Future AM engines and Valhalla
Discussion
hyphen said:
Are they not different cars?
The GT3 is for raw driving thrills and so the engine matters more.
The Vantage is a cruiser, made to look good and sound good. As long as it looks good and sounds good, the job is done I would say.
Aston though should go through the charade of saying "it has some 'simlarities' with MB, but our engineers have changed x,y,z to our spec, the power is higher, we do some additional work after delivery on it and so on. An outsourced for manufacturing aston engine rather than a MB engine.
On the platform front, they could just call it the Aston platform Mercedes is also using. As long as the Aston is more expensive and more appealing than should be OK.
I think I'm right in saying that VAG cars like the Audi R8 is the same platform as Lamborghinis? And no one cares and R8 doesn't compare.
To each his own, of course, but... I disagree with every single point.The GT3 is for raw driving thrills and so the engine matters more.
The Vantage is a cruiser, made to look good and sound good. As long as it looks good and sounds good, the job is done I would say.
Aston though should go through the charade of saying "it has some 'simlarities' with MB, but our engineers have changed x,y,z to our spec, the power is higher, we do some additional work after delivery on it and so on. An outsourced for manufacturing aston engine rather than a MB engine.
On the platform front, they could just call it the Aston platform Mercedes is also using. As long as the Aston is more expensive and more appealing than should be OK.
I think I'm right in saying that VAG cars like the Audi R8 is the same platform as Lamborghinis? And no one cares and R8 doesn't compare.
Edited by hyphen on Tuesday 2nd March 12:33
What it IS matters. Not what a marketer says it is.
Venturist said:
Olivera said:
Speedraser said:
For me, it's not an Aston if it doesn't have an Aston engine.
Aren't the older Aston V8 and V12 engines derived from Ford/Jaguar designs? Weren't both built in Cologne by Ford?
Olivera, while it would be fantastic, I'm not so unrealistic as to think that Aston can/should design a clean-sheet engine (although the almost-done V6 strongly suggests that they could). Nor do I think that it must be a clean-sheet engine to be considered an Aston Martin engine. "Derived from" is, for me, a completely different world from the off-the-shelf Benz engine. The AMG V8 -- the engine itself -- is not changed at all. It is identical to the engine under the hood of countless Mercedes/AMG cars. There is nothing "Aston" about it. In contrast...
IMO, the 4.3/4.7 V8s and the V12s are Aston Martin engines. The V8 is “derived from” the Jaguar 4.2 V8. However, Aston re-engineered it so comprehensively that the Aston engines have their own, unique/bespoke, block, crankshaft, bearings, conrods, pistons, rings, heads, valves, camshafts, etc. – everything is unique to Aston Martin, hence it's an Aston engine. The V12 is based on the architecture of Ford’s Duratec V6, but is far more than just the often-(mis)stated "two V6s stuck together." After Ford’s concept V12, the engine was re-engineered by Cosworth as a purpose-built V12 specifically for Aston Martin. It does share some parts with the Ford engine (pistons, rods and cam followers come to mind). The Aston V12 has only ever been offered in Aston Martin cars.
The V12 was built by Cosworth until 2004, when the Aston Martin Engine Plant opened in a dedicated Aston-only building within Ford's Cologne complex. It employs only Aston Martin personnel, and only builds Aston Martin engines.
So... The VH cars have Aston Martin engines and Aston Martin platforms. They're Aston Martins. Now we have cars with an Aston Martin platform, and with either an Aston Martin V12 or someone else's bought-in off-the-shelf V8. We also have a clean-sheet Aston Martin V6-hybrid engine that is very far along its development, but that, stunningly and shamefully, will probably never be produced. And now we can expect a Mercedes platform with Mercedes engines, that will look different and have an Aston badge. That will be a Mercedes, no matter what they say. That's not saving Aston Martin -- that's killing it.
Edited by Speedraser on Wednesday 3rd March 04:35
Edited by Speedraser on Wednesday 3rd March 04:36
Speedraser said:
Venturist said:
Olivera said:
Speedraser said:
For me, it's not an Aston if it doesn't have an Aston engine.
Aren't the older Aston V8 and V12 engines derived from Ford/Jaguar designs? Weren't both built in Cologne by Ford?Olivera, while it would be fantastic, I'm not so unrealistic as to think that Aston can/should design a clean-sheet engine (although the almost-done V6 strongly suggests that they could). Nor do I think that it must be a clean-sheet engine to be considered an Aston Martin engine. "Derived from" is, for me, a completely different world from the off-the-shelf Benz engine. The AMG V8 -- the engine itself -- is not changed at all. It is identical to the engine under the hood of countless Mercedes/AMG cars. There is nothing "Aston" about it. In contrast...
IMO, the 4.3/4.7 V8s and the V12s are Aston Martin engines. The V8 is “derived from” the Jaguar 4.2 V8. However, Aston re-engineered it so comprehensively that the Aston engines have their own, unique/bespoke, block, crankshaft, bearings, conrods, pistons, rings, heads, valves, camshafts, etc. – everything is unique to Aston Martin, hence it's an Aston engine. The V12 is based on the architecture of Ford’s Duratec V6, but is far more than just the often-(mis)stated "two V6s stuck together." After Ford’s concept V12, the engine was re-engineered by Cosworth as a purpose-built V12 specifically for Aston Martin. It does share some parts with the Ford engine (pistons, rods and cam followers come to mind). The Aston V12 has only ever been offered in Aston Martin cars.
The V12 was built by Cosworth until 2004, when the Aston Martin Engine Plant opened in a dedicated Aston-only building within Ford's Cologne complex. It employs only Aston Martin personnel, and only builds Aston Martin engines.
So... The VH cars have Aston Martin engines and Aston Martin platforms. They're Aston Martins. Now we have cars with an Aston Martin platform, and with either an Aston Martin V12 or someone else's bought-in off-the-shelf V8. We also have a clean-sheet Aston Martin V6-hybrid engine that is very far along its development, but that, stunningly and shamefully, will probably never be produced. And now we can expect a Mercedes platform with Mercedes engines, that will look different and have an Aston badge. That will be a Mercedes, no matter what they say. That's not saving Aston Martin -- that's killing it.
Speedraser said:
The V12 was built by Cosworth until 2004, when the Aston Martin Engine Plant opened in a dedicated Aston-only building within Ford's Cologne complex. It employs only Aston Martin personnel, and only builds Aston Martin engines.
Small correction - Aston Martin had for the V8 and have for the V12, a legal contract with Ford for the assembly of those engines.
So it is not simply a case of renting a part of Ford's factory.
The important point of difference (to many owners), as you say, is that the engines are unique to Aston Martin, and the configurations have never been in production by any other car manufacturer.
A point on the Tobias Moer's Autocar quote about MB platforms. Perhaps it is not actually what he said.
hyphen said:
Speedraser said:
For me, it's not an Aston if it doesn't have an Aston engine. Period.
How is that going to translate into the new EV world? Where some ev powertrain company/MB may make the motors and LGChem or similar supply the battery tech.If the electric motor is made at Gaydon and also has a distinctive Aston Martin electric whine, that would appear to meet Speedraser's requirements.
Had this thread had been going 3 or 4 years ago I would firmly be in the camp of no to Mercedes engines, but now with the way this electric stuff is hurtling towards us like an out of control express train I don’t care whose engine it is as long as they have an engine! I still cannot get my head around an Aston or Ferrari Performance car without an engine and unless synthetic fuels come along and save the day I would never buy an Aston without an engine, for me the whole experience needs to be dominated by an engine. So with the way things are looking, I’m ‘stuck’ with older cars (which is perfectly fine by me as I prefer the VH era anyway)
Anything that waters down the exclusivity and the brand the way that BMW and Mercedes did will make me move onto another car brand. I'm glad that Cyget experiment failed 8 years ago.
It's one of the reasons why we buy these cars and why I would not buy an Acura NSX and would have hesitation in buying a Merc GTR.
It's one of the reasons why we buy these cars and why I would not buy an Acura NSX and would have hesitation in buying a Merc GTR.
hyphen said:
How is that going to translate into the new EV world? Where some ev powertrain company/MB may make the motors and LGChem or similar supply the battery tech.
The EV world is still decades away. That being said, there are a lot of supercars with the Hybrid stance. Pros and cons. Vespah said:
The EV world is still decades away.
I genuinely don't think it's anywhere near as far away as you might think.Social pressure by the sometimes ill-informed masses, which turns into political pressure will force manufacturers hand on this sooner rather than later. Any company still trying to argue that ICE is the way forward in 10 years will be a social pariah....and bankrupt.
I've never driven a EV that I then thought I wanted, but at some point (when the charging infrastructure is a bit better) my DD will be an EV, I've accepted that.
Speedraser said:
I hear you, and I'm not opposed to EVs, though none has made me actually desire one (I've driven several Teslas and the Taycan -- impressive, but they leave me cold). In the States, for those of us who do some long-distance driving, range is a huge issue, and a real one. The US is a big country. Yes, you can go cross-country in an EV, and the various apps will tell you where to find a charge. But EV non-local ease of use is still very different, and vastly less convenient. Rapid progress is being made, of course (cars and infrastructure), but the infrastructure here (and in Europe) is so far away from where it needs to be to handle such a monumental increase in electricity demand/production that I don't think it can be done in fewer than 9 years. We shall see...
I'm in Canada, basically the same situation as the States except generally colder winters, another huge factor limiting EV range. Straying off topic a bit here, but the whole EV focus IMHO is part and parcel of the global scam known as the green movement. As governments push for EVs, there is a resultant, desperate need for infrastructure as you clearly point out. One part of that infrastructure is electrical grid capacity, specifically both adequate, 24/7 baseline load capacity and surge capacity. Ironically, the policies of those same governments will either inhibit or cripple that capacity by continuing to spend vast sums of public money on schemes that are not fit for purpose (solar, wind), or they will have a 'negative green' effect (decommission of nuclear plants with resultant refiring of coal plants, for example). The whole thing is a giant mess of ill-conceived and poorly thought out, disconnected fantasies. As others have said in this thread, I can't see EVs replacing the ICE within the next 10 years, not unless governments really and truly want to legislate us into third world or Soviet-era status.
AlexT said:
So a possible solution would be to put the DB11 V12 in the new Vantage? Keep everyone happy.
If I'm honest, I wonder whether the time has passed now. I can't imagine execs are sitting in boardrooms talking about releasing bigger engine vehicles. I may well be wrong, but it doesn't seem likely to me.Plus, adding a V12 to a model that hasn't really received world wide acclaim might not solve the sales issue, bar a few mental people like us, but it will cost AML money to do.
hyphen said:
Speedraser said:
For me, it's not an Aston if it doesn't have an Aston engine. Period.
How is that going to translate into the new EV world? Where some ev powertrain company/MB may make the motors and LGChem or similar supply the battery tech.I'm not holding my breath, but I am hoping Porsche and others are able to make a real go of synthetic fuels!
quench said:
I'm in Canada, basically the same situation as the States except generally colder winters, another huge factor limiting EV range. Straying off topic a bit here, but the whole EV focus IMHO is part and parcel of the global scam known as the green movement. As governments push for EVs, there is a resultant, desperate need for infrastructure as you clearly point out. One part of that infrastructure is electrical grid capacity, specifically both adequate, 24/7 baseline load capacity and surge capacity. Ironically, the policies of those same governments will either inhibit or cripple that capacity by continuing to spend vast sums of public money on schemes that are not fit for purpose (solar, wind), or they will have a 'negative green' effect (decommission of nuclear plants with resultant refiring of coal plants, for example).
The whole thing is a giant mess of ill-conceived and poorly thought out, disconnected fantasies. As others have said in this thread, I can't see EVs replacing the ICE within the next 10 years, not unless governments really and truly want to legislate us into third world or Soviet-era status.
This +1The whole thing is a giant mess of ill-conceived and poorly thought out, disconnected fantasies. As others have said in this thread, I can't see EVs replacing the ICE within the next 10 years, not unless governments really and truly want to legislate us into third world or Soviet-era status.
The whole green movement is is hypocritical nonsense promoted by interest groups, politicians and celebs who want us to do as they say, not as they do. They want to preserve their high end lifestyle while depriving us of ours and turning us into a lot of serfs. It's just the modern equivalent of religious fanaticism, burning witches, the Spanish Inquisition, Soviet Communism, Nazism, McCarthyism, Scientology, the Moonies, or even ISIS. It's about control of 'the masses' using some cynical 'cult-style' belief system and enforcement by social pressure and scapegoating. You are not allowed to disagree with St. David Attenborough or 'that remarkable young woman' Greta Thunberg, or you will be ostracized and probably bankrupted. Television is a complete fiction, none of it is truthful (with the possible exception of Bangers & Cash) either mindless chewing gum, subtle but continuous propaganda, or blunt distortion of the truth. We would do better to pull them off our walls and throw them in skips, then go out and actually live our lives. Oh, sorry, I forgot, we are not allowed to. We have to stay at home and not meet friends or family.
There is no actual sense or calculation behind setting 2030 as the date to stop selling ICE cars. It just sounds virtuous. Boris has no idea if the infrastructure will be ready, what is or is not environmentally friendly, or whether people will actually buy these frankly dull, overpriced, electric cars. People who think that the answer is to electrify E-Types are deluding themselves. An electric E-Type or DB5 is neither a Jaguar nor an Aston Martin, nor anything much. The reality is that as and when they ban ICE car production, Aston Martin, Ferrari, Lamborghini, McLaren, Mercedes-AMG, BMW M and others are over and finished. Who wants or needs an Aston Martin milkfloat? Rolls-Royce and Porsche might survive. However, the whole lunatic business is so out of touch with reality I doubt whether it is actually going to happen. I don't believe that people are going to transition to electric cars en masse.
If they do succeed, we are going to achieve nothing for the real environment, which we continue to pollute unchecked, and we are going to throw away the hard-won prosperity which has been achieved post-WW2.
I won't be 'volunteering' for COP26, that's for sure.
I applaud Speedrazer's sentiment, but I'm afraid that sentiment is what it is, no more. At this moment, he is just playing a violin on the decks of the Titanic when he should be stuffing mattresses into the hole in the hull. Car companies have to be kept in business by whatever means possible, that has always been the case, and the buying public have to decide if it is a product they want.
Edited by cardigankid on Sunday 14th March 08:39
[quote] Car companies have to be kept in business by whatever means possible, that has always been the case
[/quote]
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.
[/quote]
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.
cardigankid said:
The whole green movement is is hypocritical nonsense promoted by interest groups, politicians and celebs who want us to do as they say, not as they do. They want to preserve their high end lifestyle while depriving us of ours and turning us into a lot of serfs. It's just the modern equivalent of religious fanaticism, burning witches, the Spanish Inquisition, Soviet Communism, Nazism, McCarthyism, Scientology, the Moonies, or even ISIS. It's about control of 'the masses' using some cynical 'cult-style' belief system and enforcement by social pressure and scapegoating. You are not allowed to disagree with St. David Attenborough or 'that remarkable young woman' Greta Thunberg, or you will be ostracized and probably bankrupted. Television is a complete fiction, none of it is truthful (with the possible exception of Bangers & Cash)
Oh ... wow. The most frightening thing about this post is that you're probably not being ironic. Needless to say, this introduction means anything that follows can safely be ignored. Oh, a couple more things: the earth is not flat and 911 was not an inside job, despite what some websites would have you believeLTP said:
Oh ... wow. The most frightening thing about this post is that you're probably not being ironic. Needless to say, this introduction means anything that follows can safely be ignored. Oh, a couple more things: the earth is not flat and 911 was not an inside job, despite what some websites would have you believe
Gosh, aren't you witty, LTP?! Wow, indeed. Most of you guys like to say that, I notice.Of course, none of those things, the witch burning, the Soviet Union People's Paradise, the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, the Moonies ever happened, did they? They are all a figment of my paranoia, are they? What we are looking at now is modern fascism.
Sebastian, if the brand is mishandled, that is what happens. I'm saying that they won' mishandle it. However, most of the brands you mention went bust through lack of investment and complete inability to run a profitable business. Aston Martin would have gone too, long ago, if it hadn't been for the support provided by David Brown, an, er, tractor manufacturer (who immediately utilised a Lagonda engine designed by WO Bentley) and Ford Motor Company, who have done a few brands in, in their day. These periods of ownership did not result in the end of the brand. Actually they resulted, in both cases, in the greatest eras in the brand's history. The two letters most closely associated with the brand in public consciousness are, curiously, not AM, but DB. Why do you not regard that as sacrilege? What had DB got to do with AM, before the gear and tractor guy got involved?
I would say that bodes pretty well if Mercedes take a significant interest. If FoMoCo managed not to fluff it, I'm guessing Mercedes Benz won't either, but you have to start somewhere. Can we let them produce the cars, at least, then criticise them for what they have actually done, instead of for what you think they might do?
Edited by cardigankid on Sunday 14th March 12:53
cardigankid said:
...... Aston Martin would have gone too, long ago, if it hadn't been for the support provided by David Brown, an, er, tractor manufacturer (who immediately utilised a Lagonda engine designed by WO Bentley) and Ford Motor Company, who have done a few brands in, in their day. These periods of ownership did not result in the end of the brand. Actually they resulted, in both cases, in the greatest eras in the brand's history.......
I would say that bodes pretty well if Mercedes take a significant interest. If FoMoCo managed not to fluff it, I'm guessing Mercedes Benz won't either, but you have to start somewhere. Can we let them produce the cars, at least, then criticise them for what they have actually done, instead of for what you think they might do?
I would say that bodes pretty well if Mercedes take a significant interest. If FoMoCo managed not to fluff it, I'm guessing Mercedes Benz won't either, but you have to start somewhere. Can we let them produce the cars, at least, then criticise them for what they have actually done, instead of for what you think they might do?
It is certainly a fascinating story. The rescuers just kept on coming. Every one probably thought they would create a sustainable business, but few left with their wallets intact.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
In the 1980s, some existing AM owners thought the end of Aston Martin was coming, when Ford arrived.
By the end of their reign however, they were seen as a perfect parent.
Ford left Aston Martin alone, but provided money and big company engineering guidance.
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff