Wednesday 22nd August 2018

1,146hp Aston Martin Valkyrie not verified...yet

Hold your horses! A Cosworth tweet citing the V12's output was "inaccurate information"

---

While we have no doubts that the Cosworth-built V12 engine of the Aston Martin Valkyrie will offer performance so outstanding that it will blow all other naturally aspirated engines out of the water, PH can confirm that the 1,146hp (1130bhp) output claimed on Twitter (and screenshotted by Road and Track) by Cosworth yesterday is in fact not accurate. Or at least, not yet.

Because while much of the internet has been whipped into a frenzy over the prospect of a 6.5-litre engine that breaths atmospherically to produce 1,146hp - which we should add, is 346hp more than the N/A V12 of the Ferrari 812 Superfast - it turns out the tweet that revealed that figure was in fact based on inaccurate information and put out by a junior member of staff. Pray for them.

Cosworth told PistonHeads that the Aston Martin Valkyrie’s engine is currently on the dynamometers at Cosworth’s UK facilities, and is still in the process of being calibrated. As such, Cossie still has no precise figures for its output at this stage.

As you were, then.

Still, it’s not like the final figure is set to be much below that. In fact, there’s every chance it could exceed it, given that the company making the V12 has extensive motorsport experience, which includes 176 Formula One wins, making it the sport’s second most successful engine supplier behind Ferrari.

Aston Martin has previously confirmed that the car will have a 1:1 power-to-weight ratio, which has led most to speculate an output of around 1,100hp. Even with this lower number, the Valkyrie’s motor would, to put it into technical terms, still wipe the floor with every naturally aspirated road going alternative.

We can expect the rest of the car to be just as awe inspiring as its powerplant because it has been co-developed with Red Bull Racing and its chief technical officer, Adrian Newey, who knows a thing or two about high performance cars. For F1 engineering mastermind Newey, this is a rare case of motorsport regulation-free car development. The Valkyrie is set to be more even more advanced than an F1 car.

We should know just how much more advanced when the first of these British beasts arrives with customers in 2019. Just 150 examples of the car are being produced, each priced at about £2-3 million. 25 track-only Valkyrie AMR Pros follow after that, likely with a further bump in engine performance.

[frayz]

Awesome as it is, its no looker and the 3 screens on the dash look naff.

Not that ive £3m burning a hole in my undercrackers to worry about it

[thegreenhell]

Sighting? Citing?

Impressive output whatever the Cosworth tweet was doing with it.

[kambites]

I think the screens on the left and right are the "mirrors". You couldn't call it pretty but its none the worse for that IMO.

Nearly 200bhp/litre from a naturally aspirated road car engine is pretty impressive. I wonder what the servicing requirements will be like.

Edited by kambites on Wednesday 22 August 12:26

[markh450]

kambites said:

I think the screens on the left and right are the "mirrors". You couldn't call it pretty but its none the worse for that IMO.

Nearly 200bhp/litre from a naturally aspirated road car engine is pretty impressive. I wonder what the servicing requirements will be like.

Edited by kambites on Wednesday 22 August 12:26

Agreed, but doesn't it put into perspective how impressive modern superbikes engines are? Many now routinely develop this same n/a 200bhp/litre. If these can be made reliable enough to be sold with 5000 mile service intervals and expected to do 40-50k, then surely a car maker can do the same with the right budget and without having to worry about making the car / engine practical enough to run to the shops etc etc.

[WCZ]

nice, says 1130bhp in the tweet not 1,146 though?

such a great looking car, a true hypercar inside and out.

so this would be the third car to have 1:1 - the konsigsegg and the caparo t1 which had 1,223 horsepower per tonne!

[Oldwolf]

Nice to see the VW Beetle split-screen brought up to date :-)

[nicholasm]

Presumably the Valkyrie is already compliant with new(ish) WLTP regulations and won't need any re-engineering which could reduce the power output?

[seefarr]

The R&T article quoted suggests that this figure is probably with the hybrid system: "Previously, knowledgeable sources told R&T that the gasoline engine would supply around 1000 horsepower, with the hybrid system boosting total output to 1130." This puts it at 153bhp/L which is still mental.

[Plug Life]

The Rimac C Two wipes its arse with this.

[mudnomad]

Oldwolf said:

Nice to see the VW Beetle split-screen brought up to date :-)

I know it's not meant to be practical but there are tanks with better forward visibility

[Cold]

nicholasm said:

Presumably the Valkyrie is already compliant with new(ish) WLTP regulations and won't need any re-engineering which could reduce the power output?

Highly unlikely. But it seems an odd set of regulations for a track-only car to adhere to.

[nicholasm]

Cold said:

Highly unlikely. But it seems an odd set of regulations for a track-only car to adhere to.

I was thinking of the road cars rather than the AMR Pros. It's something Cosworth will have to consider while they do the calibration.

[E65Ross]

markh450 said:

kambites said:

I think the screens on the left and right are the "mirrors". You couldn't call it pretty but its none the worse for that IMO.

Nearly 200bhp/litre from a naturally aspirated road car engine is pretty impressive. I wonder what the servicing requirements will be like.

Edited by kambites on Wednesday 22 August 12:26

Agreed, but doesn't it put into perspective how impressive modern superbikes engines are? Many now routinely develop this same n/a 200bhp/litre. If these can be made reliable enough to be sold with 5000 mile service intervals and expected to do 40-50k, then surely a car maker can do the same with the right budget and without having to worry about making the car / engine practical enough to run to the shops etc etc.

Not necessarily. A car engine will need much more lower down torque to make it nicer for general usability due to carrying a lot more weight. Cars often see many, many more miles than a motorbike engine, too, as you say. If a car engine blows up at 40-50k miles people aren't going to be very happy at all. Car service intervals are often approaching 20k miles these days, so it's a case of horses for courses. I wouldn't say because the bikes are making more bhp/litre that they're more impressive by any means.

[SturdyHSV]

That'll rev a bit then

Look forward to Max_Torque weighing in to this thread

[Car-Matt]

Plug Life said:

The Rimac C Two burns better this.

ftfy

[DJM7691]

nicholasm said:

Cold said:

Highly unlikely. But it seems an odd set of regulations for a track-only car to adhere to.

I was thinking of the road cars rather than the AMR Pros. It's something Cosworth will have to consider while they do the calibration.

It is highly unlikely that this vehicle will have to comply with WTLP, I imagine there are exemptions for low-run production vehicles that can be applied for, small series approval and the like.

Either way, I would love to know what rpm this can reach to get to that power output, it would be interesting to see the peak torque figure as well!

[nyxster]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I doubt a lot of the owners would be physically fit or race driver skinny enough to even get in it. They should get Tesla to do a remote control version so the overweight billionaire can drive it around his private track whilst sat in a chair dressed in a race suit.

[Mr-B]

Car-Matt said:

Plug Life said:

The Rimac C Two burns better this.

ftfy

LOL.

WCZ said:

nice, says 1130bhp in the tweet not 1,146 though?

such a great looking car, a true hypercar inside and out.

so this would be the third car to have 1:1 - the konsigsegg and the caparo t1 which had 1,223 horsepower per tonne!

Doesn't 1146hp = 1130bhp? I know there is a small difference but not sure which way round.

[boyse7en]

E65Ross said:

Not necessarily. A car engine will need much more lower down torque to make it nicer for general usability due to carrying a lot more weight. Cars often see many, many more miles than a motorbike engine, too, as you say. If a car engine blows up at 40-50k miles people aren't going to be very happy at all. Car service intervals are often approaching 20k miles these days, so it's a case of horses for courses. I wouldn't say because the bikes are making more bhp/litre that they're more impressive by any means.

Not many bike owners would be happy if their engines blew up at 40,000 miles either!

[E65Ross]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I was referring to bike/car engines in general, not this specific one