Who needs these modern ltd ed Astons ?
Discussion
I guess the quoted power outputs probably weren't any more real than the quoted performance figures (0-60 in just under 4 seconds and 200mph IIRC were the quotes) but on paper, other than ONE77, it's taken until now with DB11 to get another Aston with 600bhp (the latest iterations of V12 in GT12/Vanquish S/Vanquish Zagato being just under that figure at 600 PS)
But who cares. It's just a joyous thing. I'm out of touch with what these trade at now - am assuming £3-400k for a Le Mans ? Mind you if someone said add a couple of 100k to that it wouldn't surprise me
But who cares. It's just a joyous thing. I'm out of touch with what these trade at now - am assuming £3-400k for a Le Mans ? Mind you if someone said add a couple of 100k to that it wouldn't surprise me
Think the upper end of your range is probably about right based on this (albeit as its Nicholas Mee you might well need to add a chunk above 'fair value')
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/21904/lot/27/
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/21904/lot/27/
jonby said:
I guess the quoted power outputs probably weren't any more real than the quoted performance figures (0-60 in just under 4 seconds and 200mph IIRC were the quotes) but on paper, other than ONE77, it's taken until now with DB11 to get another Aston with 600bhp (the latest iterations of V12 in GT12/Vanquish S/Vanquish Zagato being just under that figure at 600 PS)
But who cares. It's just a joyous thing. I'm out of touch with what these trade at now - am assuming £3-400k for a Le Mans ? Mind you if someone said add a couple of 100k to that it wouldn't surprise me
The car is totally gorgeous, and as you say, who cares what power it makes - today power to the wheels is totally not the point of that car.But who cares. It's just a joyous thing. I'm out of touch with what these trade at now - am assuming £3-400k for a Le Mans ? Mind you if someone said add a couple of 100k to that it wouldn't surprise me
But since you state accomplishments, back in the day when that car was engineered, it had to meet DIN (Deutsche Industrie Normen) standards, today is SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers). HP is measured differently each way and there is no direct way to convert one to another totally accurately. Even Classic Vanquish was DIN standard, so the 460 people think it is, is about 440 SAE.
Anyhoo, put that Beast on a dyno and I doubt RWHP would even start with a '5' meaning V12V / DBS was actually the first time they hit a number bigger than the days of old.
Also, to get to 200 mph a car has to cut its way through muddy air, regardless of BHP and coming from my layman aerodynamic standpoint, I can't see that shape gliding to 200mph, if that's what it was billed at - Vanquish didn't during the memorable topgear test iirc, and the Drag coefficient looks better Vanquish to Vantage to me.
BamfordMike said:
Anyhoo, put that Beast on a dyno and I doubt RWHP would even start with a '5' meaning V12V / DBS was actually the first time they hit a number bigger than the days of old.
Also, to get to 200 mph a car has to cut its way through muddy air, regardless of BHP and coming from my layman aerodynamic standpoint, I can't see that shape gliding to 200mph, if that's what it was billed at - Vanquish didn't during the memorable topgear test iirc, and the Drag coefficient looks better Vanquish to Vantage to me.
It's probably a good job it can't get anywhere near that speed or has anywhere near that power - it would be bloody dangerous in that car !Also, to get to 200 mph a car has to cut its way through muddy air, regardless of BHP and coming from my layman aerodynamic standpoint, I can't see that shape gliding to 200mph, if that's what it was billed at - Vanquish didn't during the memorable topgear test iirc, and the Drag coefficient looks better Vanquish to Vantage to me.
I have the bench dyno sheets of some of the last V8s (not of mine unfortunately) and they certainly start with a 5. The first supercharged V590 engines gave over 600 but were dialed back for PC reasons. The 3.9 seconds to 60 of the V600 was proven, but don't think the top speed was.
Edited by V8LM on Wednesday 11th January 17:53
BamfordMike said:
But since you state accomplishments, back in the day when that car was engineered, it had to meet DIN (Deutsche Industrie Normen) standards, today is SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers). HP is measured differently each way and there is no direct way to convert one to another totally accurately. Even Classic Vanquish was DIN standard, so the 460 people think it is, is about 440 SAE.
I thought SAE was about 1% less than DIN, not the 4% noted above, or am I thinking of something else?
DB9VolanteDriver said:
I thought SAE was about 1% less than DIN, not the 4% noted above, or am I thinking of something else?
It is correct to state what you do in terms of a given number recalculation / between the standards, but, the way in which each test standard allows for a number to be generated is completely different standards allowing for DIN to return higher numbers at the end than SAE. V8LM said:
I have the bench dyno sheets of some of the last V8s (not of mine unfortunately) and they certainly start with a 5. The first supercharged V590 engines gave over 600 but were dialed back for PC reasons. The 3.9 seconds to 60 of the V600 was proven, but don't think the top speed was.
You have misread slightly what I stated, in that RWHP not flywheel power (trans loss) wouldn't start with a 5 - which it wouldnt.Edited by V8LM on Wednesday 11th January 17:53
I would love to sanity check those datasets against parameters like airflow, fuel flow and the like and analyse exactly the number being referred to (corrected or un corrected). These days you can't just measure a torque figure with a prehistoric water brake dyno using some old spec test standards and take that power figure into a project review meeting. Peer review would want to see the sanity checks and data like in cylinder pressure before any engineer is believed.
An anecdote of mine... I once had to sanity check a projects power output because after the project was in production the power could not be replicated, it turned out that to make the engine live at full power on a dyno it had to be built in a way which gave more power on the dyno than would be experienced in the car. At the time the idiots running the program didn't realise what they had done - their data sheets showed a high number too!. I'm not explicitly saying what you have is right or wrong, but an Engineer is forever asking the question 'what's wrong with this data / design'. The high tech way stuff is done now compared to back in the day opens many avenues to questioning 'what's wrong' when back in the day it was deemed to be tip-top. It might have had to be restricted, but were the absolute numbers correct?
Having experience of the V8 Volante with a paltry 350bhp, I would state that on anything less than a straight, flat, wide, empty road, I'd be scared sh****ss driving a V600 anywhere near its listed specification.
I remember making a quite a bit of progress on a motorway during a fresh-out-of-service ride home (and the brakes were as good as they would ever be) and having to slow down quite quickly. The car stayed straight but I swear I nearly pushed my head through the roof as I tried to standing on the brake. No incident to report but stopping 2tonnes with 1980's Aston brakes (read 1970s tech) in a hurry nearly ruined the cream Connelly's.
Driving in the dark is fun also. Wear a blindfold and you will see (or not) what I mean.
I remember making a quite a bit of progress on a motorway during a fresh-out-of-service ride home (and the brakes were as good as they would ever be) and having to slow down quite quickly. The car stayed straight but I swear I nearly pushed my head through the roof as I tried to standing on the brake. No incident to report but stopping 2tonnes with 1980's Aston brakes (read 1970s tech) in a hurry nearly ruined the cream Connelly's.
Driving in the dark is fun also. Wear a blindfold and you will see (or not) what I mean.
BamfordMike said:
You have misread slightly what I stated, in that RWHP not flywheel power (trans loss) wouldn't start with a 5 - which it wouldnt.
You're correct (of course). Misread your post. Each engine was run on the bench before being installed and the corrected power figures for BHP up to 5500 rpm recorded, against load, along with temperatures but little else.
V8LM said:
You're correct (of course). Misread your post.
Each engine was run on the bench before being installed and the corrected power figures for BHP up to 5500 rpm recorded, against load, along with temperatures but little else.
Back in that day the areas to squeak out some artificial testbed BHP were much greater than today. You could run testbed exhaust system at nowhere close car EBP, didn't have to charge alternator or run a FEAD, which is why even before DIN and ISO differences are compared, the way in which a number is generated is so different. It could be the engine did rattle out 600 BHP, what I'm saying is that if you apply today's methods to the as recorded data - you won't get 600ISOEach engine was run on the bench before being installed and the corrected power figures for BHP up to 5500 rpm recorded, against load, along with temperatures but little else.
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff