RE: First Aston Martin SUV confirmed as 'DBX'
Discussion
AdamV12AMR said:
Sport220 said:
FFS, not a single high volume sports car manufacturer having the guts not to build these atrocities!
FFS why didn't I have the guts to not come into work today.Oh yeah, I need the money.
All the customary naysayers purists and empty garagists - none of whom would ever dream of buying the type of car under discussion and seem desperate to want to tell is this in yet another SUV bashing thread - are out in force I see.
As for the “they don’t need to do this” comments has the recent IPO of Aston Martin somehow passed people by ?
Tom_Spotley_When said:
Frances The Mute said:
I love it when people cry about a car they have no intention to even buy, anyway.
It’s almost as if they don’t want the company to succeed and actually make enough money to sustain itself for the future...for a change.
Then, when I buy one 15 years after launch, I, the nasally voiced captain of Meltonshire Golf Club, Vice President of the Rotary Club (East Midlands, North Branch) and Pub Bore can say, I bought a manual for the Driving Experience, I don't expect you to understand.
At some point, people might realise that car companies exist to make money. They make money by making cars people want to buy. People want to buy SUV's - because they're hideously practical and, when you're driving at 50mph in the pissing rain on a wet Tuesday night in December, and just want to get home, it's nice to be above the spray and the rain, sat in a heated seat with a heated steering wheel without a care in the world.
Then, at weekend, you can take your car down a farm track to go fishing/take the dog for a walk/fill with all your kids gear for a day out/go shooting/horse-riding/anything you like in the great outdoors, without scraping the bottom of the car, again.
Of course, this being PH, everyone should daily drive either a Subaru/BMW/Mercedes Estate, with a manual gearbox (I just like being in control of the car - as you sit in traffic each day on your commute to work, I'm sure you're really feeling the benefits) an FM/AM stereo, textile seats, no extra fripperies and a full arctic survival kit in the boot, paid for in cash with a set of £2k winter tyres for the 2 days/year it snows in Berkshire and a job that's so important you can't not get to the office without the world ending.
I'm glad they're making it. I'm pleased RR make the Cullinan, I'm pleased Porsche make the Cayenne and the Macan. I'm also pleased Jaguar make the F-Pace. Why? Because the money they make on these means there's lots more money to be spent on making ridiculous Sportscars.
Can't have one without the other.
SUV's are popular because they are useful. They might be slightly dynamically compromised, but most people couldn't give a hoot about that and frankly, normal driving rarely takes you to the edge of the performance envelope anyway.
Having both a low, small stiffly suspended car with 300+bhp on tap, then I love that when I'm in the mood for driving like an idiot, but during the winter or when I actually want to do stuff like throw children in the back or bikes or tow boats, go shooting etc then the trusty old 4wd, up on stilts thing with fat tyres and epic ride comfort comes out. It might be dynamically awful, but god I love driving it. Comfy, wafty, quiet with a ride that mean your fillings are never troubled.
As a useful family car, it kicks the small fast thing squarely in the pods.
Tom_Spotley_When said:
Of course, this being PH, everyone should daily drive either a Subaru/BMW/Mercedes Estate, with a manual gearbox (I just like being in control of the car - as you sit in traffic each day on your commute to work, I'm sure you're really feeling the benefits) an FM/AM stereo, textile seats, no extra fripperies and a full arctic survival kit in the boot, paid for in cash with a set of £2k winter tyres for the 2 days/year it snows in Berkshire and a job that's so important you can't not get to the office without the world ending.
Can't have one without the other.
Ignoring the point I fully support the DBX (especially as I live in south wales) your description there is scarily accurate to my car bar the seats and fripperies Can't have one without the other.
I agree with your points regarding manufacturers making cars people want, I can't wait to see a DBX up the welsh mountains.
Recently saw one of two Urus that reside in Swansea and think they look great too.
What are the residuals like on very high end SUVs?
For sports cars there are always enthusiast willing to take on aging sports cars (e.g. there are people willing to buy DB7 for 20K). Old Ferrari, Porsches, Lambos, etc very rarely end up on scrap heaps, which must help to act as a base level which prevents the cars becoming worthless.
Is the same love going to extend to these cars? A ten year old Porsche Cayenne can be had for less than 4K, which suggests less people are going to consider it a classic to cherish than a 911.
For sports cars there are always enthusiast willing to take on aging sports cars (e.g. there are people willing to buy DB7 for 20K). Old Ferrari, Porsches, Lambos, etc very rarely end up on scrap heaps, which must help to act as a base level which prevents the cars becoming worthless.
Is the same love going to extend to these cars? A ten year old Porsche Cayenne can be had for less than 4K, which suggests less people are going to consider it a classic to cherish than a 911.
twocolours said:
Doofus said:
Why cover a car in "Don't Look At Me" dazzle camouflage and then plaster the car's name all over it?
The camouflage is used to disguise the styling elements of the car rather than what the car actually is. Similar with the fake rear lights and what look like add on rear trim pieces. It's also a popular marketing trick to drum up interest pre-reveal, hence Aston releasing official images of the test car and plastering it with logos/sponsors.
Fittster said:
What are the residuals like on very high end SUVs?
For sports cars there are always enthusiast willing to take on aging sports cars (e.g. there are people willing to buy DB7 for 20K). Old Ferrari, Porsches, Lambos, etc very rarely end up on scrap heaps, which must help to act as a base level which prevents the cars becoming worthless.
Is the same love going to extend to these cars? A ten year old Porsche Cayenne can be had for less than 4K, which suggests less people are going to consider it a classic to cherish than a 911.
Funny enough (and call me an old silly) I think the original Cayenne will become a classic.For sports cars there are always enthusiast willing to take on aging sports cars (e.g. there are people willing to buy DB7 for 20K). Old Ferrari, Porsches, Lambos, etc very rarely end up on scrap heaps, which must help to act as a base level which prevents the cars becoming worthless.
Is the same love going to extend to these cars? A ten year old Porsche Cayenne can be had for less than 4K, which suggests less people are going to consider it a classic to cherish than a 911.
NJJ said:
At least it seems it will be more authentic than the Lambo Urus by offering a V12. Lambo should have at least offered its V10 as an engine option, but i don't think it would fit given its VAG background.
This is a point that rarely gets mentioned; while folk are busy bashing the AMG origins of some Aston components, or the company in general for its business choices like building an SUV, it's largely forgotten (or ignored) that the Urus and Benteyga are built on the MLB/MLP chassis platform, which is used by the Audi A4, A5 and Q5, and Porsche Macan among others. If you're spending £160k+ on a prestige SUV, it's nice to know the underpinnings are built by the company whose badge is fixed to the car. The DBX is on an Aston chassis, and that's a testament to how big a turnaround the company's had in the last few years that it can develop a very different type of car to that of its origins.
For many years, Aston were criticised for using Ford / Volvo parts, and in fact still are criticised, even though the current generation cars only feature some infotainment tech from Daimler and a base engine from AMG that undergoes a chunk of re-engineering for Aston applications. So it's ironic that when talk moves to the prestige SUV market, they're one of the few that build their own chassis rather than raiding a parent company's parts bin.
The DBX in V12 form; best sounding turbo'd V12 on the market, in a usable, practical package - sounds good, looks decent (the rear of the camo car looks like a bluff, remember what they did with the DB11 during testing); while I'd dearly love to see a turbo'd replacement for the Rapide saloon (the unsung hero of the last gen cars), the DBX takes its place, and it's a smart choice. Haters will hate, but there's a type of car out there for everyone, and we're all individuals, and it's only the internet.
I'd make the most of these over indulgent cars while we're still allowed to
Doofus said:
twocolours said:
Doofus said:
Why cover a car in "Don't Look At Me" dazzle camouflage and then plaster the car's name all over it?
The camouflage is used to disguise the styling elements of the car rather than what the car actually is. Similar with the fake rear lights and what look like add on rear trim pieces. It's also a popular marketing trick to drum up interest pre-reveal, hence Aston releasing official images of the test car and plastering it with logos/sponsors.
Tom_Spotley_When said:
Frances The Mute said:
I love it when people cry about a car they have no intention to even buy, anyway.
It’s almost as if they don’t want the company to succeed and actually make enough money to sustain itself for the future...for a change.
Then, when I buy one 15 years after launch, I, the nasally voiced captain of Meltonshire Golf Club, Vice President of the Rotary Club (East Midlands, North Branch) and Pub Bore can say, I bought a manual for the Driving Experience, I don't expect you to understand.
At some point, people might realise that car companies exist to make money. They make money by making cars people want to buy. People want to buy SUV's - because they're hideously practical and, when you're driving at 50mph in the pissing rain on a wet Tuesday night in December, and just want to get home, it's nice to be above the spray and the rain, sat in a heated seat with a heated steering wheel without a care in the world.
Then, at weekend, you can take your car down a farm track to go fishing/take the dog for a walk/fill with all your kids gear for a day out/go shooting/horse-riding/anything you like in the great outdoors, without scraping the bottom of the car, again.
Of course, this being PH, everyone should daily drive either a Subaru/BMW/Mercedes Estate, with a manual gearbox (I just like being in control of the car - as you sit in traffic each day on your commute to work, I'm sure you're really feeling the benefits) an FM/AM stereo, textile seats, no extra fripperies and a full arctic survival kit in the boot, paid for in cash with a set of £2k winter tyres for the 2 days/year it snows in Berkshire and a job that's so important you can't not get to the office without the world ending.
I'm glad they're making it. I'm pleased RR make the Cullinan, I'm pleased Porsche make the Cayenne and the Macan. I'm also pleased Jaguar make the F-Pace. Why? Because the money they make on these means there's lots more money to be spent on making ridiculous Sportscars.
Can't have one without the other.
g3org3y said:
Any manufacturers left that haven't jumped on this bandwagon?
That'll be Lotus. They've been banging on about theirs coming for years and years and still no sign of it. By the time it's launched everyone who wants a luxury SUV will have one and they'll have missed the boat.On the camo wrap, the Vantage wasn't that long ago (this is even a PH pic):
It's what AML do. No manufacturer needs to actually disguise prototypes; the majority could mill bout in traffic in matt black with some fake plastic panels, and no-one would bat an eyelid. But they want people to look, speculate, publicise etc, so putting them in a garish wrap is means to a marketing end, and pretty much the norm nowadays.
The back lights also mean nothing, and are far removed from the finished article. This is a Vantage mule pictured in 2016 for example:
It's what AML do. No manufacturer needs to actually disguise prototypes; the majority could mill bout in traffic in matt black with some fake plastic panels, and no-one would bat an eyelid. But they want people to look, speculate, publicise etc, so putting them in a garish wrap is means to a marketing end, and pretty much the norm nowadays.
The back lights also mean nothing, and are far removed from the finished article. This is a Vantage mule pictured in 2016 for example:
NFC 85 Vette said:
This is a point that rarely gets mentioned; while folk are busy bashing the AMG origins of some Aston components, or the company in general for its business choices like building an SUV, it's largely forgotten (or ignored) that the Urus and Benteyga are built on the MLB/MLP chassis platform, which is used by the Audi A4, A5 and Q5, and Porsche Macan among others. If you're spending £160k+ on a prestige SUV, it's nice to know the underpinnings are built by the company whose badge is fixed to the car.
The DBX is on an Aston chassis, and that's a testament to how big a turnaround the company's had in the last few years that it can develop a very different type of car to that of its origins.
For many years, Aston were criticised for using Ford / Volvo parts, and in fact still are criticised, even though the current generation cars only feature some infotainment tech from Daimler and a base engine from AMG that undergoes a chunk of re-engineering for Aston applications. So it's ironic that when talk moves to the prestige SUV market, they're one of the few that build their own chassis rather than raiding a parent company's parts bin.
The DBX in V12 form; best sounding turbo'd V12 on the market, in a usable, practical package - sounds good, looks decent (the rear of the camo car looks like a bluff, remember what they did with the DB11 during testing); while I'd dearly love to see a turbo'd replacement for the Rapide saloon (the unsung hero of the last gen cars), the DBX takes its place, and it's a smart choice. Haters will hate, but there's a type of car out there for everyone, and we're all individuals, and it's only the internet.
I'd make the most of these over indulgent cars while we're still allowed to
The DBX is on an Aston chassis, and that's a testament to how big a turnaround the company's had in the last few years that it can develop a very different type of car to that of its origins.
For many years, Aston were criticised for using Ford / Volvo parts, and in fact still are criticised, even though the current generation cars only feature some infotainment tech from Daimler and a base engine from AMG that undergoes a chunk of re-engineering for Aston applications. So it's ironic that when talk moves to the prestige SUV market, they're one of the few that build their own chassis rather than raiding a parent company's parts bin.
The DBX in V12 form; best sounding turbo'd V12 on the market, in a usable, practical package - sounds good, looks decent (the rear of the camo car looks like a bluff, remember what they did with the DB11 during testing); while I'd dearly love to see a turbo'd replacement for the Rapide saloon (the unsung hero of the last gen cars), the DBX takes its place, and it's a smart choice. Haters will hate, but there's a type of car out there for everyone, and we're all individuals, and it's only the internet.
I'd make the most of these over indulgent cars while we're still allowed to
Bincenzo said:
Tom_Spotley_When said:
Frances The Mute said:
I love it when people cry about a car they have no intention to even buy, anyway.
It’s almost as if they don’t want the company to succeed and actually make enough money to sustain itself for the future...for a change.
Then, when I buy one 15 years after launch, I, the nasally voiced captain of Meltonshire Golf Club, Vice President of the Rotary Club (East Midlands, North Branch) and Pub Bore can say, I bought a manual for the Driving Experience, I don't expect you to understand.
At some point, people might realise that car companies exist to make money. They make money by making cars people want to buy. People want to buy SUV's - because they're hideously practical and, when you're driving at 50mph in the pissing rain on a wet Tuesday night in December, and just want to get home, it's nice to be above the spray and the rain, sat in a heated seat with a heated steering wheel without a care in the world.
Then, at weekend, you can take your car down a farm track to go fishing/take the dog for a walk/fill with all your kids gear for a day out/go shooting/horse-riding/anything you like in the great outdoors, without scraping the bottom of the car, again.
Of course, this being PH, everyone should daily drive either a Subaru/BMW/Mercedes Estate, with a manual gearbox (I just like being in control of the car - as you sit in traffic each day on your commute to work, I'm sure you're really feeling the benefits) an FM/AM stereo, textile seats, no extra fripperies and a full arctic survival kit in the boot, paid for in cash with a set of £2k winter tyres for the 2 days/year it snows in Berkshire and a job that's so important you can't not get to the office without the world ending.
I'm glad they're making it. I'm pleased RR make the Cullinan, I'm pleased Porsche make the Cayenne and the Macan. I'm also pleased Jaguar make the F-Pace. Why? Because the money they make on these means there's lots more money to be spent on making ridiculous Sportscars.
Can't have one without the other.
CharlieAlphaMike said:
Proof of how pointless yet another 'performance' SUV is can be seen in the video with the car drifting around the corners. I want my 4x4 to be sure footed. I don't want it to slide around.
Yeah, that would make for a really exciting promo video wouldn't it.As has been mentioned ad infinitum on this thread, Aston's DNA is at the more sporting end of the spectrum, hence this being filmed on a rally stage and being driven exuberantly (i.e. in the manner of a sports car).
ukaskew said:
Sport220 said:
FFS, not a single high volume sports car manufacturer having the guts not to build these atrocities!
They're not charities and they wouldn't be making them if they were not cash cows.Blame the people that want them (which, it seems, is almost everyone), not the manufacturers for building them.
It's me isn't it.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff