Future AM engines and Valhalla

[DeejRC]

So what do we think Aston Martin is then? This I suspect is the crux of the point.

[WantSagaris]

AstonV said:

The Vantage is where AML money is made. If it doesn’t sell, with or without Daimler, it won’t matter. Aston fails.

That might have been the case back in 05, but these days it's a shrinking sector and the competition arguably tougher. Only a real Aston enthusiast would pick the current Vantage over the alternatives.

The money maker these days is the SUV.

[AdamV12V]

Considering that within 5 years AM will be producing battery cars and 10 the whole range will be electric, the whole engine debate on this final ICE range is a moot point really.

Will we be getting all upset about who's battery pack and leccy motor is fitted to an Aston in the future? I for one wont, cos I won't be buying one no matter who's battery it is.

[Big Ry]

AdamV12V said:

Considering that within 5 years AM will be producing battery cars and 10 the whole range will be electric, the whole engine debate on this final ICE range is a moot point really.

Will we be getting all upset about who's battery pack and leccy motor is fitted to an Aston in the future? I for one wont, cos I won't be buying one no matter who's battery it is.

^^^^^

[cardigankid]

I will probably buy a DB11 Volante in the not too distant future, but beyond that, once they have electric motors, I'm out.

[ds666]

AdamV12V said:

I for one wont, cos I won't be buying one no matter who's battery it is.

I'd have one if they made it with a manual gearbox .... lol

[WantSagaris]

AdamV12V said:

Considering that within 5 years AM will be producing battery cars and 10 the whole range will be electric, the whole engine debate on this final ICE range is a moot point really.

Will we be getting all upset about who's battery pack and leccy motor is fitted to an Aston in the future? I for one wont, cos I won't be buying one no matter who's battery it is.

I find it hard to believe that in 10 years all will be electric. Do we really think that all car enthusiasts by 2030 will want electric? What the UK gov us proposing is first and fullmost politics.

You could also view it as the last period to produce iconic ICE cars.

[AdamV12V]

WantSagaris said:

I find it hard to believe that in 10 years all will be electric. Do we really think that all car enthusiasts by 2030 will want electric? What the UK gov us proposing is first and fullmost politics.

Well its what Stroll said in the bloomberg interview the other day, and by 2030 it will be illegal to sell AMs's in the UK with an ICE, and Im sure other govs will follow in an effort to go green.

As for if its what car enthusiasts want, then yes some will for sure. I meet a lot of enthusiasts who are not petrolheads, ust performanceheads really, and want the fastest thing at all odds. They rave on about how fast a Tesla is etc...

Anyway its going to happen within our lifetimes I suspect, 2030 or a bit after, we will see, but it looks unavoidable now. Synth fuel may give a small stay of execution, but I doubt it will look viable once the electro revolution gets into its full stride.

Ask yourself, just how many CRT or even Plasma TVs can you buy today, despite them initially having the best picture quality at the time.

[ds666]

It will be legal to sell hybrid cars until 2035 in the UK

[WantSagaris]

The other issue, is that due to the limited miles put into many luxury vehicles in comparison to mainstream vehicles, the environmental argument for EV is weaker due to the production footprint of an EV.

And I know its what LS said, but are we really going to believe everything an Aston CEO says considering the previous management?

[Piston Ted]

cardigankid said:

beyond that, once they have electric motors, I'm out.

Same.

[oilit]

Piston Ted said:

cardigankid said:

beyond that, once they have electric motors, I'm out.

Same.

I was up for the Rapide E, but not at the daft price they wanted.

having said that, as far as I know, USA and other big markets outside of the UK & Europe for AM have not yet announced the demonisation (sorry banning) of IC engines, so even though those of us in the markets where you can't buy an IC version in the near future many parts of the world will still be open to AM IC new vehicles right?

[AstonV]

oilit said:

I was up for the Rapide E, but not at the daft price they wanted.

having said that, as far as I know, USA and other big markets outside of the UK & Europe for AM have not yet announced the demonisation (sorry banning) of IC engines, so even though those of us in the markets where you can't buy an IC version in the near future many parts of the world will still be open to AM IC new vehicles right?

It's not going to happen that soon. Idiot politicians can mandate all they want. Even Elon Musk said it's going to take 20 years. Unfortunately most politicians are IDIOTS. There is a difference between someone who is and Idiot and someone who is stupid. Idiots are dangerous.


https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2020/12/elon-mus...

[AstonV]

WantSagaris said:

AstonV said:

The Vantage is where AML money is made. If it doesn’t sell, with or without Daimler, it won’t matter. Aston fails.

That might have been the case back in 05, but these days it's a shrinking sector and the competition arguably tougher. Only a real Aston enthusiast would pick the current Vantage over the alternatives.

The money maker these days is the SUV.

I agree, just not a $200,000+ SUV's.

[cardigankid]

AdamV12V said:

As for if its what car enthusiasts want, then yes some will for sure. I meet a lot of enthusiasts who are not petrolheads, just performanceheads really, and want the fastest thing at all odds. They rave on about how fast a Tesla is etc.............

It may be fast by certain parameters, but it's not much fun or very practical. If people love that stuff, I applaud them. Let them get on with it and buy them, and the best of British to them in their brave new world. I'm not against them, I am just saying that I have no interest in it. I don't mind travelling round town in an electric vehicle provided it is safe, but I won't be buying one as a keeper.

AdamV12V said:

Ask yourself, just how many CRT or even Plasma TVs can you buy today, despite them initially having the best picture quality at the time.

Yes, and it is worth noting that was an advance in technology - who wouldn't want the latest biggest TV (if you want to watch the rubbish and repeats they churn out these days, or all the non-news) The electric car is not a technical advance, it is a change driven by political factors.

[cardigankid]

Speedraser said:

DeejRC: Yesterday’s Merc was rightfully revered. But this is today’s Merc, and it’s completely different. Today’s Merc puts its name and star on a Chrysler van. Today’s Merc put its name and star on a Nissan pickup. Merc references its heritage for marketing – only. Today’s Merc is the one that now has so much influence over Aston Martin. Sad. Speaking of Dany Bahar, the current marketing plans (more SUV variants, mid-engine cars, front-engined cars, much more volume) don’t really sound all that different from his.

I don’t think it’s fair to simply say that all previous owners failed. Some of them had some real successes – after which they failed. The numerous previous failures of the business are part of Aston's history. They show, among other things, that the cars and the company were so compelling that people continually felt it was worth their time, effort and money to save. None of that history means that making “Astons” with Benz engines or platforms is the right path forward. Again, even if it were to “save” the brand, it wouldn't -- it would obliterate the substance of Aston Martin.

I agree that the total volume of Aston’s market space is limited. That’s why every time someone says he’s going to save the company by significantly increasing sales volume, it strikes me as the wrong approach. Money can be made at (relatively) high volume and (relatively) low margin – but only if that volume materializes. Money can also be made through low volume and high margin -- IMO, this would be the better path. Keep volumes low (not too low, obviously) in what is a niche market and maintain the exclusivity, but make each sale high-margin. Build a truly compelling product that can command its high price, and you have a real chance at making that a success. A Benz-based “Aston” is NOT that product.

I can see this debate going on forever. If it were not for BMW we wouldn't have Rolls-Royce or Mini, if it weren't for VW Group we wouldn't have Bentley, Lamborghini, Bugatti or even Porsche for that matter. The brands wouldn't exist.

These compelling cars you talk about were produced at a loss in miniscule numbers, with appalling quality and reliability issues, and nobody wanted to buy them. You couldn't even do THAT nowadays. And it doesn't matter how high the margin is, AML would need a healthy seven figure sum out of each vehicle just to stay profitable, which is where all these continuation models are coming from. Even then, that is not taking the brand forward. Ferrari only need one failure, and their business model is over and done with. AML have had it, finito, end of story, unless they have a large automotive parent group who buy into the brand. That may give them the only chance they are liable to get to develop their own chassis & engines.

Dany Bahar's Lotus plan was on another scale of idiocy altogether, comparable only with Andy Palmer, and equally unsuccessful.

Anyway, we are rearranging the deck chairs as the ship goes down. The Govt. is going to stop all this, so if you want an Aston which meets your particular requirements, you had best buy a classic one, because very shortly, I would say by 2025, it's all going to be over.

[Sebastian Tombs]

cardigankid said:

I can see this debate going on forever. If it were not for BMW we wouldn't have Rolls-Royce or Mini, if it weren't for VW Group we wouldn't have Bentley, Lamborghini, Bugatti or even Porsche for that matter. The brands wouldn't exist.

In an alternative timeline, 'Sliding Doors'-style:

If it were not for BMW:
Rolls-Royce and Bentley would still exist, and still be one single company, albeit possibly owned by VW, rather than Vickers. And they would be more reliable due to not being full of BMW electrics. Rolls Royce Motor Cars was profitable. Rolls Royce aeroplane engines wasn't.
Mini would continue to exist, and so would Rover, because BAE would still own them, or Ford would have bought them along with Land Rover and so they would now be part of Tata. The Mini, incidentally made a good profit in the Graham Day years

If it weren't for VW.
Rolls-Royce and Bentley would still exist, and still be one single company, albeit possibly owned by BMW, rather than Vickers. And they wouldn't be engineered like Audis.
Bugatti would continue not to exist, but nobody apart from Romano Artioli would care because it's not the 1930s, and who actually wants a new Bugatti apart from Youtubers and oil billionaires with no imagination?
Porsche would still exist as they were highly profitable after the Boxster launched and at one point were going to take over VW, rather than the other way round. Although if VW had never existed then neither would Porsche. What would yuppies have driven in the 1980s?
Lamborghini? Well we can never know, but like Aston Martin, its an emotional and evocative brand and there would always be someone to take them over. It's had quite a few owners over the years.

Lamborghini and Aston Martin would actually do quite well together in one company. No crossover, lots of symbiosis. hmmm.

Of course if there were neither BMW nor VW then all sorts of companies would still exist: Rover, Triumph, Talbot, Sunbeam etc, although we'd probably be on to the Mk 8 Austin Allegro by now. These alternative timelines can be tricky.

Edited by Sebastian Tombs on Tuesday 23 March 10:20

[Buzz Killington]

Sebastian Tombs said:

[
Lamborghini and Aston Martin would actually do quite well together in one company. No crossover, lots of symbiosis. hmmm.

Aston exhaust note on a lambo V10 ... Daroool daroool!

[ExecutiveAction]

Dewi 2 said:

Being a new poster, I obviously don't know your depth of knowledge about Aston Martin.

I, and judging by numerous comments made by many other AM owners on this forum, have not been influenced at all by corporate ownership.

Neither has the initial buying motivation been huge horsepower, or better than rivals performance figures.
With UK roads full of bland lookalike hatchbacks and SUVs, the overriding buying attraction, was that the DB7, DB9 and V8 Vantage, are all stunningly beautiful cars.

A small point about manufacturer ownership. At least Ford paid for their purchase (not very much though). Mercedes-Benz have not paid anything for their minority stake (the current percentage, which is continually being incorrectly stated by the press). AML pay for all their MB parts and in addition, have to give shares to M-B to have that deal agreed.

What you describe is the eternal problem with Aston Martin. Loads of enthusiasts who can’t afford the cars and loads of stockbrokers who will only buy one if they are as rock solid as a Rolls, or a Mercedes. It was always so, but especially in the 1960’s and 70’s. There is a very small subset who are enthusiasts and can afford the cars. You won’t be influenced by financial stability, and neither will I because I was one of the little boys in tears when they went bust in 1974. I didn’t realise that it was like supporting Newcastle United, and this sort of thing happened a lot.

[oilit]

Glad to see the new AMG 4 pot is getting such rave reviews from pistonheads.....

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=19...