RE: Mercedes to take 20 per cent stake in Aston Martin
Discussion
kevinon said:
I looked at their projections - £2 b revenue, 10,000 cars and EBITDA of £500million.
I'm no maths expert - does that mean selling 10,000 cars at an average sales price of £200,000 with a 25% margin? £50,000 margin per car.
Do people in the car trade think this forecast is anyway realistic?
Don't know but here's some reference:I'm no maths expert - does that mean selling 10,000 cars at an average sales price of £200,000 with a 25% margin? £50,000 margin per car.
Do people in the car trade think this forecast is anyway realistic?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/17/profit-ferrari-mak...
A crying shame, and exactly what I said would happen. RIP Aston Martin is exactly right. First it was AMG engines in "Astons" -- great engine, but it has no business being in an Aston Martin. Now, there will be even more powertrain stuff from Benz, and it's not limited to electric stuff. Next it'll be platform sharing. An Aston with shared engines and/or platforms is not an Aston -- it's a badge-engineered version of something else. ALL the specialness will be lost. They'll try to dress it up, but it'll still be a Merc underneath. A Bentley Continental that shares it's structure and powertrain with VW/Audi/Porsche (depending on generation) isn't really a Bentley, not to me. It's telling that BMW has stopped platform-sharing with Rolls-Royce -- because a Rolls that's a 7-Series underneath isn't a Rolls-Royce. Huge step in the right direction. These are expensive cars -- spend the money and do it right, or don't do it at all. Merc has an unblemished record of making an utter and complete disaster of these types of ventures. Ford was a beneficent parent. Merc won't be. Would you buy a Ferrari with a Merc engine? Of course not. Would you buy a Ferrari with a Merc platform? Of course not. Because neither would be a Ferrari. A Merc-powered or platformed "Aston" isn't an Aston. That comprehensively defeats the purpose. Obviously, I want to see the marque survive, but to see it devolve into a merely a version of something else is untenable. I hope I'm wrong, but this is becoming the automotive tragedy that I feared it would.
Speedraser said:
A crying shame, and exactly what I said would happen. RIP Aston Martin is exactly right. First it was AMG engines in "Astons" -- great engine, but it has no business being in an Aston Martin. Now, there will be even more powertrain stuff from Benz, and it's not limited to electric stuff. Next it'll be platform sharing. An Aston with shared engines and/or platforms is not an Aston -- it's a badge-engineered version of something else. ALL the specialness will be lost. They'll try to dress it up, but it'll still be a Merc underneath. A Bentley Continental that shares it's structure and powertrain with VW/Audi/Porsche (depending on generation) isn't really a Bentley, not to me. It's telling that BMW has stopped platform-sharing with Rolls-Royce -- because a Rolls that's a 7-Series underneath isn't a Rolls-Royce. Huge step in the right direction. These are expensive cars -- spend the money and do it right, or don't do it at all. Merc has an unblemished record of making an utter and complete disaster of these types of ventures. Ford was a beneficent parent. Merc won't be. Would you buy a Ferrari with a Merc engine? Of course not. Would you buy a Ferrari with a Merc platform? Of course not. Because neither would be a Ferrari. A Merc-powered or platformed "Aston" isn't an Aston. That comprehensively defeats the purpose. Obviously, I want to see the marque survive, but to see it devolve into a merely a version of something else is untenable. I hope I'm wrong, but this is becoming the automotive tragedy that I feared it would.
You're saying lots of existing Aston aren't Astons.ManyMotors said:
AM needs to take the technology it receives for equity given and turn that into product with demand. No cash is involved.
It seems there's also a clause whereby if the share price drops below Daimler's entry price then Aston has to pay cash for the technology. Not sure of the specifics, but appears to be a win-win for Daimler - all the potential upside with protection against the downside.big_rob_sydney said:
hyphen said:
Mercedes aren't paying Aston for a stake, Aston want to guarantee a relationship with Mercedes and are offering a free stake in return for the savings on R&D and getting 'mates rates' on Mercedes parts...
That is not how I read that at all.It says very clearly in the article that supply will be on commercial terms.
So, does this mean they get to pay like every other schmuck, and for the privilege they have shelled out over and above, to the tune of 20% of the company?
So, they profit in receiving the stake, they profit further if it rises in value and they get compensated if it falls in value. Win-win-win.
Sad to say that Mercedes engines in Astons don’t work for me and reason why no newAston models are on my wish list. Old Vantage V8 engine has much more character (even if it is Ford derived) so will stick with it. Everything will be electric in 5-10 years time so all cars will be the same with quality of interior and Brand image being major difference. AM badge has more kudos than cheapened AMG badge that has been applied to their whole range so maybe a Smart (no pun intended) move by Merc.
I think as long as the rest of the car is solid gold then having MB off the shelf engines and infotainment isn't such a bad idea, but if they don't hit the mark - like the current range - then you have a problem.
For me, the decision to use MB engines was a logical one, despite the fact that those dropping 150k plus on a car are doing so for predominantly illogical reasons.
I still think the decision to make a new V12 instead of a new V8 was pretty perplexing considering the only real point of having a V12 is the sound. Putting turbos on it is like putting a muzzle on Pavarotti.
Hopefully the new V6 will still see the light of day.
For me, the decision to use MB engines was a logical one, despite the fact that those dropping 150k plus on a car are doing so for predominantly illogical reasons.
I still think the decision to make a new V12 instead of a new V8 was pretty perplexing considering the only real point of having a V12 is the sound. Putting turbos on it is like putting a muzzle on Pavarotti.
Hopefully the new V6 will still see the light of day.
Interesting to read the views on this thread. I'm sure no one would really rather see the company go under than use a few shared parts with MB?
Aston need this technology sharing from MB or they will not survive. Even what some would consider as the last 'Aston' engine (the 5.3 V8) used VW components in it's valve train. The engines since have had Ford/Jaguar influence, technology and production facilities. The days of all made in house in our own machine shop are long gone.
I think it is a positive step for the Brand as it is an enabler to survival, just as Ford was in the eighties. Although that was a purchase rather than a parts agreement it gave access to a much larger base so the end results for component and technology sharing is similar.
It's just not possible to have a competitive product with all the bells and whistles customers expect (and others that are legally required) without being part of a larger group.
Aston need this technology sharing from MB or they will not survive. Even what some would consider as the last 'Aston' engine (the 5.3 V8) used VW components in it's valve train. The engines since have had Ford/Jaguar influence, technology and production facilities. The days of all made in house in our own machine shop are long gone.
I think it is a positive step for the Brand as it is an enabler to survival, just as Ford was in the eighties. Although that was a purchase rather than a parts agreement it gave access to a much larger base so the end results for component and technology sharing is similar.
It's just not possible to have a competitive product with all the bells and whistles customers expect (and others that are legally required) without being part of a larger group.
big_rob_sydney said:
hyphen said:
Totally different.
Mercedes aren't paying Aston for a stake, Aston want to guarantee a relationship with Mercedes and are offering a free stake in return for the savings on R&D and getting 'mates rates' on Mercedes parts and jumping onto any 3rd party agreements Mercedes can make using their scale to negotiate better terms than Aston could.
AMG and Aston working together on performance SUV's could also be of benefit to both seeing as Aston have managed to make the DBX.
That is not how I read that at all.Mercedes aren't paying Aston for a stake, Aston want to guarantee a relationship with Mercedes and are offering a free stake in return for the savings on R&D and getting 'mates rates' on Mercedes parts and jumping onto any 3rd party agreements Mercedes can make using their scale to negotiate better terms than Aston could.
AMG and Aston working together on performance SUV's could also be of benefit to both seeing as Aston have managed to make the DBX.
Edited by hyphen on Tuesday 27th October 18:17
It says very clearly in the article that supply will be on commercial terms.
So, does this mean they get to pay like every other schmuck, and for the privilege they have shelled out over and above, to the tune of 20% of the company? That seems like a rubbish deal, unless there is something else going on under the table...
Imagine the MB boardroom:
"so we just won an order for up to 10,000 engines, drivetrains, infotainment etc etc per year..."
"did you have to discount it much?"
"no. the customer needs the kit more than we need to supply it, so is paying top price"
"and on top of that they're giving us 20% of the company"
"schnapps?"
DickyC said:
Speedraser said:
A crying shame, and exactly what I said would happen. RIP Aston Martin is exactly right. First it was AMG engines in "Astons" -- great engine, but it has no business being in an Aston Martin. Now, there will be even more powertrain stuff from Benz, and it's not limited to electric stuff. Next it'll be platform sharing. An Aston with shared engines and/or platforms is not an Aston -- it's a badge-engineered version of something else. ALL the specialness will be lost. They'll try to dress it up, but it'll still be a Merc underneath. A Bentley Continental that shares it's structure and powertrain with VW/Audi/Porsche (depending on generation) isn't really a Bentley, not to me. It's telling that BMW has stopped platform-sharing with Rolls-Royce -- because a Rolls that's a 7-Series underneath isn't a Rolls-Royce. Huge step in the right direction. These are expensive cars -- spend the money and do it right, or don't do it at all. Merc has an unblemished record of making an utter and complete disaster of these types of ventures. Ford was a beneficent parent. Merc won't be. Would you buy a Ferrari with a Merc engine? Of course not. Would you buy a Ferrari with a Merc platform? Of course not. Because neither would be a Ferrari. A Merc-powered or platformed "Aston" isn't an Aston. That comprehensively defeats the purpose. Obviously, I want to see the marque survive, but to see it devolve into a merely a version of something else is untenable. I hope I'm wrong, but this is becoming the automotive tragedy that I feared it would.
You're saying lots of existing Aston aren't Astons.gary71 said:
Interesting to read the views on this thread. I'm sure no one would really rather see the company go under than use a few shared parts with MB?
Aston need this technology sharing from MB or they will not survive. Even what some would consider as the last 'Aston' engine (the 5.3 V8) used VW components in it's valve train. The engines since have had Ford/Jaguar influence, technology and production facilities. The days of all made in house in our own machine shop are long gone.
I think it is a positive step for the Brand as it is an enabler to survival, just as Ford was in the eighties. Although that was a purchase rather than a parts agreement it gave access to a much larger base so the end results for component and technology sharing is similar.
It's just not possible to have a competitive product with all the bells and whistles customers expect (and others that are legally required) without being part of a larger group.
If they "use a few shared parts with MB" that would be fine -- they've used a few shared parts for decades. The issue is which shared parts. I draw the line at the engine and the platform/structure -- they comprise the heart, bones and soul of a car -- these must be unique to Aston Martin. Aston need this technology sharing from MB or they will not survive. Even what some would consider as the last 'Aston' engine (the 5.3 V8) used VW components in it's valve train. The engines since have had Ford/Jaguar influence, technology and production facilities. The days of all made in house in our own machine shop are long gone.
I think it is a positive step for the Brand as it is an enabler to survival, just as Ford was in the eighties. Although that was a purchase rather than a parts agreement it gave access to a much larger base so the end results for component and technology sharing is similar.
It's just not possible to have a competitive product with all the bells and whistles customers expect (and others that are legally required) without being part of a larger group.
Ford was a beneficent owner, in a manner that I can't imagine Daimler being. Look what they did to Maybach for, example. Ford, of course, funded the DB7, and it used an engine based on Jaguar's straight-6 as well as the XJS platform. Unsurprisingly, that's why I've never lusted after a DB7, even though I fully recognize that it saved the company. Aston built fewer than 45 cars in 1992 -- they were as dead as dead gets without actually dying. So, when the decision was made to try to survive, I get why Ford based the car on the XJS/stillborn F-type. After the DB7's sales success, and to Ford's immense credit, they spent the money and funded the Vanquish and the VH-generation cars -- which do NOT share platforms or engines with any other car. Aston Martin was (and is) worth it, and Ford did it properly.
I'm not so obtuse that I think the engine needs to be a clean-sheet design to consider it an "Aston Martin engine." IMO, the 4.3/4.7 V8 and the V12 engines are Aston engines. The production V12 was developed specifically for Aston, and it has never been used in anything else. The 4.3/4.7 V8 was based on the "architecture" of the Jaguar 4.2 V8, but was so comprehensively reengineered that the engines share essentially nothing. The Aston V8 has its own bespoke block, crank, conrods, bearings, pistons, rings, heads, cams, valves, etc. This is in stark contrast to the off-the-shelf AMG engine -- the engine itself is completely unmodified (only the intake, exhaust, wet sump and electronics are modified). Would a Ferrari with this engine be a Ferrari? Of course not.
I've loved Astons since I was a little kid, and I own two. Of course I want them to survive, but only if they remain Aston Martin. If they're reduced to mere versions of Benzes (or anything) then it utterly defeats the purpose. I'd rather see them exit gracefully with their dignity intact than be just a version of something else. We're not there yet, of course, but I fear this is a HUGE step toward that end. Hope I'm very wrong.
DickyC said:
Lagonda-engined? Jaguar-engined? Ford-engined?
I was writing when you posted this. I addressed Jag-engined and Ford-engined cars (IMO, there are no Ford-engined Astons) in my previous post. About the Lagonda engine: I assume you know this, but... Just after WWII, David Brown bought Aston and, shortly thereafter, Lagonda -- specifically so he could get the engine for the DB2. It was much developed by Aston over the years, but yes, I do struggle with this a bit. Somewhat like with the DB7, those were pretty desperate times. The same can, and has, been said about using the current AMG V8, and there has been much talk about it being a stopgap until Aston's new V6 enters production -- which suggested that Astons would only have Aston engines again. The 20% deal with Benz now suggests more sharing, not less, and greatly increases the odds, IMO, that Astons will become less Aston and more Mercedes, with more powertrain sharing. I can' help but think that platform sharing lies ahead. This would completely defeat the point of Aston Martin.I'll add this about the Aston engine plant located in Ford's Cologne facility: It's a fully dedicated, Aston-only section of the Ford facility. Every employee is an Aston employee, and they only build Aston engines.
Speedraser said:
I was writing when you posted this. I addressed Jag-engined and Ford-engined cars (IMO, there are no Ford-engined Astons) in my previous post. About the Lagonda engine: I assume you know this, but... Just after WWII, David Brown bought Aston and, shortly thereafter, Lagonda -- specifically so he could get the engine for the DB2. It was much developed by Aston over the years, but yes, I do struggle with this a bit. Somewhat like with the DB7, those were pretty desperate times. The same can, and has, been said about using the current AMG V8, and there has been much talk about it being a stopgap until Aston's new V6 enters production -- which suggested that Astons would only have Aston engines again. The 20% deal with Benz now suggests more sharing, not less, and greatly increases the odds, IMO, that Astons will become less Aston and more Mercedes, with more powertrain sharing. I can' help but think that platform sharing lies ahead. This would completely defeat the point of Aston Martin.
I'll add this about the Aston engine plant located in Ford's Cologne facility: It's a fully dedicated, Aston-only section of the Ford facility. Every employee is an Aston employee, and they only build Aston engines.
Well argued. I was being the Devil's advocate. There was a time when I would have argued all day about the purity of this and the necessity of that when, in fact, the survival of the company is what matters. Renwick and Bertelli brought a complete car to the party that shared nothing with the Bamford & Martin car other than the engine size. They just needed a hook to hang it on and bought the ruins of Aston Martin for the name. Viewed in the light of that, DB buying Lagonda for the W.O. six cylinder engine was the correct thing to do. Walter Hayes pressing Ford to fund the DB7 was the right thing to do. Historically the cars overcome initial resistance and become Aston Martins. What is happening now with Mercedes-Benz is part of the pattern. Better still, it is two revered names from the early days of the automobile working together. Marvellous. All will be well.I'll add this about the Aston engine plant located in Ford's Cologne facility: It's a fully dedicated, Aston-only section of the Ford facility. Every employee is an Aston employee, and they only build Aston engines.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff