Aston Martin DBX prototype | Driven
Discussion
Civpilot said:
It's pretty obvious from the article this is a pre-production drive at Aston's invitation pretty much to show off the cars off road capabilities
It's not a 'road test'
I hardly think hooning it around on some gravel tracks is "showing the car's off-road capabilities". I'd be more interested to know if it can successfully tow a trailer across a muddy field.It's not a 'road test'
Macboy said:
I can't be the only one that thinks this far along in the development of the "saviour" of the company that they have a major system failure on a press drive even if it is in a supposed "Prototype". If any of the cars they have aren't ready, don't let the media drive them. We all know they're desperate for positive news but come on. Surely by now the car is finished and you can prep a car with production parts, even a pre-prod bodyshell.
It's more a case that the test mules used in Oman and Wales just before Christmas were built to be thrown around in a way they probably wouldn't in the real world. The remit was to have at it and give it the beans as proof of what the car can do, something that perhaps doesn't happen on a Benteyga press drive. If you see the original yellow test mule, that had fiberglass panels that were beaten up heavily, but serve more like battle scars than damage. The test mules live a hard life, and I'd be less concerned about a technical glitch on one of those cars, that wont be an issue on a production example. It's similar to how old Top Gear used to get press cars later than others - they had a reputation for abusing them (remember the Oz farming trip with the Conti GT and Nissan GTR). Those examples were consigned to the scrap yard when the team were done with them I imagine.
In the same way that "nothing drives like a hire car", a test mule / development prototype is there to be exploited. The car maker learns the limit of durability, and the journo gets to see what can be done when they're not under strict instructions to...behave
NFC 85 Vette said:
So is the Ferrari SUV late to the party?
I hear what you're saying but AM and Ferrari are in two very different states of health. In 2018, Ferrari posted net profits of $900 million.... Their current product range is clearly hitting the mark that its consumers are looking for. I'm no Ferrari insider but I'd guess a Ferrari SUV is still seen as required / relevant for the brand but there isn't the same urgency for it to be the saviour of a struggling brand..Many would argue that the Cayenne saved Porsche when it was released, since Porsche wasn't in great shape when it took a somewhat brave move and hit the ground running being an early player in the market, and it paid off very well for them.
I'll be very interested to see how the DBX fairs on the road but I can see the struggle. When you're on the back foot it's a lot easier to be tipped over onto your backside.
Deranged Rover said:
I hardly think hooning it around on some gravel tracks is "showing the car's off-road capabilities". I'd be more interested to know if it can successfully tow a trailer across a muddy field.
Not with the diamond cut alloys and low profile sports tyres it will be sold with it won't.cirks said:
NFC 85 Vette said:
The infotainment is an interesting one. Just recently there were complaints about Audi's new touch screen only system. The fact you had to look at what you were pressing because it's just a load of plastic / glass slabs, and the wish for a jog dial to still be present. Alas, DBX has just that, but apparently it's behind the times and should be a swathe of touch screens... they just cant win.
Exactly - I don't understand the fascination/need for touchscreen controls in cars. They require far more taking of eyes off road than mechanical controls ever have done. We've got an XC60 and the Trackhawk - I'd much rather have mechanical stuff in both as I know I have to look at their screens more than I have in any other car we've ownedIn terms of speed, will anyone choose a DBX over a Urus?
In terms of comfort, will anyone choose a DBX over a Bentayga?
Unless the DBX is much cheaper than the Urus and Bentayga, I fear Aston is about to launch the GT86 of SUVs - ie, being nimble but also relatively ‘slow’ will not suffice.
In terms of comfort, will anyone choose a DBX over a Bentayga?
Unless the DBX is much cheaper than the Urus and Bentayga, I fear Aston is about to launch the GT86 of SUVs - ie, being nimble but also relatively ‘slow’ will not suffice.
Edited by NGK210 on Wednesday 15th January 12:20
It will do. It will sell, especially in the USA and it will save the company. Those are the facts today. It's the correct recipe at the moment. There is the brand cache and those people who want to live out their 007 fantasy but want, or need an SUV. The exterior styling looks like an AM turned into an SUV, just like all the others from Audi to VW via Lamborghini, Porsche, RR....you name it.
It isn't described as being class leading at anything, and the interior looks pretty boring, but that hasn't stopped any of the others. There is plenty of Mercedes behind the scenes, just like the other Astons, so plenty of proven technology and engineering.
I don't think that the E of F Paces are class leading and they are full of touchscreens, but they have sold enough to keep Jaguar going, whereas no one wanted an XE or XF. Jaguar would now be over, but for the SUVs, so would many other manufacturers.
If it doesn't save AM, then Geely will probably buy the ashes. They know a thing or two about SUVs having turned Volvo into an SUV company almost exclusively.
It isn't described as being class leading at anything, and the interior looks pretty boring, but that hasn't stopped any of the others. There is plenty of Mercedes behind the scenes, just like the other Astons, so plenty of proven technology and engineering.
I don't think that the E of F Paces are class leading and they are full of touchscreens, but they have sold enough to keep Jaguar going, whereas no one wanted an XE or XF. Jaguar would now be over, but for the SUVs, so would many other manufacturers.
If it doesn't save AM, then Geely will probably buy the ashes. They know a thing or two about SUVs having turned Volvo into an SUV company almost exclusively.
donteatpeople said:
Touch screens are better for use when parked, things like entering an address for a sat nav, adjusting stereo balance/fade, going through long lists of settings. Physical buttons are better for simple things needed while driving like stereo volume or heating controls. Each has benefits, the ideal system would have both.
I agree - try having that conversation with a Tesla fanboy ....I'm not sure why you'd pick one over a Bentayga or an Ursus personally. Or even a Cayenne Turbo S. Right now I have two Lexus (Lexi??) an RC-F Carbon for speed & fun and an older RX 450-H for carting the family about in, so I would love a supercar SUV, its what I'd have if I won the lottery, along with some toys too, but although I'd test drive the DBX I can't see, so far, why I'd choose it ultimately.
wab172uk said:
All sounds promising.
With 542 BHP, it'll be plenty quick for most buyers. Too quick for most of them. Yet, in every road test to come, it'll be lambasted for being the slowest. It'll be the loser in every drag race it's put into.
Yet for me, I wouldn't car less. I was unsure about this car, but after seeing a few reviews on the static car (Carwow & carfection), I think it's the SUV I'd buy if I had that sort of money to buy one.
I'm still not 100% sure on the rear. Did they really need to add the Vantage duck tail? I personally think it would look cleaner without it. But that's just personal choice.
I think the interior is excellent, and looks a lovely place to be.
I really hope this car saves Aston Martin.
+1With 542 BHP, it'll be plenty quick for most buyers. Too quick for most of them. Yet, in every road test to come, it'll be lambasted for being the slowest. It'll be the loser in every drag race it's put into.
Yet for me, I wouldn't car less. I was unsure about this car, but after seeing a few reviews on the static car (Carwow & carfection), I think it's the SUV I'd buy if I had that sort of money to buy one.
I'm still not 100% sure on the rear. Did they really need to add the Vantage duck tail? I personally think it would look cleaner without it. But that's just personal choice.
I think the interior is excellent, and looks a lovely place to be.
I really hope this car saves Aston Martin.
I'm sure they'll be an AMR version at somepoint for more gusto but i really don't think it will need it.
And I certanly don't think a lack of touch screen is a negative. Touchscreens don't work well in real life.
I've got everything crossed for Aston!
Odd that they have ended up with a lower powered engine then Mercedes themselves use in their 4x4's.
You wonder if their engine supplier is "holding back" a bit ? Can't imagine it would be have been that much harder/expensive to put in a higher powered engine from the off. I know that in reality, the 0 to 60 time is irrelevant, but for many people who buy in this area ( not me ! ) bragging rights are important.
Seems a missed opportunity.
You wonder if their engine supplier is "holding back" a bit ? Can't imagine it would be have been that much harder/expensive to put in a higher powered engine from the off. I know that in reality, the 0 to 60 time is irrelevant, but for many people who buy in this area ( not me ! ) bragging rights are important.
Seems a missed opportunity.
AM don't just buy the AMG engine off the shelf and stick it in the car. They change the dry sump for a normal sump, and they have changed the induction and exhaust systems for different engine characteristics - less noise, more smoothness, and different power/torque curves. Hence the differences in power and torque compared with AMG-Mercs.
BigChiefmuffinAgain said:
Odd that they have ended up with a lower powered engine then Mercedes themselves use in their 4x4's.
You wonder if their engine supplier is "holding back" a bit ? Can't imagine it would be have been that much harder/expensive to put in a higher powered engine from the off. I know that in reality, the 0 to 60 time is irrelevant, but for many people who buy in this area ( not me ! ) bragging rights are important.
Seems a missed opportunity.
Aside from the alterations as noted by LucyP above, there's also contractual restrictions whereby the M177 isn't permitted to make more power in an AM application that it does in an equivalent MB application. The 9-speed auto is a similar story but with regard to durability. A more heavy duty transmission is in the pipeline meaning the torque figure can be raised.You wonder if their engine supplier is "holding back" a bit ? Can't imagine it would be have been that much harder/expensive to put in a higher powered engine from the off. I know that in reality, the 0 to 60 time is irrelevant, but for many people who buy in this area ( not me ! ) bragging rights are important.
Seems a missed opportunity.
The actual AMG agreement is more of an interim measure to get the Aston V8 lineup back on par with the opposition. By the end of the last Vantage's life cycle, the 4.7 N/A V8 was long in the tooth and the engine R&D was being pushed on AE31 V12 that replaced the AM29 in the DB11 and DBS. It was a good call IMO, and it got them over a major hurdle, particularly when emissions regs were clamping down on all car makers.
Longer term, a 6 cylinder engine (AM in-house developed based on the AE31 / Valkyrie knowledge) and hybrid are in the works. I get that launching the car without a hybrid option from the get go is seen as failure, but the company's undergone a quantum leap since 2015, and getting the DBX to market at all was a massive feat, particularly when you consider that it did so, from scratch in the same time that Bentley did the Benteyga, and the Bentley had a VAG parts bin to lean on, along with a proven chassis platform - Aston's done a lot in a very short amount of time. St Athan will start to payoff on the investment, but it's often forgotten that to develop the DBX, and futureproofing the next 10 years of the company, meant spending heavily to lay the groundwork.
Alex_6n2 said:
Best looking luxury SUV in my opinion.
Market is saturated with high end SUVs (Merc, BMW, RR, Alfa etc) but I feel this sits above in the Benteyga, Urus, Cullinan group for people who want to set that kind of image.
Always interested how the Jeep TrackHawk gets excluded from these comparisons - it makes more power than the competition, is faster, and seems pretty luxurious and well appointed to me. Maybe that's the problem then? And it's also the best looking SUV IMHO too.Market is saturated with high end SUVs (Merc, BMW, RR, Alfa etc) but I feel this sits above in the Benteyga, Urus, Cullinan group for people who want to set that kind of image.
LucyP said:
AM don't just buy the AMG engine off the shelf and stick it in the car. They change the dry sump for a normal sump, and they have changed the induction and exhaust systems for different engine characteristics - less noise, more smoothness, and different power/torque curves. Hence the differences in power and torque compared with AMG-Mercs.
Close but no. The engine is the wet sump version (M177 vs the dry sump M178 used in the AMG GT - I believe Aston not allowed that one) so no points there. Induction and exhaust systems are Aston’s own but that is the case with any crate engine application. Then they chuck a different map into the ECU. The Jeep Trackhawk isn't a true competitor though. It isn't a luxury SUV, and they only made 20 available for sale in the UK last year. It's an ordinary SUV with a body-kit and a massive engine. It's a cartoon SUV. If Ford stuck a Mustang engine and a body-kit into a Kuga or an Edge, it wouldn't make them Cayenne or Macan competitors would it?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff