Vantage V8 4.3 vs 4.7
Discussion
Yes Ive had both, and done over 120k miles in them so far. There are lots of changes over the years, many from MY2012.25 onwards when the 4.7 "standard" car got a lot of the "S" upgrades as standard.
If you've not driven either then you will find the 4.3 is a very nice car, needs to be revved to extract the performance. Depending what you are coming from you may feel a lack of torque, if you have been used to driving high power forced induction cars.
The 4.7 has +40bhp + 40lb torque more, so although only fractionally faster on paper figures, its very noticeable when driving.
There is no true "auto" option, if you are expecting a super smooth box you can leave it in "D" and forget about. The sportshift is an automated manual, its the same gearbox as the manual with some electronics doing the shifting. Can be an acquired taste, in my experience it works great when you are on a spirited drive, less so for city commuting.
They are all great cars, from 2006 on, and as most models received regular upgrades, got more developed over time in many ways. Some people prefer the classic look of the original vs the MY2012 on car..its just personal preference.
If you've not driven either then you will find the 4.3 is a very nice car, needs to be revved to extract the performance. Depending what you are coming from you may feel a lack of torque, if you have been used to driving high power forced induction cars.
The 4.7 has +40bhp + 40lb torque more, so although only fractionally faster on paper figures, its very noticeable when driving.
There is no true "auto" option, if you are expecting a super smooth box you can leave it in "D" and forget about. The sportshift is an automated manual, its the same gearbox as the manual with some electronics doing the shifting. Can be an acquired taste, in my experience it works great when you are on a spirited drive, less so for city commuting.
They are all great cars, from 2006 on, and as most models received regular upgrades, got more developed over time in many ways. Some people prefer the classic look of the original vs the MY2012 on car..its just personal preference.
As bogie says above, the 'auto' (Sportshift) gearchanges are not traditional (torqueshift) automatic boxes, so make sure you drive (manoeuvring, reversing and traffic driving) a Sportshift car before buying, to make sure you are happy. Some buyers only want a manual, so those might even command a premium now.
If you need an auto change box to avoid using one leg, then ignore my next comment. The clutch pedal needs considerable effort with the standard clutch. At clutch change time, many owners have a twin plate clutch fitted, and the pedal effort is then very light.
There were a considerable number of changes when the 4.7 was introduced. This may be of help to you.
http://www2.astonmartin.com/en/archived-content/me...
V8 FOU said:
Thank you.
I have a Selespeed Alfa, so I know about getting the best from automated manuals.
I'm used to various cars from my Lotuses Europa, V8 Excel and V8 Esprit - so used to V8's of all types.
I will try the 4.3 first and see how we go.
Very different to a salesspeed. I have a Selespeed Alfa, so I know about getting the best from automated manuals.
I'm used to various cars from my Lotuses Europa, V8 Excel and V8 Esprit - so used to V8's of all types.
I will try the 4.3 first and see how we go.
I only wanted an auto too, I bought a 4.3 (the 4.7 may be better)
If its a weekend car and lots of open roads they are great, loved mine for that
If you want to use it as a car ... it is dire.
I would really try slow maneuvers in one a few times, try a car park on a slope reversing into a space. (Thats what finally made me sell mine !)
Shortest time I have ever kept a car for ..... this is after my best mate who had one told me not to do it !!! (and most people on here)
Phib
bogie said:
The 4.7 has +40bhp + 40lb torque more, so although only fractionally faster on paper figures, its very noticeable when driving.
I agree with this - I really liked my 4.3, but the extra torque and more immediate accessibility of power in the 4.7 is really apparent - it's a much more lively car.Read the book, 4.7 has a lot more upgrades over a 4.3. I started with a budget for a 'good' 4.3 but then the more I saw and the more I read I upped the budget for the best 4.7 I could afford and glad I did because I'd have always wanted to upgrade. As for the Sport shift, I really like it. Nothing as bad as some may say, in fact prefer it.
Edited by macdeb on Tuesday 4th June 22:14
Ultimately drive both and make your own mind up as there are plenty of happy 4.3 owners out there but when I test drove both back to back the 4.3 simply didn't feel like a car with 380bhp. I'd read comments like that before and always thought, what a load of rubbish, how can a 380bhp car feel slow but it did, had to really drive it hard to get the best out of it (above 5k rpm to really get the car feeling alive) and I think not helped by the fantastic noise the car makes as it sounded fast but didn't quite feel as fast as it sounded. By comparison my Evora with 100bhp less felt a faster car despite not being so on paper. I took out the 4.7 next (back to back) and it immediately felt like the right performance, much better pull lower down so it felt like a fast car up to 5k rpm and then really fast 5-7k rpm.
For me, the 4.7 was the only option, fingers crossed for 2nd March.
For me, the 4.7 was the only option, fingers crossed for 2nd March.
I’ve had both and loved both, albeit in manual form. Once you’ve driven the 4.7 you couldn’t go back but that doesn’t make the 4.3 a slow car, you just need to boot it. In defence of the 4.3 it sounds better and I ultimately removed the 2ndary cats in my 4.7 to get close to the sound of the 4.3.
It always surprises me to hear people complaining about having to rev a sports car to get the best from the engine.
It's hard to see a problem with this; in other cars isn't needing to work an engine to make it come alive celebrated as a feature of its driver focused nature?
It's not as though in normal driving there's any issue. You still have the rotating mass of a 4.3 V8 to create an armful of torque.
My personal view is that, in time when the "relative newness / perceived upgrade" of the 4.7 has faded such that both engined can as seen as from yesteryear's models, say 5 to 10 years from now, the 4.3 will be viewed as the original, driver focussed, engine. Something that got moved away from in the pursuit if fat power bands as the base car's market evolution pointed to a more GT bias but not necessarily any better if the Vantage is seen as a sports car.
It's hard to see a problem with this; in other cars isn't needing to work an engine to make it come alive celebrated as a feature of its driver focused nature?
It's not as though in normal driving there's any issue. You still have the rotating mass of a 4.3 V8 to create an armful of torque.
My personal view is that, in time when the "relative newness / perceived upgrade" of the 4.7 has faded such that both engined can as seen as from yesteryear's models, say 5 to 10 years from now, the 4.3 will be viewed as the original, driver focussed, engine. Something that got moved away from in the pursuit if fat power bands as the base car's market evolution pointed to a more GT bias but not necessarily any better if the Vantage is seen as a sports car.
Edited by Shinjuku79 on Tuesday 12th February 20:16
Shinjuku79 said:
It always surprises me to hear people complaining about having to rev a sports car to get the best from the engine.
It's hard to see a problem with this; in other cars isn't needing to work an engine to make it come alive celebrated as a feature of its driver focused nature?
It's not as though in normal driving there's any issue. You still have the rotating mass of a 4.3 V8 to create an armful of torque.
My personal view is that, in time when the "relative newness / perceived upgrade" of the 4.7 has faded such that both engined can as seen as from yesteryear's models, say 5 to 10 years from now, the 4.3 will be viewed as the original, driver focussed, engine. Something that got moved away from in the pursuit if fat power bands as the base car's market evolution pointed to a more GT bias but not necessarily any better if the Vantage is seen as a sports car.
The truth of it is that the 4.3 is just slightly underwhelming from a performance perspective - it's no more driver focussed and the lack of grunt was commented on in reviews of the time..... presumably this is why AM felt the need to bring out the 4.7. The 4.7 has been out for over 10 years and isn't really quick by today's standards...but whichever engine you go for it;s about the allround package. I'm on my third Vantage, and have enjoyed them all!It's hard to see a problem with this; in other cars isn't needing to work an engine to make it come alive celebrated as a feature of its driver focused nature?
It's not as though in normal driving there's any issue. You still have the rotating mass of a 4.3 V8 to create an armful of torque.
My personal view is that, in time when the "relative newness / perceived upgrade" of the 4.7 has faded such that both engined can as seen as from yesteryear's models, say 5 to 10 years from now, the 4.3 will be viewed as the original, driver focussed, engine. Something that got moved away from in the pursuit if fat power bands as the base car's market evolution pointed to a more GT bias but not necessarily any better if the Vantage is seen as a sports car.
johnnyBv8 said:
Shinjuku79 said:
It always surprises me to hear people complaining about having to rev a sports car to get the best from the engine.
It's hard to see a problem with this; in other cars isn't needing to work an engine to make it come alive celebrated as a feature of its driver focused nature?
It's not as though in normal driving there's any issue. You still have the rotating mass of a 4.3 V8 to create an armful of torque.
My personal view is that, in time when the "relative newness / perceived upgrade" of the 4.7 has faded such that both engined can as seen as from yesteryear's models, say 5 to 10 years from now, the 4.3 will be viewed as the original, driver focussed, engine. Something that got moved away from in the pursuit if fat power bands as the base car's market evolution pointed to a more GT bias but not necessarily any better if the Vantage is seen as a sports car.
The truth of it is that the 4.3 is just slightly underwhelming from a performance perspective - it's no more driver focussed and the lack of grunt was commented on in reviews of the time..... presumably this is why AM felt the need to bring out the 4.7. The 4.7 has been out for over 10 years and isn't really quick by today's standards...but whichever engine you go for it;s about the allround package. I'm on my third Vantage, and have enjoyed them all!It's hard to see a problem with this; in other cars isn't needing to work an engine to make it come alive celebrated as a feature of its driver focused nature?
It's not as though in normal driving there's any issue. You still have the rotating mass of a 4.3 V8 to create an armful of torque.
My personal view is that, in time when the "relative newness / perceived upgrade" of the 4.7 has faded such that both engined can as seen as from yesteryear's models, say 5 to 10 years from now, the 4.3 will be viewed as the original, driver focussed, engine. Something that got moved away from in the pursuit if fat power bands as the base car's market evolution pointed to a more GT bias but not necessarily any better if the Vantage is seen as a sports car.
I actually don't think the 4.3 is particularly slow - look at the speedo, and it does make pretty brisk progress. It's more about the way the power is delivered - it feels slow (even if you have got your foot to the floor and the revs bouncing off the limiter in my opinion). I have slower cars which feel faster. Even my fat 16 year old Cayenne S feels like it accelerates faster than the Vantage - despite it taking about 2s longer to reach 60 according to the specs.
When I bought mine, I initially found it frustrating - but I've grown to accept that (at least for me) it's not really the kind of car I'd take out for a blast down a twisty road - it feels too fat and lethargic. I don't find that bothers me any more - it's a great car in many other ways.
johnnyBv8 said:
Shinjuku79 said:
It always surprises me to hear people complaining about having to rev a sports car to get the best from the engine.
It's hard to see a problem with this; in other cars isn't needing to work an engine to make it come alive celebrated as a feature of its driver focused nature?
It's not as though in normal driving there's any issue. You still have the rotating mass of a 4.3 V8 to create an armful of torque.
My personal view is that, in time when the "relative newness / perceived upgrade" of the 4.7 has faded such that both engined can as seen as from yesteryear's models, say 5 to 10 years from now, the 4.3 will be viewed as the original, driver focussed, engine. Something that got moved away from in the pursuit if fat power bands as the base car's market evolution pointed to a more GT bias but not necessarily any better if the Vantage is seen as a sports car.
The truth of it is that the 4.3 is just slightly underwhelming from a performance perspective - it's no more driver focussed and the lack of grunt was commented on in reviews of the time..... presumably this is why AM felt the need to bring out the 4.7. The 4.7 has been out for over 10 years and isn't really quick by today's standards...but whichever engine you go for it;s about the allround package. I'm on my third Vantage, and have enjoyed them all!It's hard to see a problem with this; in other cars isn't needing to work an engine to make it come alive celebrated as a feature of its driver focused nature?
It's not as though in normal driving there's any issue. You still have the rotating mass of a 4.3 V8 to create an armful of torque.
My personal view is that, in time when the "relative newness / perceived upgrade" of the 4.7 has faded such that both engined can as seen as from yesteryear's models, say 5 to 10 years from now, the 4.3 will be viewed as the original, driver focussed, engine. Something that got moved away from in the pursuit if fat power bands as the base car's market evolution pointed to a more GT bias but not necessarily any better if the Vantage is seen as a sports car.
although I admit it's my fastest ever car so I'm not coming from Pork 911 Turbo, TVR etc.
Perhaps for drivers who are interested in the power band sub 4.5k rpm but for me this part of the rev range is not for performance. Wind it up past this point and it's a seriously fast car.
Perhaps it really is more GT than sports car and therefore an engine with a wider power band is desired by most owners. I'm happy to see it in more the sporty vein and as a result find the performance, at the point in the rev range where it's most effectively delivered, excellent.
It would be interesting to see some back-to-back track times for the 4.3 and the 4.7 to see what the nature of the difference between the performance of the two engines is.
Mr Clarkson himself explains well what the above comments go on about ref the 4.3 V8V.
Apologies from the off for poor quality but BBC want you to pay £1.99 to watch good copies of Top Gear on Yooftube after i thought i had paid for it already with my TV licence......anyway!
Clarkson and the 4.3
Apologies from the off for poor quality but BBC want you to pay £1.99 to watch good copies of Top Gear on Yooftube after i thought i had paid for it already with my TV licence......anyway!
Clarkson and the 4.3
Edited by petop on Wednesday 13th February 09:03
Shinjuku79 said:
It would be interesting to see some back-to-back track times for the 4.3 and the 4.7 to see what the nature of the difference between the performance of the two engines is.
As per the posts above, track times wouldn't show the nature of the difference - there isn't a huge amount in it on paper, but the 4.3 feels a bit more sluggish compared to the 4.7. It isn't slow by any means, so not a criticism of the 4.3 at all - they're both sub 5 seconds to 60 and as Davek964 says are fairly quick cars, and they're both beautifully balanced on the road, but they hide the pace of acceleration because they have such linear power delivery...if you look in the rear view mirror or the speedo you get a more accurate indication! The 4.7 overcomes this to some extent with more accessible performance.Shinjuku79 said:
I just can't see how the 4.3's performance can be seen as underwhelming. It's a very fast car -
although I admit it's my fastest ever car so I'm not coming from Pork 911 Turbo, TVR etc.
Perhaps for drivers who are interested in the power band sub 4.5k rpm but for me this part of the rev range is not for performance. Wind it up past this point and it's a seriously fast car.
Perhaps it really is more GT than sports car and therefore an engine with a wider power band is desired by most owners. I'm happy to see it in more the sporty vein and as a result find the performance, at the point in the rev range where it's most effectively delivered, excellent.
It would be interesting to see some back-to-back track times for the 4.3 and the 4.7 to see what the nature of the difference between the performance of the two engines is.
They may ultimately be fast if measured by a stopwatch but they do feel slow when driving, mine was lightly breathed on with a N400 kit but until it had lightweight flywheel it had no sparkle.although I admit it's my fastest ever car so I'm not coming from Pork 911 Turbo, TVR etc.
Perhaps for drivers who are interested in the power band sub 4.5k rpm but for me this part of the rev range is not for performance. Wind it up past this point and it's a seriously fast car.
Perhaps it really is more GT than sports car and therefore an engine with a wider power band is desired by most owners. I'm happy to see it in more the sporty vein and as a result find the performance, at the point in the rev range where it's most effectively delivered, excellent.
It would be interesting to see some back-to-back track times for the 4.3 and the 4.7 to see what the nature of the difference between the performance of the two engines is.
Some interesting points, but I don't feel talk of how someone on the internet says something feels to them should be wildly determinative to others reading this considering which car to buy. IMHO thats particularly so when the subjective argument being made happens to (at least) partially support the additional cash outlay made to purchase the 4.7.
On the Clarkson clip - he says it doesn't feel as fast as he'd like it to and the competition at the price point is stiff. The car is then compared to a 500 bhp V10 BMW M6. Would the 4.7 have done a lot better? Also, I know it's the evidence you had to hand, but Jeremy Clarkson being cited on a car enthusiasts forum - hang your head in shame!
I'd like to offer some objective benchmarks.
4.7
0 - 100 kph 4.5 s
0 - 100 mph 10.4 s
4.3
0- 100 kph 5.0 s
0-100 mph 11.7 s
I'd sugest people need to decide if outright performance that only a stopwatch can really measure and a need not to work the car to over 4.5k rpm and keep it there to get the performance is worth the extra money to them (along with the other interior upgrades etc that came with the 4.7)
It was not worth it to me as I'm pretty relaxed about driving a car hard if I want to make it go fast, but at the time paying more for the 4.7 was expenditure that wasn't really where I wanted to be anyway so the choice was never really live. I did however do the diligence to conclude whether I'd be seriously missing out buying the 4.3 and I decided not.
On the Clarkson clip - he says it doesn't feel as fast as he'd like it to and the competition at the price point is stiff. The car is then compared to a 500 bhp V10 BMW M6. Would the 4.7 have done a lot better? Also, I know it's the evidence you had to hand, but Jeremy Clarkson being cited on a car enthusiasts forum - hang your head in shame!
I'd like to offer some objective benchmarks.
4.7
0 - 100 kph 4.5 s
0 - 100 mph 10.4 s
4.3
0- 100 kph 5.0 s
0-100 mph 11.7 s
I'd sugest people need to decide if outright performance that only a stopwatch can really measure and a need not to work the car to over 4.5k rpm and keep it there to get the performance is worth the extra money to them (along with the other interior upgrades etc that came with the 4.7)
It was not worth it to me as I'm pretty relaxed about driving a car hard if I want to make it go fast, but at the time paying more for the 4.7 was expenditure that wasn't really where I wanted to be anyway so the choice was never really live. I did however do the diligence to conclude whether I'd be seriously missing out buying the 4.3 and I decided not.
Edited by Shinjuku79 on Thursday 14th February 12:03
Shinjuku79 said:
Some interesting points, but I don't feel talk of how someone on the internet says something feels to them should be wildly determinative to others reading this considering which car to buy.
Almost everything about driving a car is subjective. As long as you're not choosing based on mpg, how long the tyres last etc. etc. - then how the car feels when it's accelerating, cornering, braking etc. are all vitally important - even if they are subjective.Even accepting that the "feel" of acceleration is subjective - there are still some basics which apply - for example, a turbo engine will normally give you a kick in the back more than NA. Subjective or not.
Most owners acknowledge that the stock 4.3 feels sluggish. Of course the OP should try one before he buys - but considering he asked on a public forum - where you're only really going to get subjective comments - I think it's valid for (most of) us to say that's how it feels.
ETA : As I said in my earlier comment - it's not really got much to do with "how hard I work the car". If I keep the revs high, and floor it - it still feels slow compared to other - even slower - cars. And for the driving experience - that matters.
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff