4.3 v 4.7 - real-world differences
Discussion
Welshbeef said:
The 0-100mph / 1/4 mile times are telling it’s a notably quicker car.
But the performance of the 4.3 is still fast.
How about the sound between the two any differences
The 4.3 is a fast car, it just didn't feel as fast. When it arrived in 2005 many people had become used to turbo rep mobiles and missed the torque. There's no step change in the power delivery like some other aspirated engines, just a linear smooth power delivery.But the performance of the 4.3 is still fast.
How about the sound between the two any differences
Sound difference between the 4.3 and the N400 with the 20bhp. The sports back box on the N400 which made it sound different, owners that purchased the factory "Power Pack" upgraded didnt get the exhaust by default. Just plenum, airboxes, remap.
The later 2010 4.7 with the secondary cats + cats in manifold are quieter than a 4.3. That was the most disappointing thing when I changed from 4.3 to 4.7. I swapped out the secondary cats for straight through pipes and solved that issue
I had a 2007 4.3 previously and upgraded to a 2013 4.7 a few years ago.
The difference is not night and day but the extra torque does make a difference to low down pick up and acceleration. Its still a slow revving and lazy engine but the extra grunt makes it easier to have fun without always revving to the limter.
Soundwise the 4.3 is much better stock. When I first bought my 4.7 I thought the valves were broken as it was so much quieter when actually they have been locked open. I removed the secondary cats which make the exhaust note louder but still not as sweet as the 4.3 stock. From what I read I also need to change the back box to a sport version to fully replicate the 4.3 tone.
The difference is not night and day but the extra torque does make a difference to low down pick up and acceleration. Its still a slow revving and lazy engine but the extra grunt makes it easier to have fun without always revving to the limter.
Soundwise the 4.3 is much better stock. When I first bought my 4.7 I thought the valves were broken as it was so much quieter when actually they have been locked open. I removed the secondary cats which make the exhaust note louder but still not as sweet as the 4.3 stock. From what I read I also need to change the back box to a sport version to fully replicate the 4.3 tone.
OGR4M said:
I am here as a purely impartial advisor, with absolutely no bias and definitely don’t know the OP or share his surname.
Based on my independent research you should simply man up and buy one.
Thank you for your time.
Despite my youngest son trying deperately to get me to spend his inheritance, I think I'm going to stick with the 4.3 for a while longer. This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the 4.7 I had my eye on has been sold.....Based on my independent research you should simply man up and buy one.
Thank you for your time.
Whilst the extra mid-range grunt of the 4.7 would have been welcome, it's not like the 4.3 is terribly deficient. Also the Yorkshireman in me can't see that £10k for 400cc and 40bhp is worth it.
One of my main reasons for buying a V8V was to slow down a bit - my previous car (beserk Fiat Coupe) was just too fast to enjoy properly on the public highway. Despite being FWD, it was faster over a quarter mile than a 4.7 and once rolling, it would be way faster. It had to be doing north of 150 before it felt like it was working hard, so it was a custodial sentence waiting to happen.
By comparison, the V8V is entertaining at much less loopy speeds and in fact I often find myself cruising at under the speed limit, just becuase I can.
Thanks for all the input on this thread - it's much appreciated.
Still keeping an eye on the classifieds though....
"Whilst the extra mid-range grunt of the 4.7 would have been welcome, it's not like the 4.3 is terribly deficient. Also the Yorkshireman in me can't see that £10k for 400cc and 40bhp is worth it."
You can imagine when the 4.7 came out new and 3 year old 4.3s were £30-40k cheaper...it took even more justification for many, including me, hence I kept my 4.3 for 9 years...you already have a great car, enjoy
You can imagine when the 4.7 came out new and 3 year old 4.3s were £30-40k cheaper...it took even more justification for many, including me, hence I kept my 4.3 for 9 years...you already have a great car, enjoy
Nigel, I think it's worth noting that the 4.7's extra go isn't just in the mid-range -- it's across the entire rev range, including the top end. Also, as many have said, there are various other improvements. That said, and as you noted, the 4.3 is plenty quick and a great car in its own right. Enjoy it!
Welshbeef said:
Less weight over the front wheels on the 4.3 meaning a more balanced car.
You have puzzled me with that.
My guess is that the 4.3 and 4.7 engine weights must be almost identical.
4.7 has block bores slightly bigger with liners fitted.
Cannot think of what else might affect weight differences.
Edited by Dewi 2 on Thursday 2nd June 09:03
I was disappointed when Max_torque on here stated that he was an engineer on the Vantage 4.3 powertrain, and that the final product only made a real 360bhp, not 380bhp. This gives it a bhp/tonne of just over 200, which is roughly what junior hot hatches such as the Fiesta ST make, so it's not surprising that performance is lacklustre. The Vantage 4.7 I drove did seem an improvement.
Olivera said:
I was disappointed when Max_torque on here stated that he was an engineer on the Vantage 4.3 powertrain, and that the final product only made a real 360bhp, not 380bhp. This gives it a bhp/tonne of just over 200, which is roughly what junior hot hatches such as the Fiesta ST make, so it's not surprising that performance is lacklustre. The Vantage 4.7 I drove did seem an improvement.
I’d imagine that it’s at the crank as well not the wheels.Once transmission loss etc is taken in to account it’ll be much less. But most manufacturers measure it this way tbf.
Finding Neutral said:
Olivera said:
I was disappointed when Max_torque on here stated that he was an engineer on the Vantage 4.3 powertrain, and that the final product only made a real 360bhp, not 380bhp. This gives it a bhp/tonne of just over 200, which is roughly what junior hot hatches such as the Fiesta ST make, so it's not surprising that performance is lacklustre. The Vantage 4.7 I drove did seem an improvement.
I’d imagine that it’s at the crank as well not the wheels.Once transmission loss etc is taken in to account it’ll be much less. But most manufacturers measure it this way tbf.
Remember though, there was an initial record order book in 2003, with some dealers having to turn away new customers.
That was due entirely to the beautiful appearance of the Vantage, because those early orders were from buyers who had never driven the car.
BHP then, must have been of less importance.
Dewi 2 said:
You have puzzled me with that.
My guess is that the 4.3 and 4.7 engine weights must be almost identical.
4.7 has block bores slightly bigger with liners fitted.
Cannot think of what else might affect weight differences.
Edited by Dewi 2 on Thursday 2nd June 09:03
NickXX said:
Dewi 2 said:
You have puzzled me with that.
My guess is that the 4.3 and 4.7 engine weights must be almost identical.
4.7 has block bores slightly bigger with liners fitted.
Cannot think of what else might affect weight differences.
Edited by Dewi 2 on Thursday 2nd June 09:03
The brakes on the vantage aren’t very well ventilated full stop and hold a lot of heat
Nigel_O said:
According to Autodata, the 4.7 is 60kg heavier than the 4.3, which is about the same as a tank of fuel
Those 60kg were "added" to the 4.3 as of the 2006.5MY. I don't know whether it was just a revised/more accurate figure or it reflected some added standard equipment, but there is basically no weight difference between 4.3 and 4.7 cars. Also, the gear ratios are the same.S brakes are slightly lighter, but the S wheels are not.
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff