack and snickety gearshift (once warmed up) make it a deeply pleasing experience.
Combine that with the ride and handling and the sheer beauty of the thing - just LOOK at it - make a it an amazing car.
I've since changed to a DB11 V12 with the AMR upgrade. It's very different and has serious speed potential that still takes me by surprise. In GT mode it is still happy in a wafty, relaxed way and very gentle and relaxed to drive. Sport and Sport+ are totally different and need concentration, even with all the safety systems engaged. Most of the time though I just enjoy the soundtrack and relaxed driving experience knowing that at the click of a button on the steering wheel I can go into Warp Factor 10 mode.
Still miss the V8V though and if space and money were available, I'd have both the DB11 and a V8V
BaggyQuin said:
My brother-in-law once proudly told me that his Jag i-Pace is quicker 0-60 than my V8V 4.7S. And I have to admit many of the quick electric cars do feel like rocket ships under hard acceleration. But, hey, I think we all know which car we would rather own.
I always reply with - "so is falling out of a window."I had a 2007 4.3 Vantage roadster until a few years ago.
Now this car was the one of the oldest, least powerful and heaviest of the VH vantage range, so would have been amongst the least capable on paper. However whenever I pushed it just a little, I was aware that I was arriving at license losing speeds very quickly.
If I had the money, of course I would have enhanced its performance, I wouldn't have been able to help myself, but if I did I probably wouldn't have a license at the moment - presuming of course I wasn't in jail.
To me, this car was an object lesson in continuous restraint, but I absolutely loved it and would have another in a heartbeat.
You people who still have their Astons - you are SO lucky. Enjoy them while you still can.
Now this car was the one of the oldest, least powerful and heaviest of the VH vantage range, so would have been amongst the least capable on paper. However whenever I pushed it just a little, I was aware that I was arriving at license losing speeds very quickly.
If I had the money, of course I would have enhanced its performance, I wouldn't have been able to help myself, but if I did I probably wouldn't have a license at the moment - presuming of course I wasn't in jail.
To me, this car was an object lesson in continuous restraint, but I absolutely loved it and would have another in a heartbeat.
You people who still have their Astons - you are SO lucky. Enjoy them while you still can.
For the ten years previous to buying my 4.3 V8V, I had a turbo-nutter Fiat Coupe, which over that period, I took from 220bhp to 488bhp (new owner has since taken it above 500bhp...)
Even from a standing start (hardly a good test for a FWD car), it was stupidly quick (about 9 seconds 0-100). From a rolling start, it was ridiculous - it would happily see off a 1st Gen Nissan GT-R, or an R8 or even a Giulia QV. A really miffed 911 GT3 owner sought me out in the pits at Bedford Autodrome to find out how I caught him up by the entrance to every corner (he still dropped me through the corners though...). I never got it to it's top speed, but suffice to say, it only shifted from 5th to 6th gear at north of 160. It has been well off it's 180mph speedo on an airfield - given a long enough straight, I reckon it would hit 190+. It was geared for 201mph at the redline.
All very entertaining, but it could go from the motorway speed limit to a custodial sentence in way under 10 seconds and I found that I was scared to use its full potential anywhere other than a track.
The Vantage is MUCH slower than the Fiat, but I find that most of the time, I just don't care. It's still quick enough to be enjoyable and it's still faster than 95% of the other traffic on the road. Ultimately, it is a pretty quick car, but it just doesn't feel it. I think the lack of mid-range torque (relative to a forced induction car) means it has to be revved hard to get the max out of it, but I find it's still just as entertaining at 7/10.
Just like the mad Fiat, I'm guessing that many 'true' supercars have to be going very fast before it feels like they are working hard. The Aston somehow just likes the Goldilocks zone of 50-100 - it feels quick enough, sounds great and probably won't end up with a lengthy ban if caught.
Before I bought the Aston, I was really worried that an additional 300kg over my Fiat and 100bhp less would leave me frustrated. I shouldn't have worried....
Even from a standing start (hardly a good test for a FWD car), it was stupidly quick (about 9 seconds 0-100). From a rolling start, it was ridiculous - it would happily see off a 1st Gen Nissan GT-R, or an R8 or even a Giulia QV. A really miffed 911 GT3 owner sought me out in the pits at Bedford Autodrome to find out how I caught him up by the entrance to every corner (he still dropped me through the corners though...). I never got it to it's top speed, but suffice to say, it only shifted from 5th to 6th gear at north of 160. It has been well off it's 180mph speedo on an airfield - given a long enough straight, I reckon it would hit 190+. It was geared for 201mph at the redline.
All very entertaining, but it could go from the motorway speed limit to a custodial sentence in way under 10 seconds and I found that I was scared to use its full potential anywhere other than a track.
The Vantage is MUCH slower than the Fiat, but I find that most of the time, I just don't care. It's still quick enough to be enjoyable and it's still faster than 95% of the other traffic on the road. Ultimately, it is a pretty quick car, but it just doesn't feel it. I think the lack of mid-range torque (relative to a forced induction car) means it has to be revved hard to get the max out of it, but I find it's still just as entertaining at 7/10.
Just like the mad Fiat, I'm guessing that many 'true' supercars have to be going very fast before it feels like they are working hard. The Aston somehow just likes the Goldilocks zone of 50-100 - it feels quick enough, sounds great and probably won't end up with a lengthy ban if caught.
Before I bought the Aston, I was really worried that an additional 300kg over my Fiat and 100bhp less would leave me frustrated. I shouldn't have worried....
I can't work out whether it's the fact that the 4.3 sounds faster (ridiculously so) than it's going, or "feels" slower than it actually is. Different sides of the coin. The later of which OP explains very well and why.
All I know is, the longer I own mine (coming up for a year,) the more I think it's just spot on and as Nigel says, the "goldilocks" car.
I still would quite like to stick some sports cats on it and a gentle remap to accommodate those - but not bothered either way.
I'd love something like an F430 one day - but only of the Vantage could stay.
In the 4.3 creeping up to about 30 in 1st, then redlining to 4th, is just hilarious. I love mine so much. And I genuinely can't think of a better looking car from the 20th century, than the early, subtle 05-09 V8Vs... before the change in bumpers, addition of flared sills etc. I love the red rear lights. The more you look and appreciate its design - such as how the waistline flows straight over the rear arches then flicks up over the rear lights - and how it just "sits" as standard.
Perfection really.
All I know is, the longer I own mine (coming up for a year,) the more I think it's just spot on and as Nigel says, the "goldilocks" car.
I still would quite like to stick some sports cats on it and a gentle remap to accommodate those - but not bothered either way.
I'd love something like an F430 one day - but only of the Vantage could stay.
In the 4.3 creeping up to about 30 in 1st, then redlining to 4th, is just hilarious. I love mine so much. And I genuinely can't think of a better looking car from the 20th century, than the early, subtle 05-09 V8Vs... before the change in bumpers, addition of flared sills etc. I love the red rear lights. The more you look and appreciate its design - such as how the waistline flows straight over the rear arches then flicks up over the rear lights - and how it just "sits" as standard.
Perfection really.
I would have argued that the 4.3 didn't set my under crackers on fire in the one test drive I did around 8 years ago. But that's probably because I was too wary of trying the full capabilities when driving an Aston for the first time and with the sales guy sat next to me.
Having tried to keep up with a fellow AMOC member in, admittedly, a slightly more powerful N400 spec Vantage Roadster, whilst I was in a V12 Vantage AMR, made me realise they are all plenty fast enough for public roads. It's more down to the skill and nerve of the driver in suitable conditions.
I maintain the 2015 Boxster S I owned for less than a year was faster than my V12 in any real world condition. But the joy of the Aston is that you don't have to be above 7/10ths to enjoy it. It's one of the few cars that's as joyous to drive at 30mph through a village as at higher speeds on the open moors. The Boxster was just (relatively) nondescript at anything less than 9/10ths.
Having tried to keep up with a fellow AMOC member in, admittedly, a slightly more powerful N400 spec Vantage Roadster, whilst I was in a V12 Vantage AMR, made me realise they are all plenty fast enough for public roads. It's more down to the skill and nerve of the driver in suitable conditions.
I maintain the 2015 Boxster S I owned for less than a year was faster than my V12 in any real world condition. But the joy of the Aston is that you don't have to be above 7/10ths to enjoy it. It's one of the few cars that's as joyous to drive at 30mph through a village as at higher speeds on the open moors. The Boxster was just (relatively) nondescript at anything less than 9/10ths.
Krhuangbin said:
And I genuinely can't think of a better looking car from the 20th century, than the early, subtle 05-09 V8Vs... before the change in bumpers, addition of flared sills etc. I love the red rear lights. The more you look and appreciate its design - such as how the waistline flows straight over the rear arches then flicks up over the rear lights - and how it just "sits" as standard.
Perfection really.
This. I am all for the car before it got the flared sills and silver rear lights. The tucked under sill looks so clean and the red rear lights (to my eyes) look much smarter. Perfection really.
Whilst I was not unhappy with the performance of the stock 4.3, it does take well to lightening the flywheel, putting some good tyres on it and letting it exhale more freely with the addition of some hi flow cats with a subtle map. It just livens up what is a rather docile car below 4k revs and makes the driving experience much more enjoyable than it was previously (and it want at all bad). There are very few cars that still look this fresh and create so much attention from kids admiring looks/comments to those that stop to talk to you as you fill up and as others have stated, the car looks a lot more expensive than most people would realise.
I decided to keep mine instead of selling it despite some late interest. Its one of the few cars that makes you look back after parking it and walking away. It never get boring and makes all the right noises.
Thanks for all the comments guys
It took me years to fully sort out my own storied V8VS, this was the reason I just couldn’t part with it even when I got a DB11.
Those Vantages can really get under your skin, as so many of you guys commenting explain so well.
j4r4lly said:
I previously owned a 2007 4.3 V8V…….since changed to a DB11 V12 with the AMR upgrade. It's very different and has serious speed potential…..Still miss the V8V though and if space and money were available, I'd have both the DB11 and a V8V
I especially totally get this. It took me years to fully sort out my own storied V8VS, this was the reason I just couldn’t part with it even when I got a DB11.
Those Vantages can really get under your skin, as so many of you guys commenting explain so well.
Edited by Calinours on Saturday 17th December 18:42
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff