Discussion
A bit tangential this but as a reference point to the ‘AML vs the big boys’ debate - VW said last week that they would spend EUR60bn over the next 5 years on developing electric vehicles. That’s an average EUR1bn a month
For context AML are spending £300m this year on capex (largely development costs for DBX). And they can barely afford that.
Two thoughts arise for me from this:
1. No wonder the automotive industry never makes any money
2. Wow! Boy have things moved on from the days where a bloke in a shed could design and build his own car from scratch
For context AML are spending £300m this year on capex (largely development costs for DBX). And they can barely afford that.
Two thoughts arise for me from this:
1. No wonder the automotive industry never makes any money
2. Wow! Boy have things moved on from the days where a bloke in a shed could design and build his own car from scratch
RobDown said:
A bit tangential this but as a reference point to the ‘AML vs the big boys’ debate - VW said last week that they would spend EUR60bn over the next 5 years on developing electric vehicles. That’s an average EUR1bn a month
For context AML are spending £300m this year on capex (largely development costs for DBX). And they can barely afford that.
Two thoughts arise for me from this:
1. No wonder the automotive industry never makes any money
2. Wow! Boy have things moved on from the days where a bloke in a shed could design and build his own car from scratch
Hells teeth Rob, that`s astounding. With information like that we should applaud AML for what they do in comparison to the big boys, or alternatively go and buy a VW with a bespoke battery...For context AML are spending £300m this year on capex (largely development costs for DBX). And they can barely afford that.
Two thoughts arise for me from this:
1. No wonder the automotive industry never makes any money
2. Wow! Boy have things moved on from the days where a bloke in a shed could design and build his own car from scratch
RobDown said:
Boy have things moved on from the days where a bloke in a shed could design and build his own car from scratch
Man in shed can still build a car from scratch, but it wouldn't be allowed on the road. Then, if he got it on the road, you couldn't mass produce it because of emissions regulations. The emissions targets between 2004 and 2019 are so far apart it's hard to describe. The engines have to be orders of magnitude less polluting across a cycle, a more rigorous WLTP cycle, and produce less CO2, to boot.TBH it's a marvel anything about a 0.9L twin turbo passes type approval.
NFC 85 Vette said:
Comparisons with historic tales of how the company used to operate, are all well and good, but times have changed. While Porsche and Ferrari expanded, and made large profit while making excellent cars, Aston Martin sat still, losing money, making increasingly outdated cars, because of an insistence to remain "thoroughbred" even if it killed the company.
Surely by now, it should be obvious that Aston Martin are an underdog, trying to compete with much bigger car makers, with larger revenue streams and bigger R&D resources. They could either have committed to living in the past, and become more like Morgan, or they could up their game and produce relevant, high quality, high performance, bespoke sports cars, designed and built in the UK. They chose the latter but to climb from where they were to where they want to be, needed an intermediate step - what you see today.
The Aston Martin you see today, is one transitioning from the ways of the past (of making losses, selling inferior performing cars, which were primarily liked because of a perceived 'credibility' they possessed), to a future that provides the company with the money to develop everything in-house, and once again can be viewed as thoroughbred. The quantum leap from the old V8VS to current Vantage in terms of engine technology, was seismic - and to assume they could have just offered their own, class leading turbocharged V8 engine in 2018 shows how out of touch some are with what the competition currently is, and how far behind Aston had fallen at that point, particularly on emissions compliance.
Of course, in amongst all the bashing the new Vantage gets for not having an Aston developed engine, it's perfectly fine for another thread to be running specifically on the topic of which Ford, Mazda, Volvo and Jaguar parts can be used in an old Vantage, to keep the cost of repairs down. The utter irony in all this is that when you remove the engine and infotainment from the equation (and in a couple of years they'll be replaced by in-house units), new Astons feature a higher percentage of in-house produced parts than the last generation of cars, which shows they're heading in the right direction on the 'credibility' front, while building competitive cars.
It's a strange world we live in, and those of us foolish enough to talk about the positives in what's going on at the car maker we all have a passion for, will likely be shot down in this little corner on the internet (hence why so few new Vantage owners are active forum members).
Aston seems to have been able to fund a world classTT v12. Maybe lopping off 4 of them would have done the trick? I think I'd like my next car to be a Ferrari with a McLaren power plant; heck, it's only a motor, not important to the brand.Surely by now, it should be obvious that Aston Martin are an underdog, trying to compete with much bigger car makers, with larger revenue streams and bigger R&D resources. They could either have committed to living in the past, and become more like Morgan, or they could up their game and produce relevant, high quality, high performance, bespoke sports cars, designed and built in the UK. They chose the latter but to climb from where they were to where they want to be, needed an intermediate step - what you see today.
The Aston Martin you see today, is one transitioning from the ways of the past (of making losses, selling inferior performing cars, which were primarily liked because of a perceived 'credibility' they possessed), to a future that provides the company with the money to develop everything in-house, and once again can be viewed as thoroughbred. The quantum leap from the old V8VS to current Vantage in terms of engine technology, was seismic - and to assume they could have just offered their own, class leading turbocharged V8 engine in 2018 shows how out of touch some are with what the competition currently is, and how far behind Aston had fallen at that point, particularly on emissions compliance.
Of course, in amongst all the bashing the new Vantage gets for not having an Aston developed engine, it's perfectly fine for another thread to be running specifically on the topic of which Ford, Mazda, Volvo and Jaguar parts can be used in an old Vantage, to keep the cost of repairs down. The utter irony in all this is that when you remove the engine and infotainment from the equation (and in a couple of years they'll be replaced by in-house units), new Astons feature a higher percentage of in-house produced parts than the last generation of cars, which shows they're heading in the right direction on the 'credibility' front, while building competitive cars.
It's a strange world we live in, and those of us foolish enough to talk about the positives in what's going on at the car maker we all have a passion for, will likely be shot down in this little corner on the internet (hence why so few new Vantage owners are active forum members).
hornbaek said:
Saw an all black Vantage here in California, only the second sighted during our visit to LA and it looked pretty stunning among all the other supercars cruising the streets in Beverly Hills. The new Vantage is growing on me and with the next iteration hopefully coming with carbon discs and a V12 it could be irresistible - like the old V12V once was.
Aren't CCM a $$$ option on 4.0 V8 Vantage?I'm sure I read that the body mounting for 4.0 V8 and 5.2 V12 are the same - I'm sure Andy Palmer said it...
If the stars align I'll get a 5.2 V12 Vantage, keep my 5.935 V12 Vantage and buy a DBX for other purposes...
Then take the 5935 to 7200 :-)
NFC, nicely done post, many good points made. However... So Aston making its own engine is the reason they’ve struggled to make money??? Aston did all sorts of things differently from Porsche and Ferrari, any number of which are a part of the story, good and bad.
The Vanquish (NP) and the VH cars were very competitive when they were introduced. They were and did many things better than, and other things not as well as, the competition. Overall, they were extremely desirable cars. They were, of course, developed under Ford's ownership, which I think was generally very positive for Aston.
I’ve never said it would’ve been easy, or less than very expensive, to build a “competitive” engine. I said it’s important. It is to me, and to many others. It isn’t to yet others. One of the things I personally find disappointing is that, assuming for argument’s sake that they really had no choice, they did nothing to the engine (the actual engine, not the intake, exhaust or computer) they purchased from AMG. They could have done something – bespoke heads for example – to make it something of an Aston engine. Not free, but much less than a complete engine.
The new Vantage is not selling as well as they wanted or expected it to. There are various reasons for this, including the reasons that have been and continue to be expressed on this thread.
Removing the engine and infotainment to count parts percentages is rather convenient while trying to make a point, to say the least, and there are various ways to measure parts content. For me, the parts that must be unique are the structure/platform and the engine – these more than any other components, imo, are the heart, soul and bones of a car, and are what gives a car its feel, its sound, its character. I don’t care if Brembo makes the brakes, Nippon makes the AC, or Bosch makes some computers.
That Aston’s V12 continues, and that there is a new in-house V6 under development, is telling – it matters. To some of us, the AMG engine is an absolute deal-breaker. To some of us, the looks are a deal breaker. To some of us, it looks fantastic. To some us, the AMG engine is a non-issue, or even a selling point. These are all personal opinions. What is absurd is the proclamation that those of us whose don’t like its looks or don’t like its engine source cannot or should not be able to say so. On a public forum in a thread expressly seeking opinions. I’ve said what I like about the new cars as well as what I don’t – the notion that people saying positive things are shot down is very rarely the case. Those who say something negative, however, are quickly vilified – that’s amply evident on these last few pages. Interestingly, those who criticize the car almost never criticize the people who like it. In stark contrast, the rantings against those who are critical of the car have frequently devolved into personal attacks. Very telling.
I can’t imagine that the reason there aren’t more New Vantage owners on the forum is because they can’t handle – on a thread seeking opinions about the car – some people stating what they don’t like. Are so many such owners that thin-skinned? I seriously doubt it. Criticism and differing opinions should be forbidden? Be careful what you wish for.
The Vanquish (NP) and the VH cars were very competitive when they were introduced. They were and did many things better than, and other things not as well as, the competition. Overall, they were extremely desirable cars. They were, of course, developed under Ford's ownership, which I think was generally very positive for Aston.
I’ve never said it would’ve been easy, or less than very expensive, to build a “competitive” engine. I said it’s important. It is to me, and to many others. It isn’t to yet others. One of the things I personally find disappointing is that, assuming for argument’s sake that they really had no choice, they did nothing to the engine (the actual engine, not the intake, exhaust or computer) they purchased from AMG. They could have done something – bespoke heads for example – to make it something of an Aston engine. Not free, but much less than a complete engine.
The new Vantage is not selling as well as they wanted or expected it to. There are various reasons for this, including the reasons that have been and continue to be expressed on this thread.
Removing the engine and infotainment to count parts percentages is rather convenient while trying to make a point, to say the least, and there are various ways to measure parts content. For me, the parts that must be unique are the structure/platform and the engine – these more than any other components, imo, are the heart, soul and bones of a car, and are what gives a car its feel, its sound, its character. I don’t care if Brembo makes the brakes, Nippon makes the AC, or Bosch makes some computers.
That Aston’s V12 continues, and that there is a new in-house V6 under development, is telling – it matters. To some of us, the AMG engine is an absolute deal-breaker. To some of us, the looks are a deal breaker. To some of us, it looks fantastic. To some us, the AMG engine is a non-issue, or even a selling point. These are all personal opinions. What is absurd is the proclamation that those of us whose don’t like its looks or don’t like its engine source cannot or should not be able to say so. On a public forum in a thread expressly seeking opinions. I’ve said what I like about the new cars as well as what I don’t – the notion that people saying positive things are shot down is very rarely the case. Those who say something negative, however, are quickly vilified – that’s amply evident on these last few pages. Interestingly, those who criticize the car almost never criticize the people who like it. In stark contrast, the rantings against those who are critical of the car have frequently devolved into personal attacks. Very telling.
I can’t imagine that the reason there aren’t more New Vantage owners on the forum is because they can’t handle – on a thread seeking opinions about the car – some people stating what they don’t like. Are so many such owners that thin-skinned? I seriously doubt it. Criticism and differing opinions should be forbidden? Be careful what you wish for.
Speedraser said:
.......One of the things I personally find disappointing is that, assuming for argument’s sake that they really had no choice, they did nothing to the engine (the actual engine, not the intake, exhaust or computer) they purchased from AMG. They could have done something – bespoke heads for example – to make it something of an Aston engine. Not free, but much less than a complete engine. ......
My guess is that the contract stipulated no changes.
I remember seeing BMW engines in Morgans. They had a flimsy rectangular alloy plate (stating Morgan) covering the BMW logo on both cam covers. Morgan were not even allowed to fit replacement cam covers of their own design.
to give some light and shade to the previous comments.
the fact that the amg engine was used was an active selling point to me..... i trust that it will be engineered correctly. So like you said, horses for courses.
I also know that the block is all that AMG supplied, no ECUs, no mapping, nothing.... aston spent an age 'cracking' the engine and building the electronics up as if it were a clean sheet of paper. it's amazing that they've done as good a job as they have!!! deeply impressive.
the fact that the amg engine was used was an active selling point to me..... i trust that it will be engineered correctly. So like you said, horses for courses.
I also know that the block is all that AMG supplied, no ECUs, no mapping, nothing.... aston spent an age 'cracking' the engine and building the electronics up as if it were a clean sheet of paper. it's amazing that they've done as good a job as they have!!! deeply impressive.
Fwiw, I don’t own a new Vantage, but I have driven one. In my experience the AMG engine suits the car really well. It was responsive and the performance was very impressive. I’m not that keen on the pops and burbles but that seems to be what the market demands nowadays. There certainly seems to be room under the bonnet for a V12 if AM decide that’s a route worth pursuing. My main disappointment with the V8 was the view once the bonnet was raised.....something many owners may not even check! The new engine is set far back in the bulkhead and lacks the visual appeal of the V12. We have certainly been spoilt with the looks, sound and performance of the V12 engines. However, we have to accept that the tie up with MB was necessary for AM to progress and develop in the interim. As NFC 85 Vette rightly said, this period may not last for ever, but surely it is a necessary path to stay viable and relevant.
Best Regards
Minglar
Best Regards
Minglar
I wondered what the V8 from my E92 M3 would be like in my Vantage. That was the only thing I really enjoyed about the M3. It was a great car but felt exactly the same to sit in as a 320i. Looked alright, but the Vantage is in a different league. 4L V8 giving 420BHP is nice. The stock 4.3L giving 385PS isn't a landmark engine, but it's good enough. With the right exhaust, we're over 400PS so then we're talking.
I think the staggered launch (auto then manual) and mis-match of design queues has split things a little. The new Vantage is very aggressive in its appearance. The DB11 actually, is a stunning vehicle. Almost completely overlooked in most chat about the brand, whereas the DB9 was a revelation, then the Vantage picked up speed (IMO). Bond helped the DBS, and Top Gear helped the DB9. Vantage almost sold itself.
I personally loved the DB10. Best thing about SPECTRE. If this more elegant design had passed various regulations (no idea on this), then imo, this should have been the new Vantage. Making it for a film only was a weird (and annoying) move, and if the AMG engine was popped into that chassis, auto and manual, the release, with SPECTRE, could have been quite different. Then the DB11 looks how it looks, and the DBS IMO should have been a DB11++. Then perhaps have the DBSS as the new Vanquish. That would have been a more cohesive structure to my eye, whereas now we have a very aggressive Vantage with AMG underpinnings, a DB11 that is overshadowed by the completely different looking DBSS.
I’d love a job at AM
I think the staggered launch (auto then manual) and mis-match of design queues has split things a little. The new Vantage is very aggressive in its appearance. The DB11 actually, is a stunning vehicle. Almost completely overlooked in most chat about the brand, whereas the DB9 was a revelation, then the Vantage picked up speed (IMO). Bond helped the DBS, and Top Gear helped the DB9. Vantage almost sold itself.
I personally loved the DB10. Best thing about SPECTRE. If this more elegant design had passed various regulations (no idea on this), then imo, this should have been the new Vantage. Making it for a film only was a weird (and annoying) move, and if the AMG engine was popped into that chassis, auto and manual, the release, with SPECTRE, could have been quite different. Then the DB11 looks how it looks, and the DBS IMO should have been a DB11++. Then perhaps have the DBSS as the new Vanquish. That would have been a more cohesive structure to my eye, whereas now we have a very aggressive Vantage with AMG underpinnings, a DB11 that is overshadowed by the completely different looking DBSS.
I’d love a job at AM
Greg_D said:
I also know that the block is all that AMG supplied, no ECUs, no mapping, nothing....
Well if that is true, then there should definitely be no further talk about the V8 not being an Aston Martin engine.
My reason for saying that, is because Aston Martin also do not make the block for the V12 engine. It is made by a firm in Bridgenorth, then sent to a corner of the Ford factory in Cologne for assembly. Therefore if AMG only supply the V8 blocks, and then Aston Martin build the engines, does that mean the V8 engine is more Aston Martin than the V12 ?
Jon39 said:
Greg_D said:
I also know that the block is all that AMG supplied, no ECUs, no mapping, nothing....
Well if that is true, then there should definitely be no further talk about the V8 not being an Aston Martin engine.
My reason for saying that, is because Aston Martin also do not make the block for the V12 engine. It is made by a firm in Bridgenorth, then sent to a corner of the Ford factory in Cologne for assembly. Therefore if AMG only supply the V8 blocks, and then Aston Martin build the engines, does that mean the V8 engine is more Aston Martin than the V12 ?
Edit my mistake should have said Bridgend
Edited by RL17 on Thursday 28th November 19:53
Jon39 said:
Well if that is true, then there should definitely be no further talk about the V8 not being an Aston Martin engine.
My reason for saying that, is because Aston Martin also do not make the block for the V12 engine. It is made by a firm in Bridgenorth, then sent to a corner of the Ford factory in Cologne for assembly. Therefore if AMG only supply the V8 blocks, and then Aston Martin build the engines, does that mean the V8 engine is more Aston Martin than the V12 ?
RobDown said:
A bit tangential this but as a reference point to the ‘AML vs the big boys’ debate - VW said last week that they would spend EUR60bn over the next 5 years on developing electric vehicles. That’s an average EUR1bn a month
For context AML are spending £300m this year on capex (largely development costs for DBX). And they can barely afford that.
Two thoughts arise for me from this:
1. No wonder the automotive industry never makes any money
2. Wow! Boy have things moved on from the days where a bloke in a shed could design and build his own car from scratch
Cash flow is the killer rather than profitability.For context AML are spending £300m this year on capex (largely development costs for DBX). And they can barely afford that.
Two thoughts arise for me from this:
1. No wonder the automotive industry never makes any money
2. Wow! Boy have things moved on from the days where a bloke in a shed could design and build his own car from scratch
Looks like AML will have £800 to £850 million of development costs as an asset on its balance sheet at end of 2019 (equates to most of debt). Being smaller should help decisions and direction of resources to speed up. AML has also greatly ramped up employee numbers (just 45% production staff).
Whilst others applaud speed of AML development - being slower than bigger manufacturers (despite all their management and internal cooperation etc) does mean lots of expenditure deferred and positive cashflow in terms of production delayed.
Slower sales then mean a bigger hit to P&L (net) as sales come through or god forbid Development cost write offs (if future profit expectations of a product line falter).
So do they need to be more dynamic in getting products to market as world/car environment seems to be changing quicker than ever? Starting everything 2 or 3 years after manufacturers and taking a year longer is a slow way to heading to museum status or a re-badged subsidiary of a conglomerate?
V12 TT in new Vantage - great handling car with balance/weight distribution honed on V8. Maybe yes if all going swimmingly well but can't afford to now nor should go against current emissions trend for base model in range.
Assume Lagonda pure EV programme pushed back? Rapide E is at least 1 year behind on production based on previous AML financial reports/statements (mainly done by Williams in exiting chassis? etc). The Lagonda objective maybe helped AM side kick EV into grass a bit longer.
Think they need to progress full speed on i6 TT(mild hybrid?) powertrain.
RL17 said:
Is Cologne a dedicated contract for Ford to build engines, or AML undertaking ?
Yes, the contract is with Ford, although the portion of premises used at the Ford plant, is called Aston Martin Engine Plant.
The V8 built in Cologne has of course finished (what happens regarding replacement engines, I don't know), but the long running V12 contract has an end date, although that has already been extended, possibly more than once.
I have not heard about changes at the Bridgenorth foundry firm. Hopefully not a sad tale ?
To Venturist.
Yes I knew, but tried politely to reveal it slowly.
Edited by Jon39 on Wednesday 27th November 14:25
Jon39 said:
Well if that is true, then there should definitely be no further talk about the V8 not being an Aston Martin engine.
My reason for saying that, is because Aston Martin also do not make the block for the V12 engine. It is made by a firm in Bridgenorth, then sent to a corner of the Ford factory in Cologne for assembly. Therefore if AMG only supply the V8 blocks, and then Aston Martin build the engines, does that mean the V8 engine is more Aston Martin than the V12 ?
It's like how the F150 engine is in the Ford GT. Same engine, different mapping. If the Ford GT engine were in the AM it would be the Ford GT engine, even with new mapping.
Venturist said:
Jon39 said:
Well if that is true, then there should definitely be no further talk about the V8 not being an Aston Martin engine.
My reason for saying that, is because Aston Martin also do not make the block for the V12 engine. It is made by a firm in Bridgenorth, then sent to a corner of the Ford factory in Cologne for assembly. Therefore if AMG only supply the V8 blocks, and then Aston Martin build the engines, does that mean the V8 engine is more Aston Martin than the V12 ?
The engine isn't simply the block, it is the complete long engine, so all 'the metal bits' are there, turbos, heads, rotating assembly etc.
It is shipped ready to drop into the car. but that's it, the electronics are pure AM from the ground up.
My source is a current employee at AM in the relevant department
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff