Future AM engines and Valhalla
Discussion
Sebastian Tombs said:
Yeah, but they don’t, though.
Plenty have gone out of business and for the most part none mourn their passing.
Many of those who did go out of business did so after diluting the product and the brand so such an extent that nobody really cared about buying them anymore.
Exactly. Using Benz engines and/or platforms is NOT the only means possible. That's merely the cheapest means -- and the wrong one. It will, without question IMO, massively dilute the product and the brand. It's every bit as absurd and destructive to Aston Martin as building "Ferraris" with Benz engines on Benz platforms would be to Ferrari.Plenty have gone out of business and for the most part none mourn their passing.
Many of those who did go out of business did so after diluting the product and the brand so such an extent that nobody really cared about buying them anymore.
I am not a fan of the MB dressed as an AM route any more than anyone else.
However, one possible scenario could be:
AM is still a desireable brand - but I think many people are put off by the high list prices that are currently being charged (DBX I think is £40k overpriced in the UK) I know a number of people who could afford the DBX and looked at them but ended up going the RR or Cayenne route as they thought there wasn’t enough to justify the extra cost.
IF using the MB platforms the AM product became more competitive price wise, could they get more new to the brand buyers as their r&d costs are lower? If they then got to the ~20k units a year .....
If this model is what keeps AM alive then so be it - my fear is that LS isn’t interested in anything other than F1 and making a quick profit on the AM investment, and this strategy would help him achieve it - whilst having the F1 team running the AM logo with the engines from its parent.
As an aside, it’s interesting to see that AM are advertising for new employees in design exterior and interior - despite the Wales reduction in force.
However, one possible scenario could be:
AM is still a desireable brand - but I think many people are put off by the high list prices that are currently being charged (DBX I think is £40k overpriced in the UK) I know a number of people who could afford the DBX and looked at them but ended up going the RR or Cayenne route as they thought there wasn’t enough to justify the extra cost.
IF using the MB platforms the AM product became more competitive price wise, could they get more new to the brand buyers as their r&d costs are lower? If they then got to the ~20k units a year .....
If this model is what keeps AM alive then so be it - my fear is that LS isn’t interested in anything other than F1 and making a quick profit on the AM investment, and this strategy would help him achieve it - whilst having the F1 team running the AM logo with the engines from its parent.
As an aside, it’s interesting to see that AM are advertising for new employees in design exterior and interior - despite the Wales reduction in force.
Edited by oilit on Monday 15th March 07:32
oilit said:
I am not a fan of the MB dressed as an AM route any more than anyone else.
However, one possible scenario could be:
AM is still a desireable brand - but I think many people are put off by the high list prices that are currently being charged (DBX I think is £40k overpriced in the UK) I know a number of people who could afford the DBX and looked at them but ended up going the RR or Cayenne route as they thought there wasn’t enough to justify the extra cost.
IF using the MB platforms the AM product became more competitive price wise, could they get more new to the brand buyers as their r&d costs are lower? If they then got to the ~20k units a year .....
If this model is what keeps AM alive then so be it - my fear is that LS isn’t interested in anything other than F1 and making a quick profit on the AM investment, and this strategy would help him achieve it - whilst having the F1 team running the AM logo with the engines from its parent.
As an aside, it’s interesting to see that AM are advertising for new employees in design exterior and interior - despite the Wales reduction in force.
Do your friends think a Bentayga is worth the extra cost? That and the Urus are what the DBX is supposed to be competing with.However, one possible scenario could be:
AM is still a desireable brand - but I think many people are put off by the high list prices that are currently being charged (DBX I think is £40k overpriced in the UK) I know a number of people who could afford the DBX and looked at them but ended up going the RR or Cayenne route as they thought there wasn’t enough to justify the extra cost.
IF using the MB platforms the AM product became more competitive price wise, could they get more new to the brand buyers as their r&d costs are lower? If they then got to the ~20k units a year .....
If this model is what keeps AM alive then so be it - my fear is that LS isn’t interested in anything other than F1 and making a quick profit on the AM investment, and this strategy would help him achieve it - whilst having the F1 team running the AM logo with the engines from its parent.
As an aside, it’s interesting to see that AM are advertising for new employees in design exterior and interior - despite the Wales reduction in force.
Edited by oilit on Monday 15th March 07:32
IMO, a less expensive (or not) Benz-based/powered "Aston" would completely destroy what Aston Martin is and why Astons are so desirable. Aston Martin has, and should, make cars that are in the same tier as Ferrari. It's fine that they start at lower prices (it wasn't that long ago that Ferrari played there too), but they should be truly superb and desirable cars that look and feel worth their high price. They certainly shouldn't become less special and desirable cars that sell at lower prices. When I bought my V8V new in '09, it looked and felt worth every single dollar. The DBS at the time looked and felt entirely worth the price. The original Vanquish played in exactly the same space as the Ferrari 550/575, and it completely belonged there. Also, 20k cars per year would skewer the specialness, the desirability -- the event that an Aston is, that even seeing an Aston is. 20,000 Benz-based "Astons" at bargain (relatively) prices -- yuck. Exactly what Aston Martin should not be. That's not keeping Aston alive, that's killing it.
Speedraser said:
oilit said:
As an aside, it’s interesting to see that AM are advertising for new employees in design exterior and interior - despite the Wales reduction in force.
Do your friends think a Bentayga is worth the extra cost? That and the Urus are what the DBX is supposed to be competing with.Edited by oilit on Monday 15th March 07:32
IMO, a less expensive (or not) Benz-based/powered "Aston" would completely destroy what Aston Martin is and why Astons are so desirable. Aston Martin has, and should, make cars that are in the same tier as Ferrari. It's fine that they start at lower prices (it wasn't that long ago that Ferrari played there too), but they should be truly superb and desirable cars that look and feel worth their high price. They certainly shouldn't become less special and desirable cars that sell at lower prices. When I bought my V8V new in '09, it looked and felt worth every single dollar. The DBS at the time looked and felt entirely worth the price. The original Vanquish played in exactly the same space as the Ferrari 550/575, and it completely belonged there. Also, 20k cars per year would skewer the specialness, the desirability -- the event that an Aston is, that even seeing an Aston is. 20,000 Benz-based "Astons" at bargain (relatively) prices -- yuck. Exactly what Aston Martin should not be. That's not keeping Aston alive, that's killing it.
I agree MB ownership will be a disaster for Aston. Aston should live at the same level of Ferrari and Lamborghini. MB has the resources to make that happen. But I’m afraid AM would always be their red headed step child.
Speedraser said:
Do your friends think a Bentayga is worth the extra cost? That and the Urus are what the DBX is supposed to be competing with.
IMO, a less expensive (or not) Benz-based/powered "Aston" would completely destroy what Aston Martin is and why Astons are so desirable. Aston Martin has, and should, make cars that are in the same tier as Ferrari. It's fine that they start at lower prices (it wasn't that long ago that Ferrari played there too), but they should be truly superb and desirable cars that look and feel worth their high price. They certainly shouldn't become less special and desirable cars that sell at lower prices. When I bought my V8V new in '09, it looked and felt worth every single dollar. The DBS at the time looked and felt entirely worth the price. The original Vanquish played in exactly the same space as the Ferrari 550/575, and it completely belonged there. Also, 20k cars per year would skewer the specialness, the desirability -- the event that an Aston is, that even seeing an Aston is. 20,000 Benz-based "Astons" at bargain (relatively) prices -- yuck. Exactly what Aston Martin should not be. That's not keeping Aston alive, that's killing it.
I agree, but it’s the dichotomy I think AM is in.IMO, a less expensive (or not) Benz-based/powered "Aston" would completely destroy what Aston Martin is and why Astons are so desirable. Aston Martin has, and should, make cars that are in the same tier as Ferrari. It's fine that they start at lower prices (it wasn't that long ago that Ferrari played there too), but they should be truly superb and desirable cars that look and feel worth their high price. They certainly shouldn't become less special and desirable cars that sell at lower prices. When I bought my V8V new in '09, it looked and felt worth every single dollar. The DBS at the time looked and felt entirely worth the price. The original Vanquish played in exactly the same space as the Ferrari 550/575, and it completely belonged there. Also, 20k cars per year would skewer the specialness, the desirability -- the event that an Aston is, that even seeing an Aston is. 20,000 Benz-based "Astons" at bargain (relatively) prices -- yuck. Exactly what Aston Martin should not be. That's not keeping Aston alive, that's killing it.
The friends concerned felt the urus and Bentley portrayed the wrong image as far as they were concerned.
The conclusion they came to was: if you don’t want something that is bold to look at - then your choice may come down to possibly the Maserati, RR, DBX, Cayenne. If you want to make a statement then you may be looking at the Bentley, rolls, or urus.
If that is the buying persona, then people will do the price comparison and may end up asking the same question.
oilit said:
I am not a fan of the MB dressed as an AM route any more than anyone else.
However, one possible scenario could be:
IF using the MB platforms the AM product became more competitive price wise, could they get more new to the brand buyers as their r&d costs are lower? If they then got to the ~20k units a year
Obviously there is a point at which you sell enough cars to break even and make a profit, though I don't know what that number is for Aston. I hope its a lot less than 20,000 cars a year, or seeing/buying an Aston will become as much of a non event as seeing/buying a Porsche.However, one possible scenario could be:
IF using the MB platforms the AM product became more competitive price wise, could they get more new to the brand buyers as their r&d costs are lower? If they then got to the ~20k units a year
What interested me about your idea is that you have basically described Ford's strategy with the Jaguar X Type, and I think we would all agree that that is an object lesson in how not to do things. If this is what LS and Mercedes are going to do to Aston, then it's all over.
Sebastian Tombs said:
...... What interested me about your idea, is that you have basically described Ford's strategy with the Jaguar X Type, and I think we would all agree that that is an object lesson in how not to do things.
If this is what LS and Mercedes are going to do to Aston, then it's all over.
If this is what LS and Mercedes are going to do to Aston, then it's all over.
That is an interesting point Sebastian, which I had temporarily forgotten about.
During the Ford ownership era of Aston Martin and Jaguar, they appeared to leave AML alone to make their own design decisions.
It was completely different with Jaguar though, where two models were introduced having Jaguar dresses on Ford skeletons.
The X type built on a Ford Mondeo and the S type built on a Lincoln LS.
Did it occur in that way, because Jaguar have a much higher production volume than Aston Martin, or was it perhaps the brand image differences?
oilit said:
Speedraser said:
Do your friends think a Bentayga is worth the extra cost? That and the Urus are what the DBX is supposed to be competing with.
IMO, a less expensive (or not) Benz-based/powered "Aston" would completely destroy what Aston Martin is and why Astons are so desirable. Aston Martin has, and should, make cars that are in the same tier as Ferrari. It's fine that they start at lower prices (it wasn't that long ago that Ferrari played there too), but they should be truly superb and desirable cars that look and feel worth their high price. They certainly shouldn't become less special and desirable cars that sell at lower prices. When I bought my V8V new in '09, it looked and felt worth every single dollar. The DBS at the time looked and felt entirely worth the price. The original Vanquish played in exactly the same space as the Ferrari 550/575, and it completely belonged there. Also, 20k cars per year would skewer the specialness, the desirability -- the event that an Aston is, that even seeing an Aston is. 20,000 Benz-based "Astons" at bargain (relatively) prices -- yuck. Exactly what Aston Martin should not be. That's not keeping Aston alive, that's killing it.
I agree, but it’s the dichotomy I think AM is in.IMO, a less expensive (or not) Benz-based/powered "Aston" would completely destroy what Aston Martin is and why Astons are so desirable. Aston Martin has, and should, make cars that are in the same tier as Ferrari. It's fine that they start at lower prices (it wasn't that long ago that Ferrari played there too), but they should be truly superb and desirable cars that look and feel worth their high price. They certainly shouldn't become less special and desirable cars that sell at lower prices. When I bought my V8V new in '09, it looked and felt worth every single dollar. The DBS at the time looked and felt entirely worth the price. The original Vanquish played in exactly the same space as the Ferrari 550/575, and it completely belonged there. Also, 20k cars per year would skewer the specialness, the desirability -- the event that an Aston is, that even seeing an Aston is. 20,000 Benz-based "Astons" at bargain (relatively) prices -- yuck. Exactly what Aston Martin should not be. That's not keeping Aston alive, that's killing it.
The friends concerned felt the urus and Bentley portrayed the wrong image as far as they were concerned.
The conclusion they came to was: if you don’t want something that is bold to look at - then your choice may come down to possibly the Maserati, RR, DBX, Cayenne. If you want to make a statement then you may be looking at the Bentley, rolls, or urus.
If that is the buying persona, then people will do the price comparison and may end up asking the same question.
The Bentayga and Cullinan offer pure luxury and comfort, a clear step above the Range Rover. The Urus, incoming Ferrari and to some extent Cayenne Turbo are pure performance and 'status', they have their market and I daresay the DBX doesn't appeal much to these buyers. Then at the lower end we have the RRS SVR/Macan Turbo/Levante/RSQ7 which are all performance SUV's but significantly cheaper than DBX, then for the all-rounder we have the V8 Range Rover Autobiography, which for around £100k does everything, including the actual off road stuff, is practical, quick enough, luxurious enough, doesn't have so much of an image problem, covers most bases for a wealthy person's daily driver.
The DBX isn't particularly comfortable (I had one for a day), it doesn't feel particularly luxurious, it doesn't have the performance of the top tier, it doesn't have the offroad ability of the RR and it's £160k. Since it was released I was always dubious as to whether it really would sell well and save the company, you've got to really want the design or the Aston badge to part with the money for one. I test drove one thinking I'd be spending the next few months doing the man maths to get rid of my RRS and get one instead, whereas I left the dealership very happy to get back into my much more comfortable Range Rover, and enjoy its much better stereo, infotainment and elevated driving position, all for around eighty grand brand new!
Shrimpvende said:
I've said it on here before, but the DBX sits in a bit of a no mans land of SUV's. Sure, it looks great, and it doesn't have the image problem associated with some of the others, but it's a bit of a jack of all trades that sits £40k more than the highest spec Range Rover...
The Bentayga and Cullinan offer pure luxury and comfort, a clear step above the Range Rover. The Urus, incoming Ferrari and to some extent Cayenne Turbo are pure performance and 'status', they have their market and I daresay the DBX doesn't appeal much to these buyers. Then at the lower end we have the RRS SVR/Macan Turbo/Levante/RSQ7 which are all performance SUV's but significantly cheaper than DBX, then for the all-rounder we have the V8 Range Rover Autobiography, which for around £100k does everything, including the actual off road stuff, is practical, quick enough, luxurious enough, doesn't have so much of an image problem, covers most bases for a wealthy person's daily driver.
The DBX isn't particularly comfortable, it doesn't feel particularly luxurious, it doesn't have the performance of the top tier, it doesn't have the offroad ability of the RR and it's £160k. Since it was released I was always dubious as to whether it really would sell well and save the company, you've got to really want the design or the Aston badge to part with the money for one.
I feel quite ok with the positioning of the DBX. It is the most attractive SUV, far more exclusive than a Range Rover, Cayenne or Urus and others, and it is technically competitive. Compatible with dogs and horses. I can imagine that this is really the desirable SUV you want to be seen in when you prefer a positive attitude of the public (which generally doesn´t like the bunch of Bentayga and Cullinan or Urus). Exactly the niche Aston Martin should look for!The Bentayga and Cullinan offer pure luxury and comfort, a clear step above the Range Rover. The Urus, incoming Ferrari and to some extent Cayenne Turbo are pure performance and 'status', they have their market and I daresay the DBX doesn't appeal much to these buyers. Then at the lower end we have the RRS SVR/Macan Turbo/Levante/RSQ7 which are all performance SUV's but significantly cheaper than DBX, then for the all-rounder we have the V8 Range Rover Autobiography, which for around £100k does everything, including the actual off road stuff, is practical, quick enough, luxurious enough, doesn't have so much of an image problem, covers most bases for a wealthy person's daily driver.
The DBX isn't particularly comfortable, it doesn't feel particularly luxurious, it doesn't have the performance of the top tier, it doesn't have the offroad ability of the RR and it's £160k. Since it was released I was always dubious as to whether it really would sell well and save the company, you've got to really want the design or the Aston badge to part with the money for one.
Speedraser said:
Sebastian Tombs said:
cardigankid said:
Sebastian, if the brand is mishandled, that is what happens. I'm saying that they won' mishandle it.
I'm saying *they already have.*AstonV said:
Thank the heavens AM is looking for new blood for future design inside and out. They wouldn’t be in this predicament if the DB11 and Vantage hadn’t both been terrible designs.
I agree MB ownership will be a disaster for Aston. Aston should live at the same level of Ferrari and Lamborghini. MB has the resources to make that happen. But I’m afraid AM would always be their red headed step child.
I think these quotes above are among the most exaggerated summaries of what has been achieved by MB and L. Stroll recently. They have resqueed AML from bankruptcy, organized a financial sound basis for future operations and kept the company above water throughout the COVID pandemic. I agree MB ownership will be a disaster for Aston. Aston should live at the same level of Ferrari and Lamborghini. MB has the resources to make that happen. But I’m afraid AM would always be their red headed step child.
I fully agree with Speedraser that the Aston Martin sportscars should be as bespoke as possible. But I couldn´t care less which engine the DBX is using. I am perfectly fine with the Mercedes V8 in this car.
If you want to judge any impact of MB and L. Stroll to the Aston Martin brand, than this is clearly the most positive and far better than expected!
Jon39 said:
That is an interesting point Sebastian, which I had temporarily forgotten about.
During the Ford ownership era of Aston Martin and Jaguar, they appeared to leave AML alone to make their own design decisions.
It was completely different with Jaguar though, where two models were introduced having Jaguar dresses on Ford skeletons.
The X type built on a Ford Mondeo and the S type built on a Lincoln LS.
Did it occur in that way, because Jaguar have a much higher production volume than Aston Martin, or was it perhaps the brand image differences?
My own feeling is that it was a mix of bean-counter cynicism, and the fact that Ford simply didn't understand why people bought Jaguars. They only asked Americans and so assumed people just wanted retro looks, wafty ride and leather/wood interiors. Actually apart from looks and interiors the Jaguar brand had been built on great engineering, especially in the chassis department, but also with the engines, and the X Type had none of that, and didn't stand for anything Jaguar meant.
BMW made the same fundamental error with the Rover 75, although perhaps after 20 years of pretentious poshed-up Hondas it was already too late.
Talking of all these shared platforms I read a little while ago that Aston's VH platform was actually meant to serve Aston, Volvo, and other Ford brands, and that is what the V and the H stand for, rather than simple millimetres. It explains why they paid so much to develop it. It's only that Ford found itself in terrible financial trouble and had to sell its crown jewels that saved VH from being used on anything other than Aston Martins.
Sebastian Tombs said:
Talking of all these shared platforms I read a little while ago that Aston's VH platform was actually meant to serve Aston, Volvo, and other Ford brands, and that is what the V and the H stand for, rather than simple millimetres. It explains why they paid so much to develop it. It's only that Ford found itself in terrible financial trouble and had to sell its crown jewels that saved VH from being used on anything other than Aston Martins.
I’m not sure I buy that - the VH platform with its extrusions and nodal castings is workable for low volume stuff, but even Aston were finding it too expensive at their relatively tiny volumes. It also comes with struggles on occupant space and difficulty meeting crash safety (especially as the requirements have steepened year on year). It’s a low upfront investment, high per-part cost strategy - all of this is the exact opposite of what you want for high volume, more practical products. I think they could have done more with it, in the end they only ever really made short/medium/long variants in Vantage/DB9/Rapide, but it’s got the flexibility to be anything really.
They then moved to more traditional big pressings for DB11 onward, owing to the success of the VH cars despite the lack of use of that flexibility, but I reckon this was a mistake and they’ve painted themselves into a corner - pressings only work if you’re doing big volumes with minimal variety. As of today, they’re doing less-than-ideal volumes and perhaps finding themselves wishing they could broaden the range a bit more without huge expense.
Nbgring said:
AstonV said:
Thank the heavens AM is looking for new blood for future design inside and out. They wouldn’t be in this predicament if the DB11 and Vantage hadn’t both been terrible designs.
I agree MB ownership will be a disaster for Aston. Aston should live at the same level of Ferrari and Lamborghini. MB has the resources to make that happen. But I’m afraid AM would always be their red headed step child.
I think these quotes above are among the most exaggerated summaries of what has been achieved by MB and L. Stroll recently. They have resqueed AML from bankruptcy, organized a financial sound basis for future operations and kept the company above water throughout the COVID pandemic. I agree MB ownership will be a disaster for Aston. Aston should live at the same level of Ferrari and Lamborghini. MB has the resources to make that happen. But I’m afraid AM would always be their red headed step child.
I fully agree with Speedraser that the Aston Martin sportscars should be as bespoke as possible. But I couldn´t care less which engine the DBX is using. I am perfectly fine with the Mercedes V8 in this car.
If you want to judge any impact of MB and L. Stroll to the Aston Martin brand, than this is clearly the most positive and far better than expected!
I'm sure MB owners are perfectly fine with AM having the same engines as their cars as well.
Venturist said:
Sebastian Tombs said:
Talking of all these shared platforms I read a little while ago that Aston's VH platform was actually meant to serve Aston, Volvo, and other Ford brands, and that is what the V and the H stand for, rather than simple millimetres. It explains why they paid so much to develop it. It's only that Ford found itself in terrible financial trouble and had to sell its crown jewels that saved VH from being used on anything other than Aston Martins.
I’m not sure I buy that - the VH platform with its extrusions and nodal castings is workable for low volume stuff, but even Aston were finding it too expensive at their relatively tiny volumes. It also comes with struggles on occupant space and difficulty meeting crash safety (especially as the requirements have steepened year on year). It’s a low upfront investment, high per-part cost strategy - all of this is the exact opposite of what you want for high volume, more practical products. I think they could have done more with it, in the end they only ever really made short/medium/long variants in Vantage/DB9/Rapide, but it’s got the flexibility to be anything really.
They then moved to more traditional big pressings for DB11 onward, owing to the success of the VH cars despite the lack of use of that flexibility, but I reckon this was a mistake and they’ve painted themselves into a corner - pressings only work if you’re doing big volumes with minimal variety. As of today, they’re doing less-than-ideal volumes and perhaps finding themselves wishing they could broaden the range a bit more without huge expense.
Interesting.
I did not know the DB11 onwards have pressed floorpans, having thought the chassis was a continuation of the flexible VH structure, just without the name, because of the journalists' criticism about it being old.
Is the pressed floor made off-site and is it aluminium? Each core model would need a different pressing, whereas before, the chassis components were picked, checked by computer and then assembled in-house for each new car.
I have a vague recollection that the VW Group began using an alloy chassis to reduce weight. Think they called it MQV or something.
Is that true, because they are big volume manufacturer ?
Sebastian Tombs said:
Talking of all these shared platforms I read a little while ago that Aston's VH platform was actually meant to serve Aston, Volvo, and other Ford brands, and that is what the V and the H stand for, rather than simple millimetres. It explains why they paid so much to develop it. It's only that Ford found itself in terrible financial trouble and had to sell its crown jewels that saved VH from being used on anything other than Aston Martins.
The VH platform was bespoke to AM. You may be confusing Fords DEW platform. It was designed by Ford & Jaguar to be used across brands but was also and expensive platform. It was used for the Lincoln LS, Jaguar S type , Ford Thunderbird, and later went on to underpin the XJ and XK (although Jaguar may deny). A modified version of the front was also used on the Ford Mustang.Jon39 said:
I did not know the DB11 onwards have pressed floorpans having thought the chassis was a continuation of the flexible VH structure,
They don't. A conventional floor with be made of very large pressings, sometimes only one, or maybe two or four, depending on the size of the pressings, the presses they have available and how much they want to spend on tooling. The DB11 floor and structure does continue exactly the same principle of the previous VH architecture of using aluminium extrusions, castings and pressings, all tacked into position with self-piercing rivets and bonded with adhesive, the rivets adding some strength and holding everything together until the glue cures. The difference between the old and the new is for the current architecture AML have invested in a lot more pressings in the make up - this means the investment is considerably higher than for VH but you get a much more efficient structure, both from the point of view of space, as you can push the pressings into voids and yield that otherwise dead space into the interior, or from strength, as you can put the metal where the load paths say it needs to be. Because Aston have made much of the number of pressings in the new structure, I can understand why people might think it's a pressed floorpan. It's not. All the various castings, extrusions and pressings are designed in-house, made by subcontract companies, anodised (for corrosion and adhesion) and shipped into Aston Gaydon to be assembled in their in-house body manufacturing facility. The actual assembly facility is in a carefully-controlled environment to prevent potential contamination affecting the adhesive bonds, so can't be seen on a normal tour.
The previous VH architecture (VH standing for Vertical-Horizontal) was cheap, relatively inefficient but you can (in theory) simply extend the extrusions to increase the length or height of the basic structure at virtually no cost (hence the Vertical and Horizontal) as the cast nodes that the extrusions interface with would be the same; in reality it isn't quite that simple. Andy Palmer mandated that AML would stop referring to the VH architecture for exactly the reason that it tied the new cars to the old ones too closely, even to the point he changed the model codes from the old ones (DB9 being VH1 internally) to all-new codes (DB11 being AM500)
Edited by LTP on Tuesday 16th March 19:18
VH does not refer to height and length. It refers to use across brands (horizontal) and use within the brand (vertical). It applies to the major subsystems such as engine, trans, entertainment, HVAC, etc, not just the aluminum chassis/structure. This was all described years ago by AML when the VH architecture was introduced.
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff