RE: Aston Martin DB11 V8: Driven

[aeropilot]

While the car as a whole leaves me cold (most modern cars do now) I do like that bonkers purple interior - fabulous

[RichB]

RBH58 said:

And am I the only person that thinks the DB11 is the least pretty Aston ever?

Least pretty Aston ever? Well, you're forgetting the '90s Virage or the V8 Zagato

But seriously, no, I don't think you are. Many people have expressed that unlike the the DB7 when it was launched or the (original) Vanquish or indeed DB9 it doesn't immediately grab you. When I first saw one last year I thought, ok it's nice, of course it is, it's an Aston Martin, but it's not stunningly good looking most other Astons...

[swisstoni]

I think it pretty good follow up to previous designs given the epicness of the DB9 and its various iterations; apart from the back view - something not working there.
I'm sure they'll fix it with facelifts (arselifts?) in the future.

[RBH58]

RichB said:

Least pretty Aston ever? Well, you're forgetting the '90s Virage or the V8 Zagato

But seriously, no, I don't think you are. Many people have expressed that unlike the the DB7 when it was launched or the (original) Vanquish or indeed DB9 it doesn't immediately grab you. When I first saw one last year I thought, ok it's nice, of course it is, it's an Aston Martin, but it's not stunningly good looking most other Astons...

Actually I thought about the Virage and V8 Zagato when I wrote that statement. Yep, the Virage is not one of their brightest moments, but I think that V8 Zagato has aged surprisingly well.

[Ken Figenus]

Seriously it looks so much better in the flesh - it has real presence commensurate with the price tag. Aston's press car colour choices also do it no favours.

Drove the V12 and I was aware at all times that it was a turbocharged car. My NA V12 (with 100bhp less) just felt more flexible, progressive and linear which I much preferred. You cant argue with 600bhp though and huge low down torque - its a bl00dy rocket!!!

[Speedraser]

Mosdef said:

Sadly, you’re probably right about Speedraser. He has a unique Aston, one with bits sourced from Ford and Jaguar don’t you know. It doesn’t matter that it’s been put together with a parts bin raid approach, its unique and no other car has been cobbled together in the same way. AM is, after all, renowned for its long history of engine development...oh, hang on!!

The evolution behind this car is what would convince me to finally buy an AM and is also what will guarantee any chance of its survival. Glad they’ve done the sensible thing in this downsized, turbocharged era.

Mosdef, if you’re going to insult me, at least do it with some clue about what I know about my cars, and what I believe an Aston should be. There is plenty of information on that on this forum – it shouldn’t be hard to deduce, yet you clearly haven’t. If you won’t buy an Aston until it has a Benz engine in it, then you really should just buy a Benz.

[Speedraser]

sidesauce said:

So so tempting...

I'm waiting for Speedraser to come along and say 'it's not a proper Aston Martin as it's not an Aston Martin engine' but frankly I don't, nor I suspect many others will, care.

I’ve been busy but here I am. You and many others won’t care. I do, and I know many who also care. Most won’t care, in large part because most won’t care enough even to know.

Dan Trent’s first several paragraphs clearly show that the emotional aspect of Aston Martin is a very real part of a car like this, as it should be. The engine source matters to him as it’s a big part of that emotional appeal, and while he says the V8 works well, he’d choose the V12 – it’s more appealing and appropriate. Is that because it’s a V12 rather than a V8? I’d think not, or at least only partly – it’s where the V8 comes from that’s a problem, as it clearly is very good to drive.

For me, an off-the-shelf, merely bought-in engine dropped into an “Aston Martin” comprehensively ruins it. It is an absolute, non-negotiable deal-breaker, as it obliterates the appeal and desire I would have for the car. I love Aston Martin – the cars and the marque – but the odds of my buying an “Aston” with an AMG engine are zero. The whole point, for me, of an Aston Martin is that it’s an Aston Martin, and that means its engine and platform/structure MUST be bespoke to Aston – not shared with anyone else. Who that engine supplier is matters not at all, nor does it matter how good that engine is – if it’s someone else’s engine, the rest doesn’t matter.

Lewis, perhaps you’re more of a purist than I am and consider only clean-sheet Aston engines worthy of being called Aston engines, the last of which was the Tadek Marek V8. However, IMO, the 4.3/4.7 V8s and the V12s are Aston Martin engines. I’ve been through this just a few times before , but here we go: The V8 is “based on” or “derived from” the Jaguar 4.2 V8. However, Aston redesigned/re-engineered it so thoroughly that the Aston engines have their own, unique/bespoke, block, crankshaft, bearings, rods, pistons, rings, heads, valves, camshafts, etc. – everything is unique to Aston Martin. The V12 is based on the architecture of Ford’s V6, but is far more than just the often-(mis)stated two V6s stuck together, and after Ford’s concept engine it was re-engineered by Cosworth specifically for Aston Martin. The Aston V12 has only ever been offered in Aston Martin cars. NONE of this can be said about the AMG engine.

The 4.3/4.7 V8 and the V12 may not be clean-sheet designs for Aston, but IMO they represent an ENTIRELY different situation from an engine simply bought-in from someone else and that is IDENTICAL – block, crank, heads, bearings, etc. are completely unchanged -- to those in innumerable AMG cars. To add further insult to injury, the DB11 V8 is the first “Aston” with an under-bonnet appearance that is UGLY, and in which you can’t even really see the engine. To Aston’s credit, they don’t pretend it’s anything other than someone else’s engine, even stating that they have tuned it to make it feel and sound “like an Aston Martin engine.” That’s because it isn’t an Aston Martin engine. For me, that means it’s not really an Aston Martin. What’s next? Shared V12s? Shared platforms? Shameful.

[Streetrod]

Speedraser said:

sidesauce said:

So so tempting...

I'm waiting for Speedraser to come along and say 'it's not a proper Aston Martin as it's not an Aston Martin engine' but frankly I don't, nor I suspect many others will, care.

I’ve been busy but here I am. You and many others won’t care. I do, and I know many who also care. Most won’t care, in large part because most won’t care enough even to know.

Dan Trent’s first several paragraphs clearly show that the emotional aspect of Aston Martin is a very real part of a car like this, as it should be. The engine source matters to him as it’s a big part of that emotional appeal, and while he says the V8 works well, he’d choose the V12 – it’s more appealing and appropriate. Is that because it’s a V12 rather than a V8? I’d think not, or at least only partly – it’s where the V8 comes from that’s a problem, as it clearly is very good to drive.

For me, an off-the-shelf, merely bought-in engine dropped into an “Aston Martin” comprehensively ruins it. It is an absolute, non-negotiable deal-breaker, as it obliterates the appeal and desire I would have for the car. I love Aston Martin – the cars and the marque – but the odds of my buying an “Aston” with an AMG engine are zero. The whole point, for me, of an Aston Martin is that it’s an Aston Martin, and that means its engine and platform/structure MUST be bespoke to Aston – not shared with anyone else. Who that engine supplier is matters not at all, nor does it matter how good that engine is – if it’s someone else’s engine, the rest doesn’t matter.

Lewis, perhaps you’re more of a purist than I am and consider only clean-sheet Aston engines worthy of being called Aston engines, the last of which was the Tadek Marek V8. However, IMO, the 4.3/4.7 V8s and the V12s are Aston Martin engines. I’ve been through this just a few times before , but here we go: The V8 is “based on” or “derived from” the Jaguar 4.2 V8. However, Aston redesigned/re-engineered it so thoroughly that the Aston engines have their own, unique/bespoke, block, crankshaft, bearings, rods, pistons, rings, heads, valves, camshafts, etc. – everything is unique to Aston Martin. The V12 is based on the architecture of Ford’s V6, but is far more than just the often-(mis)stated two V6s stuck together, and after Ford’s concept engine it was re-engineered by Cosworth specifically for Aston Martin. The Aston V12 has only ever been offered in Aston Martin cars. NONE of this can be said about the AMG engine.

The 4.3/4.7 V8 and the V12 may not be clean-sheet designs for Aston, but IMO they represent an ENTIRELY different situation from an engine simply bought-in from someone else and that is IDENTICAL – block, crank, heads, bearings, etc. are completely unchanged -- to those in innumerable AMG cars. To add further insult to injury, the DB11 V8 is the first “Aston” with an under-bonnet appearance that is UGLY, and in which you can’t even really see the engine. To Aston’s credit, they don’t pretend it’s anything other than someone else’s engine, even stating that they have tuned it to make it feel and sound “like an Aston Martin engine.” That’s because it isn’t an Aston Martin engine. For me, that means it’s not really an Aston Martin. What’s next? Shared V12s? Shared platforms? Shameful.

Speedraser, I understand where you are coming from and share your passion, but passion on it own will not ensure Aston Martin's future.

Aston as a brand has bumped from one crisis to the next rarely making a profit. The AMG V8 is vital to ensuring the companies long-term future especially in growing markets like China where car tax is based on engine capacity and where AM need to make an impact.

Developing your own engine nowadays has become so expensive that tie ups like this will become the lifeblood of companies like Aston. At least currently you have the choice between the V8 and the V12.

I suggest you talk to the employees at Gaydon and tell them their current path is "Shameful" Their longterm future and the success of Aston is at stake here, AMG are doing them a massive favour.

By the way I am going to be testing the V12 and V8 DB11 back to back as soon as my dealer gets a V8 test car in. I will report back soon

[chelme]

Streetrod said:

Speedraser said:

sidesauce said:

So so tempting...

I'm waiting for Speedraser to come along and say 'it's not a proper Aston Martin as it's not an Aston Martin engine' but frankly I don't, nor I suspect many others will, care.

I’ve been busy but here I am. You and many others won’t care. I do, and I know many who also care. Most won’t care, in large part because most won’t care enough even to know.

Dan Trent’s first several paragraphs clearly show that the emotional aspect of Aston Martin is a very real part of a car like this, as it should be. The engine source matters to him as it’s a big part of that emotional appeal, and while he says the V8 works well, he’d choose the V12 – it’s more appealing and appropriate. Is that because it’s a V12 rather than a V8? I’d think not, or at least only partly – it’s where the V8 comes from that’s a problem, as it clearly is very good to drive.

For me, an off-the-shelf, merely bought-in engine dropped into an “Aston Martin” comprehensively ruins it. It is an absolute, non-negotiable deal-breaker, as it obliterates the appeal and desire I would have for the car. I love Aston Martin – the cars and the marque – but the odds of my buying an “Aston” with an AMG engine are zero. The whole point, for me, of an Aston Martin is that it’s an Aston Martin, and that means its engine and platform/structure MUST be bespoke to Aston – not shared with anyone else. Who that engine supplier is matters not at all, nor does it matter how good that engine is – if it’s someone else’s engine, the rest doesn’t matter.

Lewis, perhaps you’re more of a purist than I am and consider only clean-sheet Aston engines worthy of being called Aston engines, the last of which was the Tadek Marek V8. However, IMO, the 4.3/4.7 V8s and the V12s are Aston Martin engines. I’ve been through this just a few times before , but here we go: The V8 is “based on” or “derived from” the Jaguar 4.2 V8. However, Aston redesigned/re-engineered it so thoroughly that the Aston engines have their own, unique/bespoke, block, crankshaft, bearings, rods, pistons, rings, heads, valves, camshafts, etc. – everything is unique to Aston Martin. The V12 is based on the architecture of Ford’s V6, but is far more than just the often-(mis)stated two V6s stuck together, and after Ford’s concept engine it was re-engineered by Cosworth specifically for Aston Martin. The Aston V12 has only ever been offered in Aston Martin cars. NONE of this can be said about the AMG engine.

The 4.3/4.7 V8 and the V12 may not be clean-sheet designs for Aston, but IMO they represent an ENTIRELY different situation from an engine simply bought-in from someone else and that is IDENTICAL – block, crank, heads, bearings, etc. are completely unchanged -- to those in innumerable AMG cars. To add further insult to injury, the DB11 V8 is the first “Aston” with an under-bonnet appearance that is UGLY, and in which you can’t even really see the engine. To Aston’s credit, they don’t pretend it’s anything other than someone else’s engine, even stating that they have tuned it to make it feel and sound “like an Aston Martin engine.” That’s because it isn’t an Aston Martin engine. For me, that means it’s not really an Aston Martin. What’s next? Shared V12s? Shared platforms? Shameful.

Speedraser, I understand where you are coming from and share your passion, but passion on it own will not ensure Aston Martin's future.

Aston as a brand has bumped from one crisis to the next rarely making a profit. The AMG V8 is vital to ensuring the companies long-term future especially in growing markets like China where car tax is based on engine capacity and where AM need to make an impact.

Developing your own engine nowadays has become so expensive that tie ups like this will become the lifeblood of companies like Aston. At least currently you have the choice between the V8 and the V12.

I suggest you talk to the employees at Gaydon and tell them their current path is "Shameful" Their longterm future and the success of Aston is at stake here, AMG are doing them a massive favour.

By the way I am going to be testing the V12 and V8 DB11 back to back as soon as my dealer gets a V8 test car in. I will report back soon

I totally share Speedraser's sentiment, because argue all we like, I too believe that buying a luxury vehicle is as much, if not more, irrational than it is a rational purchase. I am aware of this in myself, and I accept it and therefore, if I were in the market for an AM, I too would be put off buying this version.

I have done this before and I will do it again. I will point out that in the history of the automobile, all the luxury, or exclusive cars which were made with CRATE engines (which were not significantly modified to become bespoke for the vehicle) or adopted platform and/or drive-trains from other vehicles failed to survive in the long term, with many others facing close to extinction with their heads just above the water:

These cars that come to mind, include, but are not limited to:
Alfa Romeo
Lotus
AC
De Tomaso
Seleen
Iso
Autobianchi
Jensen
Wiessman...(anyone care to add to the list, please do)

Platform sharing and engine sharing is not so important within the context of buying an ordinary car to do the daily duties of A to B, however when it comes to luxury goods, the bespoke nature of the good, whether it is a Gucci, a Patek Phillipe or an Aston Martin/Porche 911/Ferrari is very important albeit an irrational, and uncontroversial/undeniable draw. BECAUSE we are human.

McLaren and more recently TVR appreciated this, which is why the engines, albeit originally developed for other cars are bespoke for these vehicles, more or less.

AM, 'by simply lifting the 4.0 AMG from a C Class' (yes this is irrational, however a valid perception) and fitting it into the most important model is arguably a marketing faux pas, especially since AM admit this so openly.

Edited by chelme on Tuesday 10th October 10:27

Edited by chelme on Tuesday 10th October 10:36

[Streetrod]

chelme said:

Streetrod said:

Speedraser said:

sidesauce said:

So so tempting...

I'm waiting for Speedraser to come along and say 'it's not a proper Aston Martin as it's not an Aston Martin engine' but frankly I don't, nor I suspect many others will, care.

I’ve been busy but here I am. You and many others won’t care. I do, and I know many who also care. Most won’t care, in large part because most won’t care enough even to know.

Dan Trent’s first several paragraphs clearly show that the emotional aspect of Aston Martin is a very real part of a car like this, as it should be. The engine source matters to him as it’s a big part of that emotional appeal, and while he says the V8 works well, he’d choose the V12 – it’s more appealing and appropriate. Is that because it’s a V12 rather than a V8? I’d think not, or at least only partly – it’s where the V8 comes from that’s a problem, as it clearly is very good to drive.

For me, an off-the-shelf, merely bought-in engine dropped into an “Aston Martin” comprehensively ruins it. It is an absolute, non-negotiable deal-breaker, as it obliterates the appeal and desire I would have for the car. I love Aston Martin – the cars and the marque – but the odds of my buying an “Aston” with an AMG engine are zero. The whole point, for me, of an Aston Martin is that it’s an Aston Martin, and that means its engine and platform/structure MUST be bespoke to Aston – not shared with anyone else. Who that engine supplier is matters not at all, nor does it matter how good that engine is – if it’s someone else’s engine, the rest doesn’t matter.

Lewis, perhaps you’re more of a purist than I am and consider only clean-sheet Aston engines worthy of being called Aston engines, the last of which was the Tadek Marek V8. However, IMO, the 4.3/4.7 V8s and the V12s are Aston Martin engines. I’ve been through this just a few times before , but here we go: The V8 is “based on” or “derived from” the Jaguar 4.2 V8. However, Aston redesigned/re-engineered it so thoroughly that the Aston engines have their own, unique/bespoke, block, crankshaft, bearings, rods, pistons, rings, heads, valves, camshafts, etc. – everything is unique to Aston Martin. The V12 is based on the architecture of Ford’s V6, but is far more than just the often-(mis)stated two V6s stuck together, and after Ford’s concept engine it was re-engineered by Cosworth specifically for Aston Martin. The Aston V12 has only ever been offered in Aston Martin cars. NONE of this can be said about the AMG engine.

The 4.3/4.7 V8 and the V12 may not be clean-sheet designs for Aston, but IMO they represent an ENTIRELY different situation from an engine simply bought-in from someone else and that is IDENTICAL – block, crank, heads, bearings, etc. are completely unchanged -- to those in innumerable AMG cars. To add further insult to injury, the DB11 V8 is the first “Aston” with an under-bonnet appearance that is UGLY, and in which you can’t even really see the engine. To Aston’s credit, they don’t pretend it’s anything other than someone else’s engine, even stating that they have tuned it to make it feel and sound “like an Aston Martin engine.” That’s because it isn’t an Aston Martin engine. For me, that means it’s not really an Aston Martin. What’s next? Shared V12s? Shared platforms? Shameful.

Speedraser, I understand where you are coming from and share your passion, but passion on it own will not ensure Aston Martin's future.

Aston as a brand has bumped from one crisis to the next rarely making a profit. The AMG V8 is vital to ensuring the companies long-term future especially in growing markets like China where car tax is based on engine capacity and where AM need to make an impact.

Developing your own engine nowadays has become so expensive that tie ups like this will become the lifeblood of companies like Aston. At least currently you have the choice between the V8 and the V12.

I suggest you talk to the employees at Gaydon and tell them their current path is "Shameful" Their longterm future and the success of Aston is at stake here, AMG are doing them a massive favour.

By the way I am going to be testing the V12 and V8 DB11 back to back as soon as my dealer gets a V8 test car in. I will report back soon

I totally share Speedraser's sentiment, because argue all we like, I too believe that buying a luxury vehicle is as much, if not more, irrational than it is a rational purchase. I am aware of this in myself, and I accept it and therefore, if I were in the market for an AM, I too would be put off buying this version.

I have done this before and I will do it again. I will point out that in the history of the automobile, all the luxury, or exclusive cars which were made with CRATE engines (which were not significantly modified to become bespoke for the vehicle) or adopted platform and/or drive-trains from other vehicles failed to survive in the long term, with many others facing close to extinction with their heads just above the water:

These cars that come to mind, include, but are not limited to:
Alfa Romeo
Lotus
AC
De Tomaso
Seleen
Iso
Autobianchi
Jensen
Wiessman...(anyone care to add to the list, please do)

Platform sharing and engine sharing is not so important within the context of buying an ordinary car to do the daily duties of A to B, however when it comes to luxury goods, the bespoke nature of the good, whether it is a Gucci, a Patek Phillipe or an Aston Martin/Porche 911/Ferrari is very important albeit an irrational, and uncontroversial/undeniable draw. BECAUSE we are human.

McLaren and more recently TVR appreciated this, which is why the engines, albeit originally developed for other cars are bespoke for these vehicles, more or less.

AM, 'by simply lifting the 4.0 AMG from a C Class' (yes this is irrational, however a valid perception) and fitting it into the most important model is arguably a marketing faux pas, especially since AM admit this so openly.

Edited by chelme on Tuesday 10th October 10:27

Edited by chelme on Tuesday 10th October 10:36

Sorry but could not be more wrong. Only a certain proportion of the AM client base will care where the engine comes from. AM are also not just looking to accommodate loyal customers but attract new ones who will not nessassarly be aware of the companies history.

It is naive to think that AM can be a success if it only panders to past customers, and as I said before they have to build world cars that are likely to sell in emerging markets which is what the V8 is mainly aimed at.

Be aware that the V8 engine will also be seen in next years Vantage, are you going to reject that idea as well, if not what engine would you like them to use and how will they afford to finance the development of that engine?

And one last point that puts a nail into you your argument. How do you account for the success of Rolls Royce which are based on the BMW 7 series platform and BMW V12 engines?

[Speedraser]

There is a HUGE gap between developing a clean-sheet engine and merely dropping an off-the-shelf-someone-else's-engine into the car. The 4.3/4.7 Aston V8 engine is a great example of a point along that continuum, in which they developed an effectively bespoke Aston Martin engine without the enormous expense of a clean sheet design. It cost more, of course, then being reduced to using someone else's engine, but the result was a credible, authentic Aston Martin. At a different point along that continuum could be something like using the AMG engine as a base, but developing different heads, or a shorter (or longer) stroke -- something to at least attempt to do something different. It's not as cheap as just using an unchanged off-the-shelf-engine, but this is Aston Martin -- it's worth it! Aston/AMG have done NOTHING to make this an Aston engine. At least, to their credit, they're not claiming or pretending that it's an Aston engine in any way. BTW, the AMG-DB11 is the first "Aston" with a truly ugly under-bonnet appearance -- also a massive shame.

Rolls-Royce: I've no interest in a Ghost/Wraith/Dawn for precisely this reason -- they're BMW-based. Sad. At least the Phantom has its own structure. Also, I've read that the next generation Ghost (and other R-Rs) may NOT share platforms with BMWs, which would be a major step forward if it's true. Sharing major components is ALWAYS a compromise.

Bentley: Same story -- I've never wanted a Continental GT/Flying Spur because it's VW Phaeton-based. Would Bentley have chosen a front-drive-oriented platform? Surely not. The proportions have never been quite right because the front wheels are too far back because of the Phaeton platform. Would Bentley have chosen to cantilever the engines as far forward as possible, resulting in a tremendously front-heavy weight distribution? Of course not. Further, the engines are VW-Audi, which is a huge shame in a car in that league. Most owners have no clue -- they "drive a Bentley ." Some do care when they find out -- I've seen it happen... The just-introduced new Conti GT shares a platform that is perhaps more appropriate, but I'd still want a Bentley to be a Bentley -- not a Porsche. The Mulsanne is a different story.

About Aston being unable to rely only on past customers to survive if they didn't use the AMG engine: Why would that be the case??? Surely if Aston used their own V8, not only past customers would buy them! I would consider trading my V8 Vantage for the next generation car IF it had an Aston engine, but this current Aston customer will absolutely not be a buyer of a new Vantage with an AMG engine.

[E65Ross]

Speedraser - some of your comments seem a bit hypocritical. You say that it's OK to have a "semi" Aston engine (eg in the Vantage), yet sharing a platform but basically NOTHING else with RR is a major turn off? Yet the crappy shared sat nav system etc in the Aston isn't?

If the bits that are shared are very good, what's the harm?

Let's say Aston were to develop their own engine, knowing they have a set budget, the rest of the car wouldn't be as good (as more of the budget would be spent elsewhere), and the engine would likely not be as good either....yet that would be a far more appealing proposition to you?

Funny isn't it, yes, the RR Ghost shares the 7 series platform.....doesn't seem to have hindered any of the reviews of those who've driven it; same with the Wraith and Dawn.

You say the Conti shares the Phaeton platform....and the V8 in the CGT is shared amongst its siblings (as was the W12)....yet that car has been getting very good reviews indeed.

[Speedraser]

I've always said that, IMO, the things that must not be shared are the platform/structure (the "bones") and the engine (the "heart") -- those are, IMO, the items that make the car what it is -- gives a car its "soul" -- more than any other parts. These give the car its sound, its feel, its character and, to me, its authenticity (or lack thereof). I couldn't possibly care less about where the satnav comes from -- it has nothing whatsoever to do with what makes a car what it is. BTW, the Ghost also has a BMW-based engine, as well as a BMW-based platform.

I consider the 4.3/4.7 Aston V8 engine an Aston Martin engine. It has its own, bespoke, unique to Aston block, crank, conrods, bearing, pistons, heads, cams, valves, etc. -- essentially nothing is shared with the Jaguar engine it was "derived from." That's sufficient for me. See, I'm not unreasonable There may be a point where a car is based on a shared platform but that platform is so completely re-engineered that it effectively shares nothing with the "donor" platform that I'd consider it the "real thing," but I haven't seen it yet.

About Bentley, R-R and their sales success with shared platforms and engines: Sales success has nothing whatsoever to do with whether I personally consider something desirable -- no matter how good they are (or how good the reviews are), I simply don't want it -- the emotional appeal, the desire, just goes away. To me, a Bentley should actually be a Bentley, and that means Bentley-only platform and engine. Most people who buy these cars have zero knowledge of what they are, how they were developed, who owns the company, or whether they're really something else underneath. If they knew, some would care, and some wouldn't. I care, and while I'm surely not in the majority, I'm also not alone.

Edited by Speedraser on Friday 13th October 22:09

Edited by Speedraser on Friday 13th October 22:12

[cardigankid]

What is wrong is that Aston Martin have lost it in the interior department. This is a brilliant car but I won’t buy one until they get this sorted out. First a mistake they would never have made in the DB6 days. There is no view over the bonnet. The undoubted elegance of the design is reserved for onlookers not the occupants. This is one thing that Jaguar get right. Second they are going through a really nasty 70’s revival phase. That quartic steering wheel is bad news. Design is based on geometry and this doesn’t have any. The dash and vents are Bay City Rollers accentuated by the naff tweed on the NC500 edition, and the upholstery is frankly Gary Glitter. No way will I pay 150k for a car and sit in that mess.

[cardigankid]

On the engine - back in the day luxury cars were expected to be hand built by craftsmen. What stopped that was the realisation that hand building may have been great in the 1920’s but the craftsmen could not build something as consistent and high quality as a really well sorted out production line. It’s the same with engines. Aston Martin could not afford to design and produce a bespoke engine to compete with the best out there. What do you want? A car which is just consistently a bit more crap than the neighbour’s Audi? They will gradually enhance the Merc engine and is as it should be.

[cardigankid]

Anyway, even McLaren buys in its engine. Curiously Bentley bought in an engine - the 4 litre - in 1931, at the end of the Vintage period, from Ricardo, who are the same company which supplies McLaren with a their 3.8 litre V8. W.O. wasn’t terribly happy about it, and it wasn’t very good (though that was because it was going into the 8 litre chassis and they built heavy saloons on it. The fact remains that you can own a genuine 1931 vintage Bentley with a bought in engine.